Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales is raising funds again from users. It’s an annual occurrence. Wikipedia’s free-to-access crowd-sourced encyclopaedia is a noble cause and extremely useful. I’ve chipped in again and would happily pay a subscription.
Wikipedia’s fundraising efforts demonstrate that however worthy a community or social project it needs assured finance if it isn’t to rely solely on volunteer effort. And even then there are basic costs that need to be met.
Yet we’ve entered a period of almost dot com-like exuberance where social projects are launched almost daily without a business model based on financial return or indeed any of the alternative economic metrics outlined in Chris Anderson’s book Free.
Ultimately I think that Wikipedia’s fundraise shows that there no such thing as free – just different ways financing a project.
Someone always has to pay.
[...] Wikipedia annual fundraise shows free is flawed | Wadds' PR Blog [...]
[my blog] Wikipedia annual fundraise shows free is flawed: http://bit.ly/5gAvpA
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Wikipedia annual fundraise shows free is flawed http://goo.gl/fb/JqE1 (@wadds) #business #socialmedia #businessmodels
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
[...] the rest here: Wikipedia annual fundraise shows free is flawed | Wadds' PR Blog By admin | category: wikipedia | tags: german, online, skin-test, the-pages, [...]
Wikipedia annual fundraise shows free is flawed | Wadds’ PR Blog http://bit.ly/7bEPBk
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
free as in speech or free as in beer?
Now, the flaw I found in the wikipedia fundraising was some of the quotes they used. Like ‘I’m a scientist and wikipedia is my most important research tool’. Er, you’re doing it wrong. Your most important research tool has no primary sources and no peer review? Really?