Talk:Task force/Recommendations/Financial sustainability

From Strategic Planning
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg
This page uses the LiquidThreads discussion system. Try discussing in sandbox. Click "Start a new discussion" to begin a new discussion on this page.


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Country level (governmental founding)007:13, 16 August 2010
Official mirrors107:05, 16 August 2010
Financial stability: Advertising options020:04, 6 February 2010
"extra" services as a way to financial sustainability417:15, 31 January 2010
We need A technical solution022:43, 25 January 2010
Logo phrase change002:52, 20 January 2010

Country level (governmental founding)

Actually, I'm quite surprised by this: I wouldn't say that "country level" is the correct one to obtain state funds. Which state would pay for a global resource, and even worse a USA foundation? At most they would pay for a local squid datacentre or such. Instead, I think that UNO/UNESCO could be able to find some funding in their budget (UNESCO 2010-2011 budget: 653 000 000 $ [1]). Wikimedia as a UNESCO division is a possibility, although not a very enticing one, at least currently.

07:13, 16 August 2010

Official mirrors

You should have official mirrors with some rules (ex. no ads), and point wikipedia to them, like a,, At long terms this will reduce bandwidth, general service costs.

19:48, 30 January 2010

There's plenty of them. Actually, most pay to mirror out countent on a live basis (this should be that ~400 000 $ income in the financial statements, mainly by Orange, I suppose).

07:05, 16 August 2010

Financial stability: Advertising options

I read the points about advertising revenues. Although I agree with them, I have to say that going to the current set of administrators/editors should be done only in good faith and with no promise that we'll finally follow what the editors/administrators would comment. Also, it's imperative that the focus on advertising is developed extremely urgently and quickly. I seriously believe that our foundation is missing out on each day of huge financial earnings. Wikipedia currently has a brilliant perceived brand value. Unfortunately, in this world of internet preferences, time can put paid to even the strongest of brand life cycles. Therefore, we need to jump start this process of getting in advertisement revenues faster than slower.

"extra" services as a way to financial sustainability

while it's important to maintain access to wiki free I don't see any conceptual issue in collecting some fees for "extra" services on top of wiki. Check out - proposal on merging some social networking features with wikimedia. I think this kind of services could generate a stream of income that would make the whole project self-sustainable without need for regular calls for donations

06:53, 20 January 2010

I will strongly suggest adding new services on this wonderful world.

It can be called Wiki-self-biography.

A site where we can create a self-biography, including names of family and friends, and a hipper link to others biographies, like the human genome but in history and the relations.

I will suggest to areas, the first one a "free" introduction of our self's, and then a series of five elementary question that will provide a real inside of the person. Then that last question will be the dream question that will lead to an additional section of the wiki-self-biography, where some body can make other peoples dream come truth.

The fun will be unlimited and the appetite for this site will be also, then we can ask for a contribution, like a $1 per self-biography.

Then in the part of the dream making, we can add stories of success and failure was some body could learn something new. Base on a philosophic principal. "For good or bad, we will se"

This idea is mine, and I called the Escudra project, I will give all the right of it to Wikipedia frees, because I believe in its work.



17:53, 20 January 2010

Hi Escudra -

We have a section of this wiki for ideas such as this (and thank you for it!). At Call for proposals, you can submit that proposal for consideration by the folks who visit here.


17:59, 20 January 2010
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 17:15, 31 January 2010

It is suggested that Wiki should make the site more interactive. The more interactive the site, the higher the rankings with the search engines. The higher the ranking with the search engines, the more one can charge for advertsiers. Visitors should be allowed to create/join communities, post to blogs, add videos and use other interactive tools. Wiki has the opportunity to become the online standard for doing research and interacting with other researchers.

Just a thought.

Stan Kirk

16:48, 31 January 2010

Hi Stan: You might check out the recommendation by the Community Health task force (specifically Recommendation 4, for social features. I think it speaks to much of what you are suggesting. I'm curious about your impressions of that.

17:15, 31 January 2010

We need A technical solution

Wikipedia need a new kind of http : ex : HTTP(P2P)

We need a new kind of network, a distributed (p2p) network : we could work with w3c : and we could devellop it !

For instance : on ubuntu : there is APT : and APT-P2P : you would control the integrity of information : because there would allways be the need of a central server : like with BitTorrent_(protocol)

Why do you need a distributed (p2p) network : because this IS THE SOLUTION for sustainability : the problem is technical : choose a technical solution .

Please Consider it deeply.

The solution here is not economical but technical : we need to invest on an other type of web : for freedom, for the free culture, for humanity.

My opinion is : if you choose an "financial solution" : you will follow the mainstream economy : and "somehow" that will mean wikipedia informations will be sell : and less, and less free ( and neutral ). (and happy new year ) --Kalki101 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

22:43, 25 January 2010

Logo phrase change

I think that "The Free Encyclopedia" is a misleading phrase to have out front.

While free to use, Wikipedia does have expenses, and this phrase has no such statement or implication.

I'd suggest a change to something which acknowledges this as well as the no-user-fee status.

"Free-Access Encyclopedia" "Free Use Encyclopedia"

or some such.

02:52, 20 January 2010