The Signpost

In the news

Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tilman Bayer, Guoguo12

Multiple news sources relay Wikipedia's fundraising success

After it was announced that the 2010–11 fundraiser had concluded with more than $16 million raised (see this week's "News and notes"), up from $7.5 million in 2009, the news was promptly spread on New Year's day by mainstream news sources, including CNET News and The Atlantic, where Nicholas Jackson blogged "I had grown so used to seeing his face over the past couple of months during the site's annual drive that I was shocked he had disappeared". ReadWriteWeb observed: "A look at the real-time statistics shows that while the average donation remained around the same as years past, the number of people donating was far greater." An ArsTechnica article was titled "For a good cause: Half a million people fund Wikipedia" and a blog posting on MSNBC "Jimmy Wales' creepy stare rockets $16 million in Wikipedia donations". An article (URL blacklisted) summed up the fundraiser's success: "The sheer number of donations seems to show that people are starting to 'get it,' that Wikipedia is an endless sources [sic] of (mostly correct) information."


+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Can someone explain the discrepancy between the actual amount of money raised, and the "live statistics" given? Cheers, (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

To quote the blog post mentioned, "the $13.5 million accounted for online only includes online donations, and the rest of the more than $16 million comes from checks and individual chapters." Guoguo12--Talk--  21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blog post mentioned is wrong, by the way. It's actually my article that the quote is from: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwwmike (talkcontribs) 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which was in fact cited in the News and notes article about the fundraiser. (Sorry btw for this slight overlap between "News and notes" and "In the news" regarding this particular topic.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the source issue, guys (I'm the author). Should I fix it? Guoguo12--Talk--  20:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this should indeed not remain uncorrected (above I had assumed that Rwwmike was only referring to your comment on this talk page). I just fixed it.
The wrong attribution actually happened in this copyedit by Tony1 where two quotes from different sources were merged, but the main problem was that the source was missing for the second quote. Also, a link to the CNET article should have been given.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is with Doc's arm? ResMar 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doc Searle's arm is partly obscured by the camera's neck strap (which has motion blur.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HaeB, thanks for fixing the citation issue. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0