Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewparker | Hacker News Reader

I just wish Wikipedia would find a self-sustaining model that didn't rely on perpetual annual donations. I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral.

PS I donated to Wikimedia last year, so I'm willing to contribute until the project finds a more sustainable model.

View on HN

I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral.

Monetization, non-compromosing and neutral have trouble playing nice with each other.

I knew of one non-profit that lived off interest, basically. For every million dollars they raise, they can afford to hire one more worker or do X more things, based off the interest that money makes sitting in a bank.

It seems like a good way to go, if you can just raise the millions needed. Maybe some billionaire can set Wikipedia up with a trust fund...

That would be a pretty massive trust fund to pay for all of the server space + bandwidth they need in addition to their staff

How do they deal with interest rate fluctuations?

You buy long term (5-10 years) CD's.

You know your expenses pretty well, so it's easy to plan it that far ahead.

Or coupon bonds, which pay interest regularly with a fixed amount and on a fixed schedule (set at purchase time for as long as 30 years).

Slightly more risky since they are not FDIC insured, but if you hold to maturity you have zero risk due to market fluctuations, only a risk of the firm going bankrupt totally.

Google offered to host them for free, without ads.

They turned them down. I guess that's where the non-compromising comes in - despite google offering to be totally hands off, just free hosting.

It works for NPR. Why not for WP?

"I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral."

If you're proposing, let's hear the proposal...

Clearly labeled sponsored links (text ads) at the bottom of a few heavily used pages.

It's a public good and should therefore be funded by the government. Note that government funded does not mean government run.

Neutrality will suffer under that small conflict of interest

Yes, just like neutrality has suffered for PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/roperpoll2009/

Oh, wait...

"PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 43% trusting its programs a “great deal.” CNN came in second with 28% and FOX News third at 27%."

Wikipedia can never work, it's a socialist experiment.

;->

It would only be socialist if the state ran it.

Quite right - that's one of the biggest mistakes people make thinking politically. Socialism and Communism aren't bad because they're ostensibly about sharing, cooperation, or being nice. They're bad because they're run by the government, who arrests or executes its citizens if they decline to participate in the government-run activity. If you've ever shared a refridgerator with multiple people pitching in to fill it with groceries, you've been part of a "commune" (lower case), which can be fine and great thing. It's when people aren't allowed to decline to participate in the commune without being arrested or shot that there's problems.

Yes what makes socialism/communism authoritarian is that it's almost always non-voluntary (ie they make you join the collective or else).

Exceptions to this are Kubbitzes (sp?) and small voluntary communes, which have their own problems but at least you can leave them!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com