[sounddust]

There are a lot of things in this article I disagree with.

1) Wikipedia doesn't have 5 billion unique visitors (there are only 1.6 billion internet users in the world). And they only put up banners asking for money when they need it, not all the time. So both variables in coming up with the "$.00124/visitor" estimate are incorrect.

2) Tax deduction does not make something cost-free. For most people, a donation saves them nothing (since they use the standard deduction) but even for those who itemize, it only saves them the tax they would have paid on that income, not the income itself.

3) Tipping doesn't have to create price uncertainty. As someone who has tried the donation model, it's clear that if you set the price of a donation (such as placing a banner that says "Give $5 now"), that's the exact amount that 90% of people will donate. So in essence, you do get to influence what the perceived value of your site is worth.

4) The article claims that in order to orgs like NPR to succeed on the donation model, they have to have federal grants and corporate sponsorship, etc. But this argument ignores the low barrier to entry (and low cost) of online content; it's not a valid comparison.

5) The article also mentions that those orgs can succeed because they offer physical goods and imply scarcity, but there's no reason that a donation-accepting site could do those as well.

[andrewmayne]

Thank you for your notes.

1.) I didn't say Wikipedia has 5 billion uniques. I said it gets 5 billion visitors. In ad sales a visitor is different than a unique. I changed it to "visits" so avoid the confusion.

2.) Tax deduction makes the perception of something's cost free.

3.) If you can still get a product without paying for something (i.e. tipping) the price is either what you ask for ($5) or nothing. That's the definition of price uncertainty.

4.) I pointed out the problem in using NPR as a model. Federal grants and family endowments are not the best model for a blog...

5.) A donation accepting site can suggest scarcity, but the questions is how compelling will it be? PBS and NPR offer content in a very limited channel space. Most blogs and podcasts do not.

Best,

Andrew

[DenisM]

In ad sales a visitor is different than a unique.

Source? I was under impression that a visitor means a visitor and a visit means a visit. Surprised to see it being used the other way.

Tax deduction makes the perception of something's cost free.

That's just a baseless statement. I can find you any number of people who don't perceive that way. Who are the people that bear the perception? What is their percentage among the populace? How do you know the answer?

[andrewmayne]

1.) I pulled the figure from WolframAlpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=wikipedia+monthly+visit... Which is based on Alexa.

2.) Every charity makes it a point to spell out that donations are tax deductible. The reason is to make the donation appear cost-free.

[Thrakhath]

Number two sounds like a non-sequitur. Do you have a source for that? No doubt they say it to increase the appeal of donating, but I have never heard that it's specifically to make it appear cost-free. It's not like car dealerships offer "cash back rewards" so you think you're getting a car for free.

[andrewmayne]

In all seriousness, what does "tax deductible" mean to you?

[anamax]

> In all seriousness, what does "tax deductible" mean to you?

I think that it means that I get to deduct it from my taxable income, just like my mortgage. It's a deduction (unless I'm subject to one of the various phaseouts or am better off with the standard deduction).

Do you think that people think that the $5k standard deduction reduces their taxes by $5k? (I forget the exact amount because I itemize.) If not, why do you think that they're confused by the phrase "tax deduction"?

There's a huge difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. I suspect that most people who pay taxes understand it.

[eggnet]

It means I can deduct it from my income. You are confusing it with a tax credit.

If you think there are legions of taxpayers who don't get this, you are mistaken.

[DenisM]

You're making things up at this point. I suggest you revisit how you arrive at conclusions and what constitutes evidence - you're hurting yourself by not being able to tell correct from desired.

[anamax]

> 2.) Every charity makes it a point to spell out that donations are tax deductible. The reason is to make the donation appear cost-free.

If they do, they're engaging in fraud because deductions aren't credits.

Seriously - what is the basis for your claim as to their intent?

[sounddust]

Regardless of what you are referring to, you are still using this number as if it were unique visitors. You say "multiply your total audience size by .00124" (total audience size is number of unique visitors). Then you say "That comes to about 8 million people" (people are unique visitors). You're still doing your math based on the assumption that 5 billion unique people visit Wikipedia each year.

Your math as it stands is impossible, and you're still using it to support your argument. Even if you assumed every internet user in the world uses Wikipedia, that means that the average donation per user would be 0.003875, more than 3 times your estimate. With more reasonable math (and taking into account that Wikipedia does not fundraise 24/7 and is not aggressive) you can see that the average visitor is likely to donate an order of magnitude more than you're claiming.

[Qz]

The article says 5 billion monthly visits.

[zackattack]

With #1 the point is that although tons of people use Wikipedia, only a microfraction of em donate. I, for example, have gotten tons of value out of it yet have never given them anything. I think that they should petition universities for sponsorships.

I just donated $5 because I realized how ridiculous my lack of patronage is.

[derefr]

Don't feel bad about not giving them money—they need to be free to read to sustain the level of net-positive impulse-edits they get (similar to how chewing gum needs to be at the checkouts of grocery stores to sustain its level of purchase.) Encouraging Wikipedia's free use, as a side-effect, makes more people likely to edit it, and thus makes it more valuable.

[jrockway]

chewing gum needs to be at the checkouts of grocery stores to sustain its level of purchase

I don't chew gum anymore, but when I did, I always got it from the chewing gum aisle. It's cheaper there. I'm sure I'm not the only one who figured this out.

[derefr]

I don't know how your grocers work, but mine just scan the UPC that comes as part of the product's packaging—and that's the same no matter which aisle you picked it up in. (You could just as easily bring something in you bought outside the store and "buy" it again.) Or do you just mean that the aisle section has larger bulk versions of the same gums?

[jrockway]

Different UPC numbers for the same thing. Yup, really.

[gnosis]

Monetary donations are only one way of helping a site like Wikipedia. Another valuable (even critical) form of help is editing, voting, and otherwise participating on the site.

I've donated a ton of my time to improving Wikipedia, so don't feel the least bit of guilt about not giving them money. If anything, they should be paying me!

[timwiseman]

People like you that spend substantial time editing perhaps should feel no guilt about not giving them money. People like me who read extensively but only very occasionally make small additions should probably at think about a donation when funds are available.