[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.