The not for profit organization that is running Wikipedia has launched its annual appeal for donations. This year, the amount sought is $6 million to cover the volunteer-enabled website costs. This is 3 times as much as the group raised last year.

This is the first time the San Francisco based organization has set an explicit financial goal.

Wikipedia is one of the highest visited websites on the Internet. It is free to use, without using any ads, and that is why it has to count on donations to keep its growing operations. The appeal for donations is advertised on the website with the use of banners which visitors can click on to donate.

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has so far donated the highest amount, $1 million, and about one third of the goal has been collected so far in total.

Although the economy is experiencing a slowdown trend, Wikipedia is counting on its worldwide appeal to allow it to reach its financial fund raising goal before the January 15th deadline.

The problem with the Internet is that any whacko with a connection gets to throw out his/her opinion, however wrong it may be. The Internet’s saving grace is that other whackoes can point out just how wrong the first whacko is.

Charlie Barratt wrote an article over at GamesRadar in which he points out that Wikipedia is nothing more than a haven for nerds. Sure, there may be millions of articles, but they are all about nerdy things. Wikipedia lacks real meat.

Well, Mr. Barratt is either completley oblivious or just likes to poke fun. In the very first “example,” he points out that the Call of Duty video game has more words than the entry for World War II. Ha ha, very funny, but does he have any idea that Wikipedia has length guidelines? There are hundreds, if not thousands of articles related to World War II, Barratt just didn’t bother to find that out. He combines the articles for all of the Call of Duty video games but doesn’t bother adding up the hundreds of articles for World War II.

Wikipedia seems to be everybody’s favorite whipping boy, but rarely do folks stop to take a good look at just how remarkable a resource and phenomenon it is.

Think Wikipedia is a second rate web site? Go ahead, try to write an article and get it to featured status. It’s probably easier to write a dissertation (thought I can’t say for sure, since I’ve never done either).

Note: This article cross-posted at Chickens Don’t Have Armpits.

There’s an interesting article over at ZDNet UK. The idea is that people don’t need to go to a search engine to find what they need. If they want a review of a product, they will go to Amazon or CNET. If they want to find out about a place or person, they will head straight to Wikipedia. If they want something funny or interesting, they’ll got to YouTube or Digg.

I find myself doing this. Instead of going to Google (that will return 6 million pages), I will often head straight to Wikipedia. I’m not saying I don’t use Google, but I am finding that I use it less. If I’m looking for a review of a product, Google is simply unusable. Instead, I’ll go to any number of sites that I have found useful (and bookmarked), to find that information.

And this doesn’t even bring into account the possibility that the new iPhone brings into play: finding information based on where you are. While I don’t see search engines going away, I do see them losing power. The question remains, what fills the void?

Note: This article cross-posted at Chickens Don’t Have Armpits.

Here’s the latest in TechConsumer news:

In a new study highlighted by the Associated Press, 47% of U.S. adult Internet users have looked for information about themselves via Google or another search engine. That is more than double the percent of users who did the same in 2002. And 60% of Internet users said they aren’t worried about the info online about themselves even if privacy concerns seem to have been on the rise. And lastly, 53% of adult Internet users admit to looking up information about someone else (celebrities excluded).

The New York Times has a long article revolving around the Google vs. Microsoft battle when it comes to software. In short, Google sees almost all software and computer usage (90%) moving to the Web so that your computer would be little more than a gateway to all your files/programs which are located on remote servers in faraway data centers. It’s referred to as “cloud computing.” Microsoft, on the other hand, sees some work being done in the cloud, but more as an extension to the hugely popular desktop PC software. While perhaps Google should be taken seriously, a new study shows that hardly anyone has even heard of Google Docs (the Google equivalent of Microsoft Office).

Google is indirectly going after another large entity: online encyclopedia Wikipedia. A new Google service will let users write authoritative entries on subjects they know about so that the search giant can have more content that can carry its ads. The new platform is being privately tested and allows for entries to have photos and diagrams about a wide variety of subjects. It’ll be known as Google Knol, as in a unit of knowledge.

I grew up with the Webster dictionary as my guide to defining words. I remember homework assignments that started with “Webster defines…” followed by the definition of some term and a follow up question on which I would need to write a paper. Another classic use of Webster was at church. Someone preaching on love? The easiest way to begin is by stating “Webster defines love as…” and then moving on to a more eloquent expansion on the basic definition.

During this past month, both of these examples came back to me, except this time Webster was replaced by Wikipedia.

Sure, this is anecdotal and not necessarily indicative of anything on a larger scale, but I was surprised nonetheless. The school example came during a test for my Strategic Management class (I’m currently working on my MBA at Purdue University). I was to write an essay on various strategies related to pay-per-view vs. video on demand. The question started with “Wikipedia defines…” and referred to the two pages found on Wikipedia as the basis for the essay.

The second example was at church, where the message was focused on “compassion,” which started with “Wikipedia defines…” before elaborating. Both examples were within one week of each other and gave me pause to think where Webster has gone.

This isn’t to say that Wikipedia is without flaws. On the contrary, the anonymity of Wikipedia’s contributors is often cited as the reason for certain falsehoods and opinions found embedded in the site. The Economist last month had an excellent article on the subject, cautioning readers especially when using Wikipedia for controversial topics:

“Those on contentious issues are useful in a different way. The information may be only roughly balanced. But the furiously contested entries on, say, “Armenian genocide” or “Scientology”, and their attached discussion pages, do give the reader a useful idea about the contours of the arguments, and the conflicting sources and approaches. In short: it would be unwise to rely on Wikipedia as the final word, but it can be an excellent jumping off point.”

A “jumping off point” it has become, at least in my life. Anyone else have similar experiences?

Note: This article is cross-posted at BobCaswell.com.