Please read: A personal appeal to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

Dear Jimmy: fuck off.

I swear, I have spent so much time figuring out what to put in my ad blocker to make his face stop smirking out at me from every Wikipedia page that I'd rather bill him for my time than make a donation. (They are being "clever" with background images, making it hard to track down the URLs, and they change the pathnames all the time.)

Block these:\?title=Special:BannerController*/foundation/*/Fundraising

Tags: , ,

32 Responses:

  1. PxT says:

    Seconded. At least in Safari you can fuck him off automatically (wait, that doesn't sound right) with an extension:

  2. Dan Marsh says:

    I blocked it in much the same way with Adblock Plus, but could only easily block the images, not the "frame" itself. I find this particularly onerous and irksome given the many allegations against Jimmy Wales for improper use of Wikipedia funds.

    Oh, and for those of you who just can't get enough or Jimbo, consider installing the following Chrome plugin:

    • Peter Hollo says:

      I found that AdBlock Plus in Firefox wasn't blocking the div, even though the exact same code in Google Chrome's AdBlock worked.
      So I blocked the div in UserContent.css. This code works:
      @-moz-document domain( {
      #centralNotice {
      display:none !important;

  3. Edouard says:

    4chan has "a personal appeal from moot" banners (at least in the wallpaper section, which is the only place I visit). Amused me, which isn't saying much.

  4. chris says:

    Even when I'm not logged in, hiding the banner (by clicking the little X in the upper right corner), now seems to hide it permanently (at least I've visited several articles and it has not reappeared).

    • chris says:

      Also, when logged in there is an option to "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" under My Preferences -> Gadgets. I guess that will prevent any banners from future fundraisers from showing up.

    • Jon says:

      I think that is cookie powered, so you get hit once at work, once at home, again on the phone etc.

  5. Jon says:

    I'm guessing, browser/extension availability not withstanding, that a default "images off" policy for wikipedia would catch it, and also protect you from other unpleasantries. Last time I tried to do this I found that "images off" support in browsers is not what it once was. (and dialup is totally unusable now)

  6. Piku says:

    Just give up Wikipedia, stick adverts on like everyone else so that we can easily block them better.

    You also claim to be a "free" encyclopedia, so stop begging for cash (and don't give me any of that "free as in speech" prattle).

  7. Rodger says:

    The most disturbing aspect is his eerie resemblence to Larry Ellison in some of the shots.

  8. You can hide this sort of spam using your account's personal CSS as well. Put the following into special:mypage/vector.css and purge your cache:

    /* spam. bah */
    #siteNotice {
    display: none;

    - Chris

    • Ryan Finnie says:

      I do that to disable most of the [citation needed] crap. The problem is, for some reason, "Remember me (up to 30 days)" always seems to last about 10.

  9. Kyzer says:

    Or you could just click the "X" in the top right corner of the advert, and never see it again.

    • Will says:

      It's somehow more appealing to me to explicitly reject Jimmy this way than to just cover him up, even though it's a process that occasionally has to be repeated.

      One of my coworkers actually got a banner that featured somebody other than Jimmy, which made it seem like somebody had finally got a clue, but apparently that was a fluke.

    • Rachel says:

      Doing this doesn't work, and never did. Creepy Jimmy, with his "come to my van, child" eyes invariably comes back, like a particularly nasty genital infection, within 2 days at most.

      I sincerely hope that anyone who encourages this egotistical turd to perpetuate his sleazy advertising by responding to it and giving Wikipedia money rots in internet hell (which, natuarally, will feature Jimmy as its main attraction) for all eternity. He really is a fūcking twăt of the highest order. If Julian Assange can manage to run Wikileaks without my money, then so can this prick; we already write his fūcking website for him, why the hell should we have to pay for it too??

      • For what it's worth, Wikileaks ceased operations earlier this year due to budget woes, and had to make an appeal for donations. Their minimum, keep-the-lights-on budget is $200K, and with salaries it's $600K.

        I can't find their press release, but it's quoted in a lot of places, like this Ars Technica article.

        In 2009, Wikimedia's fundraiser brought in maybe $8M, or about 13x what Wikileaks says its operating budget ought to be this year.

        I work at the Wikimedia Foundation, and trust me, the main problem with this organization, at least on the tech side, is not that we have too much money to spend. We're drastically understaffed and underfunded relative to what the world expects us to be doing. And this has real effects. Bugs linger for years, or worse, new features don't get released because we can't afford to review and test them properly. The site infrastructure is more fragile than it ought to be. In 2011 we're trying to get a handle on some of those issues, hence the somewhat bigger ask for donations.

      • I posted another comment which hasn't shown up yet, but the gist was: the close box is supposed to work, and if it doesn't, get thee to

  10. spoonyfork says:

    I donated last year. This year I got over-annoyed so no money. Find the happy medium Jimmy.

    P. S. This mobile interface is pretty keen.

  11. jc says:

    I simply blocked the banner loading script:


    • jwz says:

      Aha! Even better! That makes the box go away too.

    • Dave Täht says:

      Thank you! I had passed the explosion point with dear old jimmy (Those eyes!), but I wasn't thinking anything as subtle as blocking that url, I was downloading all of wikipedia instead to run on my own stinking server...

      ah, well, download's finished, might as well get it running here anyway.

  12. jonathan says:

    I refuse to give money to a man that begs for his own volunteer-centric non-profit, but then turns around and says altruism is immoral. Of course, apparently putting his face in the ad works. Ironically, I would be more likely to give if it wasn't him.

    Facebook? Twitter? What's wrong with good ol' OpenID?

  13. I work at the Wikimedia Foundation. A couple of people have mentioned the close box, but you haven't said why that didn't work for you. It's cookie-based so you will have to keep clicking it for all your browsers / computers, but it should be working. The other option is to log in and set your preferences not to see the Fundraiser banner (it's under the "Gadgets" tab).

    The Fundraiser team has no intention of pissing off heavy Wikipedia users. If you can document a problem with any of these ways to dismiss the banner, please let them know.

    The churn you see is just rotating banners and people doing other changes. They aren't trying to evade your ad blocker scripts.

    Incidentally, virtually everything you might say about the campaign has already been said (and worse) by us, who look at the site all day. That said, a personal story (and face) so far seems to be the best way to get people to donate. By the way, they're currently testing the stories of other volunteers, so maybe in the near future it won't be all Jimmy all the time.

    • Joel Pitt says:

      Thanks for the explanation!

      It's amazing how much fucking entitlement some of these people show.

  14. TheGooch says:

    Advertisements are the best way to make me avoid something. Big advertisements guarantee big avoidance.

  15. TheGooch says:

    PS . This worked for me using the Adblock plugin for Firefox - /w/index.php?title=*:bannercontroller

  16. Joshua Rodman says:

    Thanks for the script block idea folks. This is brilliant.

  17. Aaron says:

    Is it really that offensive that they would try to raise money to fund this amazing, free resource?

    • jwz says:

      The way they are doing it is incredibly irritating, and obviously I'm not the only one who feels that way. It is so irritating that it is having the opposite-than-desired effect.

      So, in answer to your question, yes.