Wikimedia Proposes Advertising [Updated]

user9918277462 writes "The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has announced a new partnership with the Answers Corporation, which provides the content for Google Definitions links. There is also a lengthy discussion, wiki-style for those who wish to participate." Update 10/25 18:42 by SM: An announcement has been posted on Wikipedia to help clarify the original submission (which thankfully was patently false and has since been cleaned up a bit, our apologies to Wikimedia). Answers.com will be creating their own co-branded version which will show ads and no ads will be shown on wikipedia.

Comments

Fundraising

[A beautiful mind]

Didn't Wikipedia have a fundraising last time i checked? Why the need for advertising then?

The first priority should be keep the site clean, because that's one of the strengths of wikipedia, if i would have wanted advertising i would have went to any commercial info site.

The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[digid]

I don't mind this at all. This 1-click software is quite useful and others should be informed about it. Anytime I see a word that's unfamiliar I just alt+click and I get the wiki. Any application. Very nice.

Weird

[augustz]

Here's a deal of unknown value (for answers.com it obviously has value, market cap went up $8m on annoucement).

Folks like google offer to host, but don't seem to be taken up on the offer:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting

Does the board just want more $$ to play with (in other words, hosting doesn't give them the money they want to have the pleasure of spending)?

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[User 956]

Plus, since most of the text can be changed at any moment, how do I know that what I'm reading is accurate at this time, and not the opinion of some troll?

Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.

Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button. This has a number of advantages:

• Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
• Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
• Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
• (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.

Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[queenb**ch]

I'm writing this as an end-user of Wikipedia, not a contributor. If the ads are Google-esque, who really cares? I don't mind browsing past an ad or two if I can actually find what I'm looking for. My issue with the Wikipedia is that many times I come upon "a stub" that needs to be expanded. Now, the Wikipedia politely asks me if I'd like to add to the stub. The problem with that is if I knew the answer, I certainly would NOT be browsing the f&*^%$# Wikipedia looking for the answer. Given the inflow of dollars to fund more entries, this might make the Wikipedia more useful to everyone. I'm all in favor of that.

2 cents,

Queen B

Re:Irony alert

[Pxtl]

"I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias"

Nonsense. I've seen numerous posts that have a capitalist bias instead of the usual socialist one. They usually read something like this:

  <a href="http://pharmacy-cheap-phentermine.6x.to">che ap phentermine</a> <a href="http://pharmacy-buy-phentermine.6x.to">buy phentermine</a> <a href="http://phentermine-online-pharmacy.6x.to">ph entermine online</a> <a href="http://hydrocodone-online-pharmacy.6x.to">hy drocodone online</a> <a href="http://buy-hydrocodone-pharmacy.6x.to">buy hydrocodone</a> <a href="http://buy-ambien-pharmacy.6x.to">buy ambien</a> <a href="http://texas-holdem-em.6x.to">texas holdem em</a> <a href="http://adware-spyware.6x.to">adware spyware</a> <a href="http://spyware-doctors.6x.to">spyware doctors</a> <a href="http://buy-diazepam.6x.to">buy diazepam</a> <a href="http://pacific-poker-online.6x.to">pacific poker online</a> <a href="http://carisoprodol-pharmacy.6x.to">carisopr odol</a> <a href="http://buy-carisoprodol.6x.to">buy carisoprodol</a> <a href="http://buy-viagra-pharmacy.6x.to">buy viagra</a> <a href="http://viagra-online-pharmacy.6x.to">viagra online</a> <a href="http://buy-tramadol-pharmacy.6x.to">buy tramadol</a> <a href="http://discountpill.hotusa.org/">viagra</a>

For some reason the evil socialists delete posts like that. Darn idealogues.

Re:Not a problem

[Talrias]

While this proposal is not going to lead to the introduction of ads on Wikipedia, it is a good point and one I raised on the mailing list. Hopefully it is an avoidable problem.

Here's a (probably apocryphal) story of a program on the BBC, I believe it was a car review program, who gave a bad review to a certain American car model. The CEO of the company found out about it, was furious and ordered the advertising team to pull all adverts to punish the TV station. The advertising team replied "sorry sir, but the BBC don't run adverts".

While direct comparison between Wikipedia and the BBC would obviously be flawed due to Wikipedia's open philosophy, a hypothetical situation could occur where a corporation which provides a significant contribution towards Wikipedia's hosting (in the way of loaning servers or donations) could theoretically demand that the Wikimedia Board change the content in an article to remove a link or sentence from an article which criticises them as a company, and threaten to pull funding if the Board did not. While this would be horribly hard to enforce (and would be a major PR disaster for the corporation if it were leaked to the press) it is a concievable situation and I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to think of some organisations which would demand this.

I wouldn't describe Jimbo Wales' response to this as particularly eloquent, but I think it gives some comfort to people who hope it will never come to this.

Chris

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[The Bubble]

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and especially with the reasons behind it; but you have to consider, not only the implications of these proposals to those who would harm the Wiki, but also the implications to those who would contribute.

Removing the instant payoff for defacement also removes the instant payoff of contribution, which, to me, is part of the cool factor of the Wiki: if I contribute, those contributions go into effect now, and can be seen by anyone else immediately.

As you point out, this information would still be accessible in the "unstable" section, but unstable versions of a page are often overlooked, and this could become a serious issue when people go to contribute: a user is reading a page, and want's to make an addition or correction; now they have to check the "unstable" version and see if the change has already been made.

The simplicity of Wiki editing is a lot of its draw, and a lot of its power. This same simplicity and freedom is also its biggest flaw; but removing this simple freedom is not the answer, and more than dictatorship is the answer to quell those who would break the law of society.