Slashdot Mirror
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.
Some issues really need to be clairified.
Wikis can be really horrible at these sorts of debates-- Sifting through the Wikipedia comments is like looking for a needle in a chickencoop full of hysterical chickens and misinformed roosters.
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?
1. Why does the Wikipedia board feel that they need advertisements? Are there budget problems or other financial issues?
2. What do the opponents to the advertisements propose as an alternative? *Alterative Solutions* almost always work better then a straightup Boycott.
3. What does this mean for the end user? Are there going to be advertisements within Wikipedia? I know what the submission says-- but the Wikipedia page itself says "Answers.com will launch a Wikipedia Edition of their popular 1-Click Answers software", which makes it sound like there Answers.com is simply offering their own "Edition" of Wikipedia with some adsl. I can redistribute most of the content in Wikipedia, can't I? Isn't that what some commericial online enclopedias do?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I think that Wikipedia is a great service. The people behind it should be compensated for time, effort, hardware and bandwidth. I have no problem with advertisements to fund this. I mean, it is better than paying for a subscription!
Click here or here.
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.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
Can I be the first to update the wikipedia entry on the AdBlock extension with a filterset to hide the wikipedia ads?
Wikipedia is fast growing in reputation and use. Advertising remains the single source of income for many websites. As long as the advertising is done along the lines of Googles advertising I cant see a problem. This coming from someone who uses Wikipedia plenty.
There will inevitable be some unrealistic people who want to get something as good as Wikipedia for nothing. I bet they didnt contribute. I did.
Theres always Encarta *cough*
There's an old saying that goes: to a man with a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed to solve any financial woes? So many projects have started on a free basis and there is an old addage in marketing that stipulates that it is very hard to hike prices after selling something for less before (or giving it away for free). I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably (and less annoyingly). How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two a month you have access to a wealth of information you are interested in. This would be a bit like 'packaging' in the cable industry (just it would be better structured). For the hard core among us there might be a a-la-carte menu they could choose from and pay a certain amount per site. I know this sounds a bit strange at first, but it's just a matter of 'redistribution' of funds and cutting out the middle man.
Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere down the line? Of course some of us buy into it and we spend dollars that get rerouted back to the sites we access for 'free'. It's a very annoying way to make money (who likes advertising after all - and how much energy to we exert to rid us of it?) and it doesn't seem to work very well, meaning you need to cluster bomb the online population to achieve an effect.
Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
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
HDGary secures my bank
Coca-Cola can be found in many resturaunts with health code violations, unlike PEPSI-COLA, which can be found in top-rated resturants KFC (tm), PIZZA HUT (tm), and TACO BELL (tm).
See also:
PEPSI
WILD CHERRY PEPSI
PEPSI EDGE
DIET PEPSI
I see a lot of grousing in the linked discussion with people threatening to "leave and never come back". I'd wager almost everyone who is grousing uses Google, and this is exactly the same thing. Let's not forget that servers don't run on scotch mist and the bandwidth fairy certainly doesn't exist.
Someone needs to pay for this, and I don't see how relevant advertisements can detract from the site at all, in fact they will probably add to it a great deal.
If it was great big shiny flash banner adds with screeching canary gifs or something, I'd understand. The moaners need to put up, or shut up really.
C17H21NO4
I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias
Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias.
Capitalists would suffocate the project in any attempt to maximize profits. Fascists wouldn't be into the idea of a Wiki at all.
For the record, I'm mostly just a Wikipedia user-- not a hardcore author or anything.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I think the bigger question is, can we edit the ads?
Frequently Assumed Quandaries resolved:
- The deal is not finalized. Nothing is "struck" or required.
- Nobody is forced to use the software.
- There are no ads/adware/spyware in the software.
Er, surely there must be adverts in the software, or where does the money come from?? Dan100 (Talk) 18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The software lets you go to a web page, such as http://answer.com/foo - The web page has all the advertisements. -Fennec () 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The link to the software will only be at WP:TOOLS, nowhere else.
- A link to WP:TOOLS will be placed in the sidebar, not a link to the software.
- The tools page already links to non-free software.
- Answers.com could have posted their link on the tools page without offering the Foundation a cent.
- Bob Rosenschien and Jimbo Wales have been in firm and absolute
agreement from the beginning that the form of link chosen by the
community is up to the community.
- The community is free to remove the link from WP:TOOLS, but know that this will stop Wikimedia from receiving additional funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:ToolsThe World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Before everyone starts inventing stuff about wikipedia having banner ads, here's what the deal is: - A link will be added in the left side bar on Wikipedia to the WP:TOOLS page. - That page lists software that can be used to improve the user experience of the Wikimedia projects, such as toolbars and other web helpers. - On that page the 1-Click toolbar will be listed on top. - People using this toolbar and seeing the ads will bring revenue to both 1-Click Answers and the Wikimedia Foundation.
In all likelihood, ad revenue would not go to new content. Rather, it would likely go to:
a) paying the operating costs of WP - serving data isn't cheap.
b) adding additional services to Wikipedia that may be more bandwidth intensive - like large files of video or software.
c) hiring moderators to clear out wikispam and help edit the wiki into a publishable "stable" form.
Hiring people to add content directly goes against the ideas of wiki, and besides - why should they since free work seems to work well?
My first question when I started using Wikipedia was, "How is this funded?"
Answer: donations. Since I have never given any money, I'd have no problem accepting ads.
I hope that the people who are complaining the loudest have given the most. Otherwise, they're mad because they can't get something for nothing.
As altrustic Wikipedia is, the problem is the machines have physical monetary resources. Someone has to be paid to do the maintance. Someone has to be paid to do the bug fixing. Someone has to front the cash for the lifecycle of the hardware or whatever plan they have for deployment.
Unless people come forward to do this stuff for free they need to raise cash from somewhere to pay for all of this stuff. And unlike your "contributions" to Wikipedia, these things are hardly easy to do by a guy in his spare time.
As for "profit" I don't think Wikipedia has a profit motive but lets do the Devil's Advocate. What is wrong with a profit model based upon information mining in Wikipedia? The information is freely available for anyone to use as they chose. If I come up with a clever app that mines choice information out of it then do you still want your piece? The information should be free for anyone to find. For you, me, and Google. Hey wait...why aren't you harping on Google for your piece?
I'm perfectly happy for Wikipedia to find some sort of revenue stream to keep the thing going. Its either ads or donations/merchandise. Given my choice I would rather do donations and merchandise but I can't understand the financials on whether or not this is reasonable. Or maybe they can get lucky and find out they have a rich uncle who died and left them a fortune the size of the GNP of a small country?
From the page:
Welcome to visitors from Slashdot. Please be aware that the Slashdot story is completely wrong. There is no proposal to have advertising on Wikipedia. There are numerous errors of fact on this page. (See below if you're interested.) --Jimbo Wales 19:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I originally posted this as AC so as not to be seen to be hording karma, but then I realised it wouldn't be seen if I posted it that way, so here goes again.
(Wouldn't it be nice if you could EDIT your posts on slashdot)
its a shame slashdot is not a wiki we could have strained out the inacruacies of the article post by now...
Bandwidth is not free.
Why do people think that sites like this -- that become immensly useful and popular -- can sustanin themselves without a steady revenue stream? A web site is not like TV or radio where you broadcast a signal over the air and any number of people can pick it up without killing your station.
I don't care how much time or effort anyone spent contributing content to the site. The fact is that SOMEONE has to pay to host that content and serve it to visitors.
From the Wiki FAQ:
So Mr. Wales pays for part of the operational costs and the rest comes from donations and a few grants and sponsorships.
We're not talking a few hundred bucks a year and a single server running out of someone's in-home LAN closet. A total of $739,200 was budgeted for the 2005 calendar year alone, and that's not pocket change.
First quarter fund raising earned a miniscule $96,648.70 and if they did as well (surpassing their goal by 25%) every quarter, they'd still be $352,605.20 shy of the 2005 budget.
Given the very little bit I know from looking at this information, I don't see it being an easy task to survive during their continued growth without some kind of revenue generating system on the site -- whether it be ads or subscription.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I don't mind people repeating a comment. Not citing where you got your text from, however, is questionable:
8 23457
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&cid=13
The text of the comment link above:
Re:Perhaps they need a team of paid editors
(Score:5, Interesting)
by theLOUDroom (556455) Alter Relationship on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13823457)
Jimbo started by trying paid editors
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.
--
Life is too short to proofread.