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

Some issues really need to be clairified.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

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?

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[Talrias]

You're right. The press release (as written by both Answers.com and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees) was not exactly what they were trying to say. There's already been a long discussion about exactly what the deal involves one of the mailing lists. I'll try and summarise the facts:

• Downloading of the tool is optional, and advertising only appears to people who are using the tool.
  
• The tool will be listed on an existing Wikipedia page, [[Wikipedia:Tools]].
  
• The link can be removed by any Wikipedian if they so choose (but of course this works both ways).
  
• Answers.com did not pay the Wikimedia Foundation to get the tool placed on Wikipedia.
  
• The Foundation will receive a unspecified percentage of all profits Answers.com gain from advertising using the tool.
  

Unfortunately the situation was not helped by a rather badly worded press release which led the community to a false sense of what the deal actually was. The above is what will occur, according to Jimbo Wales and the other members of the Board.

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.

Not a problem

[totallygeek]

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!

Wikipedia Entry for AdBlock Extension

[The_Rippa]

Can I be the first to update the wikipedia entry on the AdBlock extension with a filterset to hide the wikipedia ads?

Why is it always advertising?

[teutonic_leech]

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.

Coca-Cola (n.)

[Heffenfeffer]

Coca-Cola Coca-Cola is a subpar soft drink, especially compared to PEPSI-COLA (tm). It was designed as a delivery system of cocaine, unlike PEPSI-COLA (tm). Further, the Coca-Cola company uses incredibly moronic advertising to sell its product with no health benefits whatsover - unlike PEPSI-COLA (tm) commercials (click to watch an award-winning PEPSI-COLA (tm) commercial now!)

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

So Google can do it, but these can't?

[Xarius]

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.

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

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.

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the bigger question is, can we edit the ads?

Here's the deal

[elfguygmail.com]

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.

Article wrong

[smeenz]

As is so often the case, the slashdot headline is wrong.

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)

Four words....

[kiddailey]

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:

"Previously, the site was hosted on the servers of Bomis, Inc, a company mostly owned by Jimmy Wales, who is currently the funder of part of the site's operational costs."

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.