The Debate Over Advertising on Wikipedia

An anonymous reader writes "Some Wikipedians have objected to Virgin Unite's participation in the Wikimedia Foundation's fund drive, calling it adverising. But there's a strong case that Wikipedia should run advertising. The funds raised could support dozens of Firefox-scale free knowledge and free software projects, outspending all but the wealthiest foundations."

Comments

End justifies the means

[Leadmagnet]

Perhaps this is a good thing - if it generates enough revenue to fund many small open info sharing projects.

Re:End justifies the means

[mwvdlee]

The means might be sacrificing the purported objectivity of Wikipedia.

I'm not saying this will happen, but will Wikipedia cave to the presure of sponsors wanting to keep harmful information from Wikipedia?

For instance; if Microsoft became a sponsor, would the articles about XBox hacking remain intact? I'm sure the media companies wouldn't like advertising on a site that happily explains DeCSS, and just wait until hacks for Blu-ray and HD-DVD are being documented. And the numerous scandals involving companies that still exist today; would they like those articles? Not to mention politicians, who have already proven not to be trusted when it comes to Wikipedia content.

I'm not saying this will happen, nor that it cannot be defended against. Just to define what "means" may be in this case.

Re:End justifies the means

[SpooForBrains]

Once a few big advertising contracts are hammered out, then the funds available to Wikipedia will grow, and so the needs of Wikipedia will grow to fill the available funds. They will lay on more servers, better bandwidth deals, maybe hire some people, and then suddenly Wikipedia is dependent on that cash to continue operating. Thus, the advertisers can start to assert influence, knowing full well what would happen if they pulled the cash. Suddenly you'll see exactly the kind of censorship parent alludes to.

Re:End justifies the means

[Total_Wimp]

I was a journalist for about a year quite some time ago. I never personally witnessed an, "if you print something positive, we'll advertise with you," offer. However, I did witness, and participate in conversations in the newsroom where we debated whether a story was important enough to risk angering our advertising clients. I can not recall a single case where we didn't run a story, but the fact that we discussed it always concerned me.

Since then, very often when I pick up a magazine and read a glowing review of a product, I'll look further in the magazine for an advertisement from the company who sells it. Most often I'll find, at minimum, full page ads and often several of them. In fact, you'll probably notice that horrible reviews are rare in magazines. If you look even harder, you'll notice that the company involved almost never has an advertisement in the same issue.

But wait, you say, isn't Wikipedia is edited by the readership? Certainly they won't be influenced by the ads? Sadly, this is not true. The reason this is not true is that advertisers are readers as well. If they were putting money into the publication, they'd read that publication on a much more regular basis and they'd have a much larger motivation to influence the articles published. Since it's so easy to have direct influence over Wikipedia, I would find it hard to believe that advertisers would sit on their hands if they saw an opportunity to make their company or products look better.

TW

Re:End justifies the means

[smallpaul]

It is trivially easy to prevent the corruption of a "few big advertising contracts". Simply do not accept them. Wikipedia could easily mandate that no advertiser can buy more than 3% of the available space. Alternately, wikipedia could take the straightforward route of buying through intermediaries like Google's AdSense and others. The wikimedia people would not ever talk to an advertiser.

Re:End justifies the means

[smallpaul]

The vast majority of Internet advertising is done through a broker in tiny increments of pennies per transaction. The advertiser does not know what site the advertisment will go on and the site does not know in advance which advertisments will appear.

Re:End justifies the means

[Pollardito]

i think they just need to control potentially rising expectations that might come with the new revenue. turning down all money now because you're concerned that you may not be able to turn some harmful money down later seems like overkill.

Re:End justifies the means

[crazyeddie740]

>>The means might be sacrificing the purported objectivity of Wikipedia.

>>I'm not saying this will happen, but will Wikipedia cave to the presure of sponsors wanting to keep harmful information from Wikipedia?

Remember that "the Wikipedia" is really a collection of various weirdos who like to spend their free time writing encyclopedia articles for free. That and ideologues of every possible kind. Imagine Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Joe Stalin, Karl Marx, John Lennon, and Gandhi collaborating on an article on Communism, and you might get some idea of what some of the rougher parts of the Wikipedia are like. Getting the Wikipedians to toe any corporate line would be next to impossible. It's hard enough to keep them from killing each other! I'm more worried about corporate e-goons laying down astroturf then I am about Wikipedians being influenced by corporate sponsors. Sponsors trying to lean on the 'pedia would probably cause a backlash that would leave their article more anti- than it was to begin with. Astroturfers are a bit more stealthy.

I'd also be more worried that users would interpret ads as Wikipedia's endorsement of the product. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what Google Ads decides to put on various article pages, and anybody who has flawed critical thinking skills probably shouldn't be using the Wikipedia as a source anyway. I think I'd be in favor of advertising, provided that the ads are unobtrusive and that the community has input on what the funds go for. In order to keep it unobtrusive, I'd suggest loading the adds last for the sake of people with slow connections and giving logged-in contributors the ability to switch off the adds.

Re:End justifies the means

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once a few big advertising contracts are hammered out, then the funds available to Wikipedia will grow, and so the needs of Wikipedia will grow to fill the available funds."

No, that won't happen. Just look at public schools or the UN or .COM V.C.s. The services don't get better with more money. Instead, they simply adapt so that they can gobble up their budget so that more need appears next year when it comes time to dole out next years budget. First you tack on a little bureaucracy and hire a few friends, -er consultants, then it moves on to the "need" for yearly $2000 office chairs for foundations members.

Until the Wikimedia foundation can no longer sustain on donations it should steer clear of looking for revenue and potential well-poisoning.

Re:End justifies the means

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a journalist for about a year quite some time ago.

Wow. A whole year, eh?

I was a nuclear physicist for 2-3 hours myself.

Re:End justifies the means

[Anonymous Coward]

Question is, what do they intend to use the money for, how much do they need, and what other ways are there to raise it? Eg. if they have a good business plan for how to grow and how much they need, maybe it's a good thing. If they're going to haphazardly spend money on assorted projects, it will only hurt in the end.

So, do they have a viable plan?

Re:End justifies the means

[fromvap]

The ends never, in any case justify the means. Everyone knows that. Wrong actions can never be justified, no matter what supposed good comes from them. Any philosophy that doesn't admit that fact ends up with the situation where if a rich benefactor told you you had to kill for him and do his bidding, you would have to if he promised in return to save enough starving children in Africa.

Re:End justifies the means

[dave1g]

But the difference with wikipedia is that the "people in charge" have no control over what gets put in the wiki. If an advertiser gets screwed over in an article they can stop advertising.

And when you do something like google adwords, the individual advertisers have almost no power at all. The algorithm picks the relevant ads based on the text in the page.

The other feature I would like is to simply make advertising optional. I have occasionally clicked on google adwords and found something I was looking for. Other might not think its worth it. so default the ads to being off, and allow the visitors who choose to see them make a change in their setting on their user account.

In the mean time I suggest people donate, I donated $10 while Virgin was matching, every little bit helps.

Re:End justifies the means

[DavidShor]

Fine, but in this particular case, I fail to see how ad sense could compromise anything.

Re:End justifies the means

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy the argument against adsense ads on all pages. It gives incentives for companies to edit articles in order to make more money. However, the Virgin 'ad' on the front page did not do that. I personally think they should use relatively unobtrusive ads on some non-article pages. It will make money and it won't give companies any reason to change pages. The only problem is: will any advertising destroy the donation base of Wikipedia? If so, they could not survive on only small ads and it could cascade into a fully ad covered Wikipedia. Only the future will tell.

Re:End justifies the means

[dj_virto]

I used to layout a semi-major golf magazine, and I can confirm that Advertorial is common practise now. It used to not be in the pre-baby boomer days, but every since the 80s ad salespeople have been using their dollars and leverage to take control of magazines and poison the content. The parent is right, look to see who has full page ads, back cover, inside back cover, etc before you read the magazine and the bias will be evident enough.

I imagine there are some magazines out there above all this. I'd like to think that includes Scientific American.. but then, I've never seen a negative article about Dewars in there yet have I?!! :)

As for Wikipedia, one only has to look to many other non-profits to see where good groups go bad. Again, I'm speaking from first hand experience. It's very simple. When the people working for the group put their personal interests above the mission(s) of the group, force out people who are really for the cause, and put on a sham-show for the donors about how self-sacrificing they all are, the goose is cooked. The more money floating around the more likely this outcome becomes. Just say no Wikipedia! You're showing how volunteers are the true life-spirit of non-profits. Always remember - You ARE a charity.

-virto

-virto

Re:End justifies the means

[blahplusplus]

I don't understand why wikipedia can't collect enough money and then survive off the interest, what does it cost to run wikipedia? All they need is enough money to generate enough interest to pay for itself and a bit more, then ask for donations when they need to expand again.

Sure, why not?

[Slippery Pete]

It just seems like every web presence has to have some source of income to pay for their hosting and bandwidth. If they aren't very intrusive (GoogleAds), then it shouldn't harm anything.

Re:Sure, why not?

[jackalope]

I concur with this sentiment. If having real live revenue makes wikipedia better then let them have revenue. There is nothing inherently evil about making money.

They could easily do something non-intrusive, such as AdWords that correspond to the topic(s) being viewed. There is ample screen real estate on the left hand side for a discrete ad bar.

But they would need to be careful not to allow ads to creep into what could be considered content, or have advertisers directly choose which page they want to advertise on.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree so long as they're text ads only. Images ads: no farking way.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Diomidis Spinellis]

I think you mean Google's AdSense technology, which is aimed at web publishers. The AdWords you mention are the ads that appear next to the Google search to search results. We should keep in mind that Google's AdSense lists are dynamically generated on the fly for each specific page request (see the source code in a page with AdSense. Google already knows (and stores) all your search queries. Do you really want it to also know all the pages you've been browsing in Wikipedia?

For me the three main ways I find information on the web are: Google, Wikipedia, and various digital libraries (in that order). Allowing Google to pry on the two first in concert would make the existing risks of Google regarding privacy considerably worse.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Rob T Firefly]

While I certainly can't claim making anything on the scale of Wikipedia, I've had various web presences for almost as long as there has been a web, and have never accepted a single cent of ad money. It's really not that hard.

Re:Sure, why not?

[misleb]

And most of the people who mind would just block the ads anyway. I even block GoogleAds. I don't need to see ANY of it.

The real issue regarding sponsorship is how it might affect content. It would suck to have certain content removed if a sponsor didn't like it. Or maybe sponsors would get special privilege/priority to edit articles in their favor.

-matthew

Re:Sure, why not?

[grazzy]

Please, adsense doesnt pay hosting and bandwidth - it pays saleries and bonuses.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, but who does that revenue go to? Sure a server and bandwidth costs money, but not nearly as much as they've raked in already, so where does the rest go? To the people who actually wrote the articles, or only a select few individuals who didn't really do anything?

If Wikipedia wants to be a free encyclopedia, it should be. Making money off of other peoples' time is unethical unless they are being fairly compensated.

Re:Sure, why not?

[DavidShor]

Wikipedia is the 12th most popular site on the web. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Wikipedia's budget has never exceeded 2 million.

Re:Sure, why not?

[grazzy]

Yes, what I'm saying is that if you have 10000 unique users / day and need a dedicated box for that - there is no problem paying for it with adsense. If you have 100000, you can easily staff someone aswell. If there are millions.. hey .. start looking at a nice isle to settle on. People thinking that wikipiedia needs advertising (or any other sites for that matter) to pay for HOSTING are f****** clueless. It upsets me every time I see someone asking for donations etc for hosting, hence my comment.

Put your money where your mouth is!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want each and every one of these complaining Wikipedians to get together and make a no-strings-attached donation equivalent in size to that of the one made by Virgin Unite. Only after they have done that are they really in the position to complain.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is!

[Nos.]

How about if each of the Wikipedians donates an equivalent percentage of their gross earnings when compared to the Virgin Group's donation and the Virgin Group's gross for a year. Asking an individual to donate as much as a huge corporation is a little unrealistic don't you think?

Re:Put your money where your mouth is!

[rozzamozza]

Wikipidians did... hence the > 1 Millionspages of useful stuff on wikipidia...

Re:Put your money where your mouth is!

[AxelBoldt]

want each and every one of these complaining Wikipedians to get together and make a no-strings-attached donation equivalent in size to that of the one made by Virgin Unite

The "donation" by Virgin was not "no-strings-attached". They bought a prominent good-will inducing placement of their name and logo on a top-12 website for 24 hours, and they paid $200K for it. Something like that is called a purchase, not a donation.

Advertising No Problem

[CmdrGravy]

I see no problem with adverts on Wikipedia so long as its obvious they're advertisments and corporate sponsorship does not affect the content.

Even very small and unobtrusive adverts would earn them an awful lot of revenue which can really only be a good thing.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiki is pure knowledge and any adverts at all, no matter how "unobtrusive" would pollute it and sully its name.

Advertising is always evil and to suggest that Wikipedia lower its self to flog worthless crap for faceless corporations WHEN ITS DOING JUST FINE AS IT IS with no advertising shows you have no appreciation for art or asthetic values. Honestly to even think of corrupting something so pure and beautiful like this is just sick.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[Stephan Schulz]

I see no problem with adverts on Wikipedia so long as its obvious they're advertisments and corporate sponsorship does not affect the content.

Even very small and unobtrusive adverts would earn them an awful lot of revenue which can really only be a good thing.

This is a very slippery slope. Once WikiMedia outgrows the generosity of the community, there is no easy way back. If the foundation has hundreds of paid officiers, in the long term their primary interest will not be to make the best possible encyclopedia, but to safe their own jobs. If Wikipedia funds a lot of other projects, there is even more reason for them to keep up the revenue by following the interest of the advertisers as opposed to just creating the best possible free encyclopedia.

From another point of view, I assume I spend maybe 100 hours per year working on Wikipedia. Even at my salary level (as opposed to my consulting rate), paying for this would be quite a chunk of money. Multiply it by 3 million of editors, and the "huge" advertising revenue suddenly is not that huge anymore. Even losing a small fraction of good editors over advertising would be a net loss.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[rucs_hack]

google seem to manage the only adverst on the internet that don't bother me, if Wikipedia went that way I see no problem either.

To beleive that projects like Wikipedia should not advertise is definatelly nieve, why should there not be extra pots of money for additional projects.

Mind you, I have a few issues with the way Sourceforge has handled having paid accounts. In spite of what they said, unpaid project hosting suffered. I was unable to access my project on a number of occasions. In that case monetising the service was definatelly harmful. At least if Wikipedia goes with advertiusing we shouldn't see a two cast system.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[ebuck]

I could support your position, in a perfect world.

Advertising in Wikipedia could provide a lot of dollars, and with those dollars comes a few concerns:

1. What safeguards are there going to be when considering how the content clashes with the interests of the advertisers? Many small newspapers cannot finiancially afford to run articles that conflict with their ad base. So if your biggest advertiser is a jewler, you'd be stupid to run an article about DeBeers backed fighting in Africa.

2. What safeguards are there in controlling spending? Most organizations, corporations, governments, and such tend to be regulated by the amount of money they can dispose. If you add a large amount of money into the system, the system's spending grows to accommodate the new money, but usually the service doesn't alter dramatically. I cannot imagine any new feature that I want in Wikipedia, so why throw money at it to make the existing features cost more.

Once an organization depends on a revenue stream, those providing the revenue stream can wield a lot of power. It's not done malicously, but eventually those with the cash will wish that their ads were more visible. They'll wish that their products were not "slandered" in wikipedia even when the product merits unfavoring words. Think of Mattel wanting to soften articles about dangerous toys they've released. Remove a reference, change the wording from "37 killed" to "a few children were injured, and one even died". You haven't outright lied, you're just misleading your audience.

Wikipedia already has had to combat product promotion and ad placement. How will they handle it when they are receiving money from these companies?

Re:Advertising No Problem

[Mr. Slippery]

I see no problem with adverts on Wikipedia so long as its obvious they're advertisments and corporate sponsorship does not affect the content.

And I see no problem with pouring gasoline on myself and lighting a match, just so long as fire doesn't burn flesh.

Unfortunately advertisments and corporate sponsorship by their very nature affect the content of sponsored media, just as fire by its very nature burns flesh.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[It'sYerMam]

With regard to one, I wonder whether there is a possible solution. If the Administrators, in general, remained unpaid, and it was only really those at the top who worked in a professional capacity, then NPOV could still be maintained. If a Mod is not paid, he will not be motivated by profit to let through POV on articles about advertisers or their products. The other stuff would still have sway, I suppose, but they would be forced to ban unruly Mods, since they cannot be sacked. The slope would still be there, but perhaps not as slippery.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[Lord_Dweomer]

The solution to this is simple. Take a page from NPR. I'm in advertising and we recently did some radio scripts for ads on NPR and they have some of the TOUGHEST copy standards out there. They do not allow their ads to have a call to action, which is one of the key parts of any successful ad. There are other strict rules as well. So what you end up with is a very basic, bare bones information ad with little to no spin. At first I was annoyed with them because they made my project more difficult, but I really do appreciate them for approaching advertising in a very correct way for the type of content and audience they have.

Wikipedia should be fine with ads as long as they draw the line DEEP in the sand and give similar guidelines as NPR and make it crystal clear to potential advertisers that there is nothing that can or will be done to alter entries on their product or company, nor is there anything that can be done to prevent their ad from showing up on a competitors entry or something like a DeBeers ad showing up in an article on blood diamonds. If advertisers are willing to take the gamble and follow those guidelines, then the advertisers can reach a large ripe audience, and the content on Wikipedia shouldn't suffer.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[bcrowell]

One thing that gives me doubts about advertising on WP is that the free information projects people have suggested using the money for sound pretty goofy. WP already has a history of continuing to throw resources at failed projects, the biggest example being WikiBooks. If you look at the original press releases, they had grandiose plans for WikiBooks: making a college education free to everyone, producing better textbooks than the commercial ones, etc. But the truth is that its only killer app seems to be books about video games. It just never reached critical mass. If they had hundreds of millions of dollars of ad revenue, I can imagine them squandering it on a lot of other projects that won't work.

Another question worth asking is what's really broken about WP right now, and needs to be fixed? WP is a massive success in many ways, but it does have some problems, and I don't think ads have anything to do with solving those problems. One big problem is that a typical article reaches a certain level of quality, and then stagnates or deteriorates because of random, disorganized edits, and the maximum level of quality is way below the level you see in a print encyclopedia. Another problem is inefficiency: hard-core WP editors have long watch lists, and waste an incredible amount of time checking them, fixing vandalism, getting in flamewars, etc.

And finally, it seems really clear that there is a huge body of WP users who are against ads. That means that if ads happen, the consequences are pretty predictable: they would fork WP.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[klenwell]

I thought this was the point of Wikia.

I remember hearing a report on NPR on this subject. It mentioned Wikia as a commercial counterpart to Wikipedia. Granted Wikia will probably never have the force of the Wikipedia, but this seems a more palatable approach.

Here's the source:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/08/3 0/PM200608305.html

Any news on how Wikia's doing financially?

Re:Advertising No Problem

[beckerist]

Wiki is NOT pure knowledge. Wiki is known as "collective knowledge" which, in itself can be utterly wrong .
Advertising, a 175 billion USD a year enterprise is evil ONLY as an opinion. A wrong one at that (if it didn't benefit both parties in some way, would it really even exist anymore?)
Corporations are only very rarely faceless and in all facets of the word, art = some form of advertisement (for the artist, for a cause, for what it represents...) I'd sure as hell rather play a Burger King Xbox game than see a statue of the Virgin Mary with shit spread on her face...

Oh yeah, and are YOU going to front the bandwidth and storage bill? Maybe it's just me, but I personally don't have >$400,000 floating around.....

Re:Advertising No Problem

[ZachPruckowski]

Wikibooks isn't particularly a failure, it's just not as large as WP. And they probably lost little on it. You make it sound like all these projects are going to work in months. Stuff like this takes years to pull off.

But if you're interested in working on fixing the problems of the WP model/implementation, check out Citizendium, which is trying to address some of the problems you cite, and is looking at a Q1 launch. Again, an effort that will take years, but certainly one worth trying.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[bcrowell]

Wikibooks isn't particularly a failure, it's just not as large as WP. And they probably lost little on it. You make it sound like all these projects are going to work in months. Stuff like this takes years to pull off.
Actually Wikibooks has been going for years. It just never got off the ground. And I think the reason it's limped along for years without accomplishing anything like its original goals (to produce high-quality college-level textbooks) is that the whole premise was flawed. A wiki is a good way to write an large, low-quality encyclopedia. It's not a good way to write a high-quality college textbook. There are plenty of high-quality college textbooks out there (see my sig). They just weren't done with wikis.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in advertising

So your job is to pollute the noosphere. You create commercial propaganda, designed to make people consume useless crap, constantly repeating the false mantra that buying stuff brings happiness. You distort the good capitalist marketplace: not the best product but the best-advertised product now wins. You are a pox. Kill yourself and the world will be a better place.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[ae]

There is a flaw in your reasoning: you assume that because you can charge a certain amount of money for doing something, you could charge the same amount for doing anything, which seems unlikely. If you are an educated, experienced software developer, for instance, opposed to an encyclopedist, chances are, noone would be willing to pay you as much for writing Wikipedia articles as your clients do for your programming (or whatever).

Thus, if you were only in it for the money, you wouldn't be writing Wikipedia articles—you would work longer hours doing what you normally do instead, making more money and working more (economically) efficiently.

That means, to calculate the economic value of your and others' contributions to Wikipedia, you can't just multiply the numer of hours spent updating Wikipedia with the hourly wage that the contributors would make performing their usual work. Rather, you would have to compute how much it would cost to recreate Wikipedia using paid contributors, which is surely vastly lower.

Whether the result of such a computation would justify placing ads on Wikipedia is another issue altogether, of course.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[Oktober Sunset]

"Wikipedia's huge amount of Web traffic is a resource" - These 9 words are what discredits the whole of the article. What Evan Prodromou calls a "resource" I call users, or rather participants. We are talking about people, people are not a commodity to be sold off to advertisers (thats how corporations treat us, not how community projects do), they are the same people who contribute to wikipedia, they are what makes wikipedia successful, they are the purpose of wikipedia. Right now, peoples know that wikipedia is owned by the people and it there because people do their bit. People know that wikipedia exists cos people have spent their time and effort and money on making it good, for the good of everyone, no one exploits the fruits or their labour for their own benefit, so people know that helping wikipedia is for the good of everyone. People reading wikipedia also know that they are bound by an unwritten un thought social contract, that they know that they can read about stuff because people have spent their time writing or adding to articles, and so they know, only if only subconsciously that they have a moral debt, as they are benefiting from this work, and that the repayment for this is that should contribute too. Whenever I see an incomplete part of an article, a missing detail, or a mistake, I feel that it is an obligation to edit the article and add to or correct or whatever "I think, this is wrong/incomplete, I have the knowledge to fix it, I ought to fix it". Sometimes I can't be arsed, and I feel a tinge of guilt and sometimes I do contribute and I feel good, because I have helped out even if only in a tiny way. If I am reading Encarta or Britannica and see a mistake or a missing detail, I think "This is wrong/incomplete those lazy cunts at Microsoft/Britannica ought to fix it, that's what they are payed for" If wikipedia becomes an advertising source, it will be tainted in the mind of people as a corporate entity. People will see errors or omissions and think "This is wrong, someone should fix this, I'm not doing it, the sponsors should be paying for this" The bigger danger isn't advertisers manipulating content, but that people will no longer see Wikipedia as theirs, they will see it as yet another place that corporations bombard them with advert, wikipedia will be forever tainted in the minds of people as yet another corporate device, bombarding them with ads like everything else in the world. It will no longer be theirs and it will no longer be their responsibility, it will be the corporate sponsors responsibility. Wikipedia is what everyone dreamed the web would be before it became a a corporate slush bucket of spam and adverts, a cash cow to be milked for all its worth, it is a tiny seed of that time when the web was for people to share knowledge and work together on things for mutual benefit. It's the best hope of open source, creative commons, copy left, every movement that has ever wanted knowledge to be free, and people to be free from lies and propaganda. And if people don't believe in wikipedia, and its purpose, they won't contribute to it, and if people don't contribute to it, it will die.

Re:Advertising No Problem

[Lord_Dweomer]

Anonymous Troll, do you need a hug?

Re:Advertising No Problem

[DavidShor]

Corruption is literally impossible with Google ads.

public broadcasting

[Speare]

"And if you call in with your pledge of support right now, your money will be matched, dollar for dollar, by the generous contribution of ACME Inc. You will also receive a cuddly ACME logoed teddy bear and an assortment of ACME tea bags. Public broadcasting needs you to pick up that phone, and call in, to keep the airwaves free of the usual commercial breaks that other stations need to use to fund the valuable programming you hear."

Re:public broadcasting

[quixote9]

Yeah. That was my first thought, too. Wikipedia is a worldwide resource, by people and for people. Logically, with something like that, people would be paying for it. I. e. it should be taxpayer-funded, worldwide. That won't happen in a hurry, and in the meantime it needs money. Don't know what to say. Well, I do. It's, "GOD, NO!" But if they wind up doing ads, like other people have said, they should be text-based, unobtrusive, in a margin box of their own, and NO GODDAMN BLINKING, JUMPING, SINGING, DANCING CRAP. (Whew. I feel better now. /Goes to look for meds./)

Too many editors?

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

If Wikipedia ever finds itself with too many editors, this would be a way to get rid of a bunch.

Re:Too many editors?

[jimbojw]

If Wikipedia ever finds itself with too many editors, this would be a way to get rid of a bunch.

Kinda. More like:

"If Wikipedia ever finds itself with too many ethical editors, this would be a way to get rid of a bunch, while keeping the rest."

Re:Too many editors?

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

Yeah, good point. I'm sure lots of new people would be eager to "help."

Scary Words

[Deliveranc3]

"The Advertising department thinks we should..."
"We have an idea to get more hits..."
Concentrate Wikipedia, you have a long way to go.

Does it have to be all or nothing?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

PBS manages to do pledge drives without completely losing their identity. Granted, they're also running commercials, but certainly less than regular broadcast TV. Could Wikipedia run ads maybe two weeks a quarter, or something similar? The question really is, what would they do with it if they had (theoretically) unlimited funds?

Re:Does it have to be all or nothing?

[Dachannien]

Exactly. For example, Google sponsors Nova, probably the best non-kids-oriented show on PBS. They get an ad at the top of every show, just after the teaser and Nova title card and before the actual episode starts. The ad isn't garish or obnoxious, and it goes along with the declaration that the show is made possible by viewers like me (presumably the ones with more disposable income than me, though). The rest of the show is solid ad-free content.

This is exactly what Wikipedia is doing, and as long as the sponsorship messages are kept in the context of Wikipedia donation drives and not plastered across the articles, I think it's a good thing. They're having a great run in their drive for $1.5M this time around, and a lot of that comes from corporate matching donations.

Re:Does it have to be all or nothing?

[Blakey Rat]

Try watching some kids shows on PBS in the mornings. The "sponsored by" messages are as long and as annoying as any other network's ad breaks.

Re:Does it have to be all or nothing?

[Itchy Rich]

The question really is, what would they do with it if they had (theoretically) unlimited funds?

Good point. If they use the money as has been suggested to support "free knowledge and free software projects" this will, for better or worse, provide an incentive structure in those areas. The exact nature of those incentives will depend on how funds are distributed. It's a potential source of political wrangling, if not corruption.

Re:Does it have to be all or nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does PBS have to do with anything? How is an encyclopedia equivalent to a public broadcaster? This is a 'look, something shiny' form of argument. It also fails to recognize that PBS' acceptance of advertising does detract from its original task of public servitude and is a direct result of government budget cuts. Representing the current situation as somehow worthy of emulation or an argument for every purportedly disinterested media outlet to accept advertising is nonsensical. I swear unthinking ultilitarians will lead us to hell yet.

Re:Does it have to be all or nothing?

[Threni]

You don't lose your identity because you run advertising. You just display adverts. As long as there's no chance they'll pull/rework articles to please advertisers/lobby groups, then I don't see the problem.

Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

I'm against.

Advertising inherently trivialises its surroundings.

If the Wiki is bare, it stands alone as a mass of knowledge.

If it is adorned by adverts for books and DVDs and so on, it becomes profane; it loses its sanctity.

People I think see these words and dismiss them, I suspect because of their somewhat religious association; but they represent human feelings and impressions of the world around them. They represent real states of mind and impressions.

Re:Advertising profanes

[mauddib~]

I seriously wished there were more people thinking like you do. Advertisements turns the attitude of the supporters of such a huge database of information away from knowledge and into a money-driven (and short-term investment) ideal. Again, people know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. Isn't the value of such a body of knowledge enough? Should we not try to pursue science and other fundaments of our society in a more monk-like way? I myself think we should. The fundaments of our society have been built upon ideals like that, it would be a shame to throw it all away.

Yes, all of this might sound a bit religious, but forget not that religion has had a firm basis in philosophy. Many of the monk scriptures were not rooted in religious affairs at all, but contained basics of knowledge. What we should do now is built up a new fort of knowledge and let that knowledge value itself (instead of revenue dollars from ads).

Re:Advertising profanes

[omeg]

Yes, THIS! Mod parent up, for he's absolutely correct AND giving an argument that none of the advertisement supporters have ever dared to touch in the debate. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that aims to discuss each notable topic in a neutral way. We've gone through inspiringly great lengths to create millions of articles in many different languages already, constantly using this neutrality as our most important asset. Why is anyone willing to throw that neutrality, that sanctity that has caused this source of information to become so reliable? There is no way an encyclopedia can be neutral if it is non-neutral by asserting its endorsement of commercial products in the form of advertisements. Wikipedia will lose its credibility completely, and that's the LAST thing that we want. We, the editors, the people who try hard to make this encyclopedia a really important asset to us as human beings. Our work will be broken, should serious advertisement -- even stuff like Google AdSense -- ever come to our pages. Please let it NEVER happen.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Achoi77]

While I wouldn't put wikipedia in some kind of holy light, if wikipedia decides to take in advertising it soon enters the realm of the the dollar being mightier than the knowledge it is designed to support.

What I'm really afraid of is when advertising dollars begin to dictate the direction of wikipedia. And that is very very very very not cool.

Re:Advertising profanes

[CmdrGravy]

I'm glad more people don't think like him. Certainly monks and other such selfless people have contributed alot to science but I would say the vast majority of science has come about through the work of people who are deeply rooted in the real world for the purpose of solving the real world problems they came across.

The real world includes things like money, advertising and probably many other things you may consider to be corrupting or evil but it is often because of and not in spite of these facets of society that progress and learning advance.

In this case Wikipedia has the opportunity to raise very large amounts of money in a manner which need not interfere at all with their current operation, this money can be used for starting similar operations or even to fund real hard science. Whatever it is used for it will represent money being spent on useful projects that would not otherwise take place or have money spent on them.

Re:Advertising profanes

[thegnu]

Advertising inherently trivialises its surroundings.

First, we're on /.--scroll to the top of the page, and tell me what you see. Arguably, we are not in the 75% of people who can't tell the difference between ads and content on the web, but there's a tasteful way of doing it. You could:

a) have a red box around all the ads
b) have a less intrusive box with a header reading "Log In to optionally disable advertising"
c) as someone else suggested, have a LINK to relevant ads, rather than the ads themselves, greatly reducing revenue, but it's better than nothing

Dikembe Mutombo moved to the US to practice medicine to go back to the Congo to provide health care for his people. In college, NBA scouts gave him good offers if he chose to play basketball, so he gave up medicine, got into the NBA, and has contributed large sums of money and time to people in developing nations worldwide. He opened a volunteer medical center in his native Congo. Now, the NBA is driven by pimps, whores, and let's not forget a love of the game, but because of Dikembe, those pimps and whores have benefited many many people.

An ethical dilemma, no doubt. But let's not write off the pimps and whores just yet. ;-)

Re:Advertising profanes

[cryfreedomlove]

Toby,

It's not enough for you to just be a critic and then sit back. If not advertising, then how would you provide the funds to keep wikipedia running. It's not cheap to provide the systems and datacenter fees to run one of the most highly trafficed www website in the world.

You also have another option. You could start a rival wiki that has whatever stance towards advertising that you prefer. What is stopping you?

Re:Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

> The real world includes things like money, advertising and probably many other things you may consider to
> be corrupting or evil but it is often because of and not in spite of these facets of society that progress
> and learning advance.

The real world also includes humans and our emotions; and, what's more, the real world as such does not exist - for we only perceive the world through our senses and our feelings.

> In this case Wikipedia has the opportunity to raise very large amounts of money in a manner which need
> not interfere at all with their current operation,

But that IS the mis-understanding I have in mind.

The Wikipedia is not merely a collection of web-pages and a server. It is an ethos, a belief, an emotional experience.

You are right to say in the pure technical sense advertising will make no difference. The web-pages will still be editable, etc.

But in the human sense, our perception of the Wikipedia - that will change.

The Wiki with advertising is not "everything as it was before, but with advertising on the side". It's something *new and different*.

Re:Advertising profanes

[mauddib~]

I've believed in that mode of thinking for a long time. But look where we are now: we've got universities who find more revenue in rolling ready-made students into big industries to do the same as they did 30 years ago, instead of raising them same students in thinking for themselves. Everything is ready-made, and our next generation will not even know what 'thinking for thouself' means. If we're not careful, we're destroying our own society from within. With a source such as wikipedia, we have something substantial, which cannot be valued by money alone. It is the sheer force of many, many people taking the dedication and using their intellect to create something larger than themselves. No dollar (which is not even based on a precious metal anymore) can equal a single part of that. Religious? Maybe. I'd rather be religious if that is what it takes to confince those who do not have the time or interest in trying to understand the philosophy of what would be better for a society as a whole (as opposed to a single instance).

Re:Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

> First, we're on /.--scroll to the top of the page, and tell me what you see.

Well, an empty space. I block adverts. But indeed, /. has adverts and I think it suffers from them in, in fact, *exactly* the same way the Wiki would suffer from them.

> Dikembe Mutombo moved to the US to practice medicine to go back to the Congo to provide health care for
> his people. In college, NBA scouts gave him good offers if he chose to play basketball, so he gave up
> medicine, got into the NBA, and has contributed large sums of money and time to people in developing
> nations worldwide. He opened a volunteer medical center in his native Congo. Now, the NBA is driven by
> pimps, whores, and let's not forget a love of the game, but because of Dikembe, those pimps and whores
> have benefited many many people.

I think this is likely to be a seperate - but related - issue.

You see, my original post was talking about advertising changing the character of its surroundings.

You're talking about a *justification for doing this*, e.g. the cost is worth the benefit.

In Dikembe's case, it seems entirely reasonable - but in his case, the issue in hand was extremely important, being medical care for people who have no medical care. It matters a lot that as much as done is possible.

With the Wiki, we're dealing with an encylopedia, not medical care, so it's far less important to do as much as we can; and, crucially, for the Wiki, the occasionally fund-raising drive seems to work very well.

So why move on to advertising when it carries a cost to the very character, the essense, of the Wiki?

Re:Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

> It's not enough for you to just be a critic and then sit back. If not advertising, then how would you
> provide the funds to keep wikipedia running.

Well you know they're most of the way through I think it's a 1.5 million USD fund raising drive right now, and it's going really well; it's at about 900k USD after a week or two.

I think in fact that fund-raising like this, voluntary contributions, are the right way to provide funds.

You see, it's not just about how effectively you can get hold of dollars.

It's also about HOW you get hold of the dollars.

Having people voluntarily contribute is entirely different in its character and nature, and impliciation for the nature of the organisation, than, for example, advertising.

It's very important people get involved, materially involved, with things that matter to them.

Our society rather discourages this - our State tends to tax us and then spend that money on our behalf, so not only do we have less cash anyway, with which to support causes, we are find that we are *not* performing the act of consciously choosing to provide money, since the State is doing it.

I think that's really bad - actually choosing, yourself, to give you money, is a very particular experience and event and it is a message from that person to themselves about who and what they are. Taking that away from people is really not good, but that's what tax-and-spend is all about. You earn the money, they take it, and they spend it. Might as well be a robot!

Re:Advertising profanes

[deKernel]

First off, if you have really contributed to Wiki, then I want to thank you.
With that, I really need to ask you something. Do you really feel that a normal person viewing Wiki would somehow give less credence to an article because of an add? Really? Are you sure? Does an add for say Coke or Ford somehow make an article on say the history of hamburgers less credible?

As I respect the goal here, you really need to understand reality. Wiki is consuming resources whether it being disk space or electricity to run. How are those bills being paid? Please think about the reality of the situation. The only reason that Britanica doesn't have ads in them is because you paid a high price for them.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

> While I wouldn't put wikipedia in some kind of holy light

Hmm. This I feel is kinda what I mean about people looking at the words "profane" and "sanctity" and so on as being religious. These words exist outside and independently of religion.

The issue is the nature and character of an entity.

If a man builds a web-site and pays for it himself, or through donations from others supporting his cause, it's quite noble; it's his effort, it's about what he cares about, it has meaning, a message - it has sanctity.

But if you go to that site and now it's not paid for by that man or donations, but by adverts, how can you then feel the same? for that man seems by his actions to no longer be so committed to his cause - it's easy, cheap even, to just throw the adverts on and watch the money come in. And the site itself certainly suffers directly, for the message, the meaning - perhaps it's human rights - is now flanked by adverts for fluffy toys and books and DVDs. The adverts tell you that the main message of the site isn't that important after all, that you shouldn't take is seriously, because while you're reading about murder and rape, you're also being asked (by their very presence) to read about the latest movie or book.

The two messages are incompatable. You cannot have a message about human rights along with a message about the latest movie in the cinema.

The medium is the message; and when the medium comes with adverts, all the messages are somewhat prostituted.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Achoi77]

I would say the vast majority of science has come about through the work of people who are deeply rooted in the real world for the purpose of solving the real world problems they came across.

Wikipedia is not designed to solve problems, it's primary goal is to share the knowledge of the world, with the world with NPOV in mind. While there is huge potential for marketability, you run into the very real possibility that by doing so compromises key objective to share knowledge in a neutral fashion, dollars start to dictate what is appropriate or not. The soft drink article that has ads by cocacola and pepsi start to lose parts of the article that put critisisms on soda(not because wikipedia sold itself out, but because CocaCola and Pepsi marketing decided to log in and change it, now having vested interested in the page itself), for example.

usefulness can be a real subjective word. IMO I don't think wikipedia would be classified as being 'useful,' but I go to it every day to find out more stuff about things I haven't even thought about. How would you be able to translate that into dollars? moreover how would you be able to translate that into 'helping the real world?'

Re:Advertising profanes

[Mr. Slippery]

In this case Wikipedia has the opportunity to raise very large amounts of money in a manner which need not interfere at all with their current operation

Of course accepting advertising would interfere with their current operation. It immediately opens the door to pressure from advertisers to change the rules in their favor, or worse yet puts pressue on Wikipedia itself to be advertiser-friendly.

Advertising is not just free money; it's money in return for favors. You can't claim to be an objective source of information if you've shown that your favors can be bought.

Re:Advertising profanes

[CmdrGravy]

This is in answer to both the above posts.

Wikipedia is not new knowledge, its a repository for the knowledge of many people and is an impressive collabarative document but it does have monetary value and it would be a shame if that value is not realised especially when it can be interesting projects or to help Wikpedia its self. I notice at the moment they are asking for donations which they wouldn't have to do if they could leverage their value to advertisers successfully.

Regarding the other points about everything being ready made and universities tailoring student courses to help the students do well when they finish their courses.

Clearly everything isn't ready made now, cars don't magically appear from the ground and animals don't farm themselves. People studying engineering or agriculture will probably tell you exactly how these products come about.

It seems to me to be a good thing that universities prepare their students for life after their courses, I can't see why you'd have a problem with that !

Re:Advertising profanes

[Blakey Rat]

The Wikipedia is not merely a collection of web-pages and a server. It is an ethos, a belief, an emotional experience.

You are right to say in the pure technical sense advertising will make no difference. The web-pages will still be editable, etc.

But in the human sense, our perception of the Wikipedia - that will change.

Wow. You usually don't see utter BS of that level on Slashdot. Or, for that matter, the word "ethos" outside of a Starbucks. Congratulations!

Re:Advertising profanes

[epine]

Whatever it is used for it will represent money being spent on useful projects that would not otherwise take place or have money spent on them.

Ah yes, in the real world, there is this thing called the money tree, where a dollar earned by Wikipedia can also be spent as if Wikipedia had not earned it, so that every dollar spent by Wikipedia was in effect raked up fresh off the money lawn.

Money is not an intrinsic good, and not even economists delude themselves into thinking it is. There is no certainty whatsoever that the Wikimedia Foundation would prove to be any good at directing largish sums of money to beneficial causes. If they put up many millions of dollars to hire a bunch of really smart people who end up failing at the task put forward (consider all the good intentions of the IMF and the WHO or the rampant corruption of the IOC), then that represents an opportunity cost in the caliber of work those same individuals might have produced employed at better objectives.

Nor is it clear that if the Wikipedia Foundation reconfigured itself with money-righteous talent, that it wouldn't lose the magic that has brought it this far. Finally, it has never been demonstrated that advertising itself is not intrinsically a negative sum game, driving environmentally destructive consumption in a global orgy of trash the commons. But hey, if you show me your solution to the Nash equations convering all actions of all participants and the flow of all dollars, I could be persuaded that money is a socially progressive force--if that is what the equations decree.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

It may be that you're right, and I'm talking rubbish - in which case, why the insults?

If I was simply factually wrong, then you could just tell me. But that's not what happened - what happened was you flamed me.

Your response doesn't actually equate to what I wrote, what actually happened; something else is going on.

I think the thing is, people get nasty when they *want* something to be wrong, when their feelings, their *beliefs* are involved. I could be wrong, but I think you believe that all this stuff about ethos is utter crap - you can't prove it, it's not like math, but you believe it. And so, now, that belief has been challanged, and your belief is threatened, and you've basically lashed out in response.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Kelbear]

I don't think anybody prefers paid advertising on Wikipedia over free donations. What is being talked about is whether or not Wikipedia should exist at all if free donations fail to meet Wikipedia's growing belt.

If it doesn't get enough free donations it stops working. Then it should just die? I'd prefer an advertising wikipedia over no wikipedia at all, and would prefer a donation-run wikipedia over an advertising wikipedia.

As for a multi-national government-subsidized wikipedia, that's not all that different from the problems with an advertising wikipedia, just on a different scale.

Make it a religion if you want, believe in it all you like, but Wikipedia still needs money to run and won't be fueled on belief and truthiness like some other religions. Just keep donating and your reasons for doing it end up irrelevant. Just get Wikipedia the money in the end, it's too good to lose.

Re:Advertising profanes

[christurkel]

Want to see Wikipedia with ads? Go to answers.com. They mirror Wikipedia plus ads.

Re:Advertising profanes

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Advertising inherently trivialises its surroundings.

Bill Hicks was right. Eventually they will use pictures of naked women in ecstasy to sell coke. Hell, Yves Saint-Laurent already did it to sell perfume. It's just a more obvious example of how advertising cheapens even the most intimate human actions in a frantic effort to grasp our attentions.

Are we expected to endure assault on our senses from the marketing legions while trying to actually learn something? Are we suppoed to be insulted by banner after banner of plastic smiles and carefully chosen headlines. Why don't they just shove up some flashing hit the monkey ads and have done with it.

Wikipedia advertises, Wikipedia dies.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

> Do you really feel that a normal person viewing Wiki would somehow give less credence to an
> article because of an add? Really? Are you sure? Does an add for say Coke or Ford somehow make
> an article on say the history of hamburgers less credible?

That's not quite what the problem is.

Let me give you an analogy which I hope will illustrate the matter.

Consider news on television.

News on television is a half-hour programme. That half-hour is broken up into one or two minute slots, each of which carries a seperate story, with sport and weather at the end.

What sort of news comes in these one and two minute slots?

Well, some of the news is very serious; wars, famine, death, injustice. Some of it is significant but not horrific, such as information on the state of the economy or interest rates or traffic problems. Some of it is lightweight; pleasent human interest stories.

The problem is that the juxtaposition of these different classes of story instrinsically debases the serious news.

You can't watch atwo minute slot about a human rights atrocity and then watch a one minute slot about a nice old granny without being *told*, by the very act of following such a serious story with something so frippant, that the serious story is *not to be taken seriously*.

The very structure of the news tells us not to take it seriously - even more so when you consider the news will then be followed by a comedy, or an engaging film, or a soap...all entertainment, distraction, amusement.

This is what I mean about the medium being the message.

In a similar vein, putting adverts next to the Wiki tells you; this isn't so serious. It's a bit of a game. Look - the latest movie!

Re:Advertising profanes

[Toby The Economist]

Bill I think was right, but it's for a particular reason, which is the nature of television.

Television is, above all things, *brief*.

Adverts are 30 seconds long - 60 seconds is long!

How can you communicate effectively in 30 seconds? what messages can you transmit? certainly, there is no time for reasoning, rational, explanations, or thought. All there is time for is an *impression*, an *emotional experience*.

You can like adverts, or you can dislike them, but you cannot *agree* or *disagree* with them, because there is nothing in them to agree or disagree *with*. There is no propositional content. Consider a MacDonalds advert - happy kids, bright colours, smiley clown.

You might like this, you might dislike it - but can you disagree with it?

Advertisers have to communicate with us in the briefest of moments, using the most profound impressions available to them - and that, of course, means that sex.

Sex is instantly understood, does not require thought or consideration, and is strongly attractive.

Sex sells.

And it sells because television is the prime medium of communication in our society.

Re:Advertising profanes

[secretasiandan]

Engineers will be able to tell you how they work and how they are built, but not how they come about as products.

Entrepreneurs, marketers and the like can tell you how products are conceived and positioned

Re:Advertising profanes

[thegnu]

Well, an empty space. I block adverts.

I block known malicious ad servers and pop ups via hosts, but the ethics of blocking all ads is questionable/debatable. Are you willing to pay for access to info? Because otherwise, somebody's got to be covering costs. I hate ad farm adverts, though.

You're talking about a *justification for doing this*, e.g. the cost is worth the benefit.

More or less. I'm showing that NBA player vs Doctor is not always as simple as that. I'm merely, in this case, suggesting we not shoot a pay-per-view horse in the face before you inspect its teeth, to maul an otherwise inapplicable saying.

Something I left out of my previous post was that it may well be advisable that no ads appear on any entry pages (pages providing "objective" information), only on listings and search results. And at the bottom, not at the top. And have text denoting the ads that won't blend in with the background on poorly balanced monitors. Etc, etc.

So why move on to advertising when it carries a cost to the very character, the essense, of the Wiki?

I just advise against well-seasoned reactionary policy. Not saying you're wrong. Your sentence slips right past the premise that advertising by its definition will cost the character of the Wiki, though, and while I don't disagree that perversion by advertising is the overwhelming trend, that one baby/bathwater metaphor would totally apply right here.

I feel kind of like a douche, because I'm arguing the famous I-Have-No-Opinion opinion. But hey, /.ers can't be choosers.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Blakey Rat]

I'm just amazed at your lack of perspective. Wikipedia is just a database with an interesting editable front-end running on a bunch of servers somewhere. That's all. There's no more reason to have an emotional attachment to Wikipedia than there is to have an emotional attachment to your DNS server, or for that matter, your car. Hell, I even think it's stupid to have an emotional attachment to (for instance) World of Warcraft characters... and they at least look and move like people.

Why the insults? Well, I thought it was funny-- especially the Starbucks line-- and frankly, that's good enough for me.

Re:Advertising profanes

[mauddib~]

It is funny? How do you consider people reading your comments will take it? I personally found it a very simple line of thought, representing exactly that which we are so opposed against. Wikipedia might be a simple database with an editable front-end technically, but just as a painting is nothing more than a piece of linnen with some dried paint on top of it, it can contain a certain emotional value. Or an intellectial value, for that matter. But, I assume you are just flaming right now and that all of this is completely clear to you.

The beauty of Wikipedia in my judgement is in it's continuous progress, it's historical charisteristics. Just consider how a source such as this might evolve over hundreds of years! It could prove to be an invaluable piece of research material, would it be kept for our descendants. Keep in mind that it not only shows 'the truth', but also our current view of loads of different subjects. Moreover, here we see the views not only from the self-proclaimed 'experts' but also from normal everyday citizens.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Blakey Rat]

The beauty of Wikipedia in my judgement is in it's continuous progress, it's historical charisteristics. Just consider how a source such as this might evolve over hundreds of years!

Yeah, there could be thousands of 10-page articles about individual Pokemon and other anime characters by then! Hell, in hundreds of years, it might even have a list of Homer Simpson's jobs! (Oh wait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Homer_Simpson 's_jobs )

Re:Advertising profanes

[AxelBoldt]

Certainly monks and other such selfless people have contributed alot to science

Selfless people like that have contributed a lot to Wikipedia. You don't want to scare them away.

The real world includes things like money, advertising and probably many other things you may consider to be corrupting or evil but it is often because of and not in spite of these facets of society that progress and learning advance.

Wikipedia certainly shows that there are extremely important exceptions to this statement (for which you fail to provide any evidence), and maybe Wikipedia's most important contribution is precisely to disprove this little rule of yours.

Re:Advertising profanes

[AxelBoldt]

Wiki is consuming resources whether it being disk space or electricity to run. How are those bills being paid? Please think about the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation is that it is laughably cheap to run Wikipedia, and that the Foundation gets much more money than it needs through donations. Read the financial report linked at the top of every Wikipedia page. Even before they started the current drive, they had $500,000 cash in the bank, and they took in about $30,000 in donations every month, just by sitting there. Compare it to their expenses and you will see that they are doing just fine, thank you. That's the reality of the situation.

Re:Advertising profanes

[Threni]

It sounds pretentious, rather than religious, but perhaps English isn't your first language. If a collection of webpages contains useful information, then the amount of information is not reduced because of the adjacent appearance of advertising; at least, that's my understanding of Information Theory. I couldn't tell you if it `becomes profane` or `loses its sanctity` because that's obviously just an opinion rather than anything tangible.

Re:Advertising profanes

[mauddib~]

On reply to 'Wikipedia is not new knowledge'. Agreed, only a person posseses knowledge, but the collaboration does add new structure and is therefor valuable. With the application of knowledge and the cross-pollination of different branches, in combination with the free accessibility, its educational possibilities are endless. To ask for donations shows a true indication of the worth of the material without entangling oneself into obligations one might not be able te keep in a long term.

Ofcourse, there is still alot of research being done, but it is too easy to forget about our fundamentals. A university student should be trained to think outside of the box and, although I might be mistaken, just this process seems to be censored in an increased manner.

Ofcourse, universities are obliged to prepare their students for life after study. Nonetheless, the question oneself should ask is: what life will that be?

Re:Advertising profanes

[CmdrGravy]

Selfless people like that have contributed a lot to Wikipedia. You don't want to scare them away. People aren't really being selfless when they contribute to a Wiki, they are doing it because they think the information they can provide will be useful to other people but also because they believe this will encourage other people to do the same and thus benefit them and because it gives them credibility and satisfaction to contribute knowledge which other people appreciate.

I certainly don't believe the majority of people are contributing to Wikipedia simply because they admire it's policy on not allowing advertisments but I do believe some people are scared that by changing the way things have been done up until now they will not maintain the same level control as they enjoy now.

Wikipedia is already doing a very credible job compared to its competitors in the marketplace and it could do an awful lot better if it had more money to improve its self. Using advertisments to generate income for this purpose could work and it could work without destroying any of the unique aspects of the Wikipedia but these changes need to be embraced and managed effectively by the community and I believe peoples resistance to advertisments is less of a moral outrage at the prospect of the Wikipedia being sullied by advertisements than concern that they cannot manage to use the opportunity of the extra revenue from the adverts sucessfully. This attitude is probably destructive and if prevalent will stunt what could be a marvelous resource and a credit to all it's contributors.

Re: Advertising profanes

[gidds]

when advertising dollars begin to dictate the direction of wikipedia

And that can be much more subtle than advertisers saying "Don't show that or we'll stop paying you", because that's easy to understand and guard against. Where it really starts to compromise Wikipedia's integrity is when editors tweak articles because they think a certain wording looks 'more professional' and more likely to draw advertisers. That bias is unlikely to be deliberate; in most cases it'll be unconscious, which makes it much much much harder to fight, and much more pernicious.

BTW, my impression (from visits, movies, &c) is that advertising in the USA is much more aggressive, and much more ubiquitous than places such as here in the UK. Does anyone else find that, and if so, have any idea why? Do we have better safeguards in place, or is it just the worship of the Almighty Buck?

Sounds good

[Digital Vomit]

Sounds like a good idea. Just have a small, text link called "view associated advertisements" on the lower-right corner of every page in Wikipedia that leads to a page with the ads. That way, people who want to see the ads can easily view them and the people who don't want to see the ads just have to ignore a small, out-of-the-way text link. It's win-win!

Re:Sounds good

[mattpointblank]

But... who wants to see ads?

Even if I was browsing an article for something I was interested in (say, a literary topic), I'd much rather hit up Amazon or whoever my trusted bookseller is, than click a random ad.

Re:Sounds good

[Achoi77]

you could start entering the real of marketers tailoring the wiki article to suit consumer driven needs. For example: let's say Coke and Pepsi have ads on the article regarding soft drinks. Slowly, over time you see certain aspects of the article keep getting deleted, noticably

'Studies showing a correlation between soft drinks and obesity'

'Soft drinks linked to weight gain and type 2 diabetes'

While these articles can never be completely removed, it's a total PITA for volunteers to be looking after vandals and monitoring them, whom are getting paid by these companies to stay evermore vigilant.

Re:Sounds good

[RealGrouchy]

you could start entering the real of marketers tailoring the wiki article to suit consumer driven needs.

And what, exactly, stops them from doing this now? (viz. [[Primerica]])

- RG>

Re:Sounds good

[Achoi77]

that they don't have money already invested in associations with their visibility of their ads. Sure they can do it now, but the minute someone's dollar -and job- is on the line, someone is going to step in to protect their own welfare.

great idea

[macadamia_harold]

But there's a strong case that Wikipedia should run advertising. The funds raised could support dozens of Firefox-scale free knowledge and free software projects, outspending all but the wealthiest foundations.

That's a great idea. Because according to wikipedia, the number of free knowledge and free software projects has tripled in the last six months.

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they have! It is a well known fact that elephants are huge contributors to the free knowledge community...

Embed the Ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

On EasterProducts Easter Island there are large statues. You can find discount pottery on http://www.discountpottery/. The local population did find themselves without trees, but if they had www.PlantTrees4yourIsland.com, they would have survived.

It's a Trap!

[TheNinjaroach]

What happens when big funding starts to demand what can and can't be placed into articles? "We're sorry, Wikipedia, but I'm going to need you to remove this, that and the other fact from the article because it might turn away our potential customers."

Re:It's a Trap!

[heroofhyr]

I look forward to having advertisers put their two cents into articles. It's a community encyclopedia, right? That community presumably includes people who work in advertising. And at last I can finish my thesis on the atomic weight of Bolonium with free research tools.

Re:It's a Trap!

[strider44]

Can't they do that now? Sure, the edit wouldn't last very long but they can still do it.

Re:It's a Trap!

[Maximum Prophet]

That's the philosophy of Judo. Before you can knock something over, you must support it. Once Wikipedia is dependent on any source of funding, then that source has control over Wikipedia.

To counter this, Wiki could build in rules that disallow any one source to spend more than N dollars where N is a percent of the operating budget. (something like .1%) Then, no one source can take it's ball and bat and go home, stopping the ball game.

Of course, someone looking to exert control over the Wiki would create a zillion shell corporations, each start buying ads. Once Wikipedia is dependent on their funding, they can have the shell corps all act together to influence articles.

Re:It's a Trap!

[Deliveranc3]

Can Wikipedia be totally removed from trademark violation, copyright violation, etc. by NEVER becoming a corporate shill?

If Wikipedia can keep knowledge as it's only goal can't we find corporate attacks against it as inherently immoral.

Wikipedia is already catching flakk for the silly political maneuverings occuring there, and, while solutions are being proposed those solutions (republicans:reprehensible actions, democrats:scandals) might not be applicable for corporate entities.

Currently any company taking legal action to remove content from Wikipedia needs to prove (at least in my mind) that the content isn't true, with Wikipedia being used as a commercial and political force this is comming into question.

Re:It's a Trap!

[drinkypoo]

What happens when big funding starts to demand what can and can't be placed into articles? "We're sorry, Wikipedia, but I'm going to need you to remove this, that and the other fact from the article because it might turn away our potential customers."

Assuming that the issue is handled by people with integrity - I see no reason to believe it wouldn't be, given Wikipedia's history of having same - then the answer would be "We'll be sorry to lose your advertising dollars at the end of your contract." Wikipedia is one of the most valuable pieces of web real estate that there is. It has insanely high numbers of eyeballs pointed at it daily. Another advertiser will always be available to step into place.

Re:It's a Trap!

[zoeblade]

What happens when big funding starts to demand what can and can't be placed into articles? "We're sorry, Wikipedia, but I'm going to need you to remove this, that and the other fact from the article because it might turn away our potential customers."

Exactly! As the film The Corporation pointed out, that was exactly what happened with reporters for some Fox show - they uncovered a nasty truth about a corporation, and their boss fired them for refusing to lie to the public about it when it turned out that the corporation in question, Monsanto, had adverts on many of Fox's channels.

Re:It's a Trap!

[julesh]

What happens when big funding starts to demand what can and can't be placed into articles? "We're sorry, Wikipedia, but I'm going to need you to remove this, that and the other fact from the article because it might turn away our potential customers."

There's two possibilities:
1. The Wikimedia Foundation tells them that they don't control the content, and that wikipedia isn't censored, and either the advertiser relents or goes somewhere else.
2. They bend over backwards and implement content restrictions. At this point, because the content is free, we're perfectly able (and motivated enough) to fork the site and create an uncensored version. It would be incovenient, but I think it would be an unlikely scenario to start with.

will make for some interesting "Talk:" pages

[Odiumjunkie]

This advert is CLEARLY not NPOV. Can we get a citation on the shampoo making hair "glossy and full of bounce"? 84.28.125.19

WTF I USE IT AND IT MAKES MY HAIR GLOSSY 61.101.19.42

Hey no original research you nub 69.120.51.20

Do we having anything on "glossy and full of bounce" as opposed to just glossy? 84.28.125.19

OK HAVE REWRITTEN ARTICLE TO CLEAN UP, NOW "SHINY AND NATURALLY SOFT", NOT "GLOSSY AND FULL OF BOUNCE" 61.101.19.42

nominated for deletion, 01/02/07, not noteworthy enough 83.102.48.18

Re:will make for some interesting "Talk:" pages

[Anonymous Coward]

Buncha anonymous cowards.

Re:will make for some interesting "Talk:" pages

[lukateake]

The irony of the parent post cannot be overlooked. Thank you for the best metajoke of the day.

Re:will make for some interesting "Talk:" pages

[KBV]

SUPERDUPERMEGAFANTASTICSTRONG DELETE - Clearly breaks WP:NOT, WP:AD, WP:ASS, WP:DICK, WP:OP, WP:OR and WP:WTF! 79.102.154.74

Adblock

[SamSim]

If Wikipedia starts carrying advertising, then I, for one, will probably block it. I doubt I'm the only person thinking this, and for this I think it a factor worth considering.

Personally, I would prefer to see Wikipedia trimmed down in size to a level where it CAN still be supported by donations, ideally by raising the notability criteria. This would have the beneficial effect of reducing the amount of unattended never-to-be-filled stubs and increasing the level of user coverage on more central topics.

Re:Adblock

[imsabbel]

The only real way to "trim down" the requirements of wikipedia would be by cutting pageviews.

So why dont you just set a good example by stopping to use it?

Re:Adblock

[Anonymous Coward]

So why dont you just set a good example by stopping to use it?

Hey, great! If everybody did that, it'd be dirt cheap to host.

Re:Adblock

[Derek Pomery]

Oh, I'm sure that's not the *only* way...
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1218
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4947
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8419
Couldn't find a bug on it, but using mod_deflate would probably help too, and the deflate work could be pushed on to intermediate servers.

Thats the thing with wikipedia

[Swimport]

Some Wikipedians have objected to Virgin Unite's participation in the Wikimedia Foundation's fund drive, calling it adverising.

Thats the thing with Wikipedia, no matter what you do, some Wikipedians are going to disagree with it.

Re:Thats the thing with wikipedia

[Jugalator]

And that has little to do with Wikipedia and Wikipedians, but more to do with an organization with a large following. :-)

Re:Thats the thing with wikipedia

[RMH101]

I disagree with you

Re:Thats the thing with wikipedia

[recursiv]

Thats the thing with Wikipedia, no matter what you do, some Wikipedians are going to make up new words.

What is the problem with Ads?

[Val314]

Could someone explain the reasons for *not* having ads on Wikipedia?

A simple google ad doesnt do any harm. (or is there something I'm missing?)

Re:What is the problem with Ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about privacy concerns? Should google know what I'm looking up on wikipedia?

Re:What is the problem with Ads?

[NewWorldDan]

The concern is basically what happens when an organization starts to get involved in fundraising. Next thing you know, you've got someone in charge of fundraising. Their goal is to bring in as much revenue as possible. This goal will naturally tend to conflict with the core goals of the Wikipedia - making a simple and useful resource available, and keeping it uncluttered. It starts with google text ads, but then you're on the slippery slope and the next thing you know, there's a flash ad overlayed on the screen where you have to try and punch the monkey. Then the Wikipedia turns into the rest of the internet, people stop caring and go elsewhere. Those that stay on message and on target stick around much longer.

Re:What is the problem with Ads?

[Mr. Slippery]

Could someone explain the reasons for *not* having ads on Wikipedia?

Because you cannot consistently claim to have an objective and neutral point of view, while at the same time allowing people to place any content they want on your page in return for money.

I know that my local daily paper or local TV news is not going to be objective about any news involving the department stores and car dealers who buy lots of ad space. I know that my local alt-weekly would not be objective on a story about the phone sex industry, since its back pages are full of ads for the same. I know that NPR or ABC News will not be objective about any story involving agribusiness since it has a strong incentive not to piss off ADM.

Wikiproject No Ads

[jkloosterman]

The debate about ads on Wikipedia has gone on for quite such time. (The first major dispute involved a deal with answers.com) As a result of this, many Wikipedia contributers have formed a Wikiproject (a semi-organized group of Wikipedia editors) against them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject _no_ads To summarize this page, these editors think:

1. Wikipedia's philosophy is non-commercial
2. Ads put at risk Wikipedia's principle of Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
3. The information that constitutes Wikipedia is wealth for the community

There are fully three Wikipedians that state their support for advertising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_ who_think_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_should_use _advertising

Mesothelmia ?

[Rastignac]

Will we see a huge number of articles about "mesothelmia" and such high-paying-keywords ?? I hope not.

Against ads on wp. Here's why.

[Captain Perspicuous]

- Running ads makes you dependent. Once wikipedia writes something bad against an advertiser, this company might threaten to pull its ads, therefore putting editors in a dilemma: support the project or support the truth?
- Ads ad new privacy-problems (somebody else tracks what you have visited)
- Ads fight for your eyeballs. Beeing a distraction-free zone is a big plus for wikipedia, because it made it so enjoyable for the authors.
- Some ads try to dupe people into thinking they are seeing error-messages etc. Others blink and distract. Many many ads try to manipulate you. We should not give in to this.
- Hosting costs have come down a lot. The project can very much sustain itself by just relying on fund drives.

Just my opinion on it.

Re:Against ads on wp. Here's why.

[nostrad]

- Running ads makes you dependent. Once wikipedia writes something bad against an advertiser, this company might threaten to pull its ads, therefore putting editors in a dilemma: support the project or support the truth? In a way it does, but as I see it wikipedia could have a contract telling advertisers that such requests are not going to be met. After all, the truth is more important and ads will simply add money to help the cost of serving the pages. And looking at for instance google ads, some of those ads are shown in pages giving bad critic about the advertised product.

- Ads ad new privacy-problems (somebody else tracks what you have visited) True, even though I don't believe in privacy on the net anymore (that is, without proxies and such). For me at least, this is a minor issue.

- Ads fight for your eyeballs. Beeing a distraction-free zone is a big plus for wikipedia, because it made it so enjoyable for the authors. Something as simple as pure text ads are not really distracting, they use as much attention as the menubar already in place and would still give money.

- Some ads try to dupe people into thinking they are seeing error-messages etc. Others blink and distract. Many many ads try to manipulate you. We should not give in to this. Text ads don't have these problems. And besides, a project as big as wikipedia could find itself in the position where you're able to just say no to those truly deceptive ads, not every ad is trying to deceive you but you only tend to remember those that do.

- Hosting costs have come down a lot. The project can very much sustain itself by just relying on fund drives. Still, hosting is not free and money needs to come from somewhere. Being able to rely on fund drives is of course the best scenario but that might not always be possible.

Re:Against ads on wp. Here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once wikipedia writes something bad against an advertiser, this company might threaten to pull its ads, therefore putting editors in a dilemma: support the project or support the truth?

No advertiser is this blunt, such naked quid pro quo opens them up to breach of contract. It's the implied and unspoken threat of not renewing the contract that is the real killer. And it's not even specific advertisers regarding specific content, it's whole classes of advertisers that can't stand to be associated with anything controversial at all.

All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[dpbsmith]

The very fact that this idea is being discussed leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

In Wikipedia's early days there was a good deal of discussion about this very point, with some conspiracy-minded contributors fearing that Jimbo Wales would talk freedom, neutrality, and noncommercialism at the start and change the rules later in the game.

There are a number of precedents for this sort of bad-faith maneuver, one of the most notorious being CDDB, which happily accepted contributions of CD track names from thousands of volunteers who believed they were contributing to an open-source project; sneakily changed their software so that it add "stealth" copyright notices giving the rights to the information to the organization; then took it private and sold people's generous volunteer work and lined their own pockets with the money.

One of Wikipedia's cornerstones is the "neutral point of view" policy. This policy is a fragile and precious thing. Innumerable people are constantly leaning on it and chipping away at it in an effort to use Wikipedia for promotion. The only reason why NPOV works is that the core of Wikipedians truly accept that WIkipedia really is neutral, and are willing to enforce the policy.

If Wikipedia ever accepts paid advertising, I believe it will destabilize the fragile balance. Advertisements will most likely be targeted to appear on the same pages as relevant article. Many WIkipedia articles about commercial products contain substantial amounts of both praise and criticism. In its nature, this material is frequently in a somewhat dynamic state of flux, with competing editors wordsmithing things back and forth; at its best, a stable state is reached in which the editors on one side of an issue grudgingly acknowledge that the wording of the material on the other side is acceptable to them.

What happens when an advertiser notices that the related article contains material that has a different spin from its marketing communications? I think the delicate house of cards comes tumbling down, that's what. I don't see how anyone can ever build a "Chinese wall" between advertising and editorial when any advertiser can be an editor.

And once it becomes generally accepted that Wikipedia is no longer neutral, WIkipedia is dead. That will unleash a flood of self-promoting crap which old-time WIkipedians will be unable to hold back.

It will also piss off everyone who, like me, has made voluntary monetary contributions to Wikimedia almost every time they've launched one of their frequent pledge drives, in the belief, which will have been shown to be naïve, that Wikipedia was promised to be noncommercial.

Wikipedia can survive a reputation for occasional inaccuracy and for "fancruft." But if it is ever seen that Wikipedia articles are a practical avenue for promotion and advertising, or that they reflect the interests of advertisors, all Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men will never be able to put WIkipedia together again.

And all the old-time Wikipedians will say "We told you this was going to happen." And they'll be right.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are a number of precedents for this sort of bad-faith maneuver, one of the most notorious being CDDB, which happily accepted contributions of CD track names from thousands of volunteers who believed they were contributing to an open-source project; sneakily changed their software so that it add "stealth" copyright notices giving the rights to the information to the organization; then took it private and sold people's generous volunteer work and lined their own pockets with the money."

So when I make a transaction with Microsoft and take possession of an XBox, the Slashdot crowd thinks I should be able to do whatever I want with it BUT when I made a transaction with the owners of CDDB, they aren't allowed to do whatever they want with that data?

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[dup_account]

Actually I think this is going to become an issue with xbox-live (if it isn't already) with the new thing where you can create games and put them onto live. If MS finds a way to make more money than the original author on the games, how will that go over? Or if MS (or someone else) maybe releases the games on a disc.

Also, the point about CDDB isn't about what they can do with the data, it's about bait-and-switch. Asking people to contribute and then changing the rules after they have.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[Anonymous Coward]

CDDB offered all the submitted data up until the change under the same rules and restrictions - i.e. freely available. They changed the rules - but only on data submitted going forward. What's wrong with that?

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[UncleTogie]

You're probably younger and/or might not know your CDDB history.

I loved the CDDB concept, and am still annoyed at those weenies for selling out.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[swillden]

What happens when an advertiser notices that the related article contains material that has a different spin from its marketing communications? I think the delicate house of cards comes tumbling down, that's what. I don't see how anyone can ever build a "Chinese wall" between advertising and editorial when any advertiser can be an editor.

Which is different from the status quo how?

I don't see any problem with WP accepting advertising. I think it's perfectly feasible to tell prospective advertising customers that their dollars only give them permission to place a small advertisement on the page, do not give them any permission to alter the content of the page and, further, that if they are ever suspected of altering the page, their advertisement will be removed. If it can be proved that they altered the page, their money will not be refunded.

I think all of the concerns about advertisers exercising editorial influence are off the mark, as long as WP remains a non-profit organization, and as long as the WP administrators keep firmly in mind that if there aren't enough advertising revenues to cover WPs requirements, then donation drives will pick up the slack.

The only real potential problem I can see is if the presence of advertising deters people from putting in time to add or edit content. I'd start with a small trial to see how much effect placing advertisements on pages affects the rate at which those pages are edited.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[Anonymous Coward]

Younger? Fuck you. The data submitted before CDDB "sold out" (now who sounds younger - as if trying to make a profit is a sin), was still freely available. After the "sell out", users could choose to no longer submit data.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[Anonymous Coward]

The design of the XBox is still owned by Microsoft, however - in the CDDB case, it appears that the data became (c) CDDB instead of (c) Contributor X without any compensation.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[epine]

Why do we wish to conduct this experiment? The money can't be raised by better alternatives? Has that been demonstrated? Will the sum of money exceed the invisible cost of the many Wikipedia participants worrying about the outcome? How do you propose to measure this? What about the effort invested in combatting the general perception sure to ensue from this that Wikipedia is all about the revenue stream? Or all the energy wasted arguing about the money raised should later be spent (surely that never causes grief in human affairs) or the fracturing of the community if the process goes sour? The thing I hate most about money is the wake of absurdist reductionism that inevitably follows along in the wake. It's preposterous to suggest that a trial to see how much effect placing advertisements on pages affects the rate at which those pages are edited accounts for more than the first half coefficient in the larger equation whose linearity and rate of convergence remain unknown.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The design of the XBox is still owned by Microsoft, however - in the CDDB case, it appears that the data became (c) CDDB instead of (c) Contributor X without any compensation."

Yeah, you dumb fucking shithead. My point was that every asshole on Slashdot (you're not in that category - you're in the moron category) claims that once you buy an XBox you have every right to do whatever you want with it. Applying that principle to CDDB, CDDB has every right to do with the data what they want. Got it shit for brains?

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[swillden]

Why do we wish to conduct this experiment?

Because, as the article suggests, it seems quite likely that advertising revenue will not only meet but greatly exceed Wikipedia's requirements, enabling additional related projects to be funded.

The money can't be raised by better alternatives?

What alternatives? So far, the only alternative considered has been donations. That has indeed proven adequate to support WP, but it seems unlikely to provide much extra for doing other things.

What about the effort invested in combatting the general perception sure to ensue from this that Wikipedia is all about the revenue stream?

That seems simple enough to address. Next to each ad place a prominent link to Wikipedia's advertising policy, which explains why it's done, what the funds are used for, and which further links to pages clearly documenting all revenues received and how they are spent.

Complete openness is the best way to combat suspicion.

It's preposterous to suggest that a trial to see how much effect placing advertisements on pages affects the rate at which those pages are edited accounts for more than the first half coefficient in the larger equation whose linearity and rate of convergence remain unknown.

To what equation do you refer?

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have very well articulated some of the basic issues with advertising.

I think the delicate house of cards comes tumbling down, that's what. I don't see how anyone can ever build a "Chinese wall" between advertising and editorial when any advertiser can be an editor.

I would not worry so much about that. It think it's more likely the Wikimedia board would be influenced to change the rules on how Wikipedia operates. They would be influenced by non-other than lobbyists whose purpose is to change the rules in the advertiser's favor. The lobbyists' leverage will be money, and their rules will put restrictions on who can edit articles, when articles can be edited, who can vet articles for accuracy, etc.

Actually, I think Wikipedia is ripe for this already, but advertisements simply add a new avenue of influence.

Re:All Jimbo's horses and all Jimbo's men...

[Azul]

> What happens when an advertiser notices that the related article contains material that has a different spin from its marketing communications? [...] I don't see how anyone can ever build a "Chinese wall" between advertising and editorial when any advertiser can be an editor.

I fail to see why this would be any different from now, when a would-be-advertiser (ie. someone that would advertise on wikipedia if this were allowed) notices that an article contains material that has a different spin from what it would communicate in wikipedia (again, if advertisements were allowed). This would-be-advertiser can, right now, become an editor just as well.

I don't see how being able to pay to place an ad on wikipedia would make an advertiser more prone to place non-neutral information in an article about its products, I'd even be inclined to believe that the current situation of being unable to pay to place ads would make them even more prone to place non-neutral information, if any.

"outspending all but the wealthiest foundations."

[WiseMuse]

Is "outspending all but the wealthiest foundations" a good thing? I mean, how badly do the overseers need an open tab on the company credit card?

set up some business deals

[UnixSphere]

I'd bet Amazon or some other online bookstore would really love it if all the books and artists pages were linked to them so you can buy the books and/or music. I use it like that sometimes anyway, reading an article, see sources list, find the ISBN of the book, and head over to a book website like alibris or amazon. This could generate revenue for wikipedia. I just would hate if they had 'recommended' books or whatever as an advertisement, just simply link ISBN numbers to amazon or another website willing to pay wikipedia to be their sole source. Sort of how like Google pays Mozilla if we use the built-in search box, but google doesnt advertise it, it's just there for your convienience. Obviously not everything on wikipedia is a product or goods, but for the articles that are talking about products/good/books, wikipedia should try to create a business deal with them, a link to amazon if they have the product available. Probably need some new code but its not hard to implement.

Re:set up some business deals

[Half-pint HAL]

I'd bet Amazon or some other online bookstore would really love it if all the books and artists pages were linked to them so you can buy the books and/or music.

No! Bad dog! Sit!

Wikipedia is open. Monopoly is closed. Wikipedia cannot unhypocritically give someone a practical monopoly. I personally like my local bookshops and would not want an "open" project to end up "closing" my shops. Same goes for music. Also, wouldn't it create a conflict of interests regarding out-of-copyright works.

All in all, such a scheme would provide a clear commercial advantage to corporations with minimal practical benefit to wikipedia contributors. Not cool.

HAL.

Re:set up some business deals

[zesty42]

I was against the idea, but this idea has promise. Wikipedia wouldn't be advertising the books, because they are already referenced in the articles. Wikipedia would be selling links from content already on the site. I don't like the idea of sole source, there's no reason links couldn't be provided to more than one vendor. There could be a "where to get more info (adverts)" section below the unpaid "external links" section.

I do think that the adverts should be clearly labeled as such and that wikipedia's advertising policy and practices should be documented for anyone to review.

Re:set up some business deals

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia already has a Special:Booksources page for ISBNs. See this example.

Re:set up some business deals

[siwelwerd]

Along the same lines, why not just put a link to a page of retailers? Let anyone who wants pay a small fee to have their link added to an alphabetized list of retialers. E.g., you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP, and anyone who sells XP can pay for a link to their store to be put on a separate page of windows resellers.

Re:set up some business deals

[ggvaidya]

Right now, any text in the form 'ISBN {ISBN-number}' are turned into links to a special Book sources page, where you can find the book in local libraries, online databases, and online bookstores. It doesn't look like those links make Wikipedia any money, though. I wonder how many people will click through two pages to find the book they want to buy? And how much money Wikipedia can make off that?

Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[Half-pint HAL]

I personally find AdWords to be very obtrusive. AdWords commonly hijack your searches on the thinnest possible pretence of relevance. Does anyone remember Buy Steve Irwin dead on eBay"?

I'm still concerned by Google's monopoly and its ability to advertise itself above all others. Should Wikipedia be another battalion in Google's world-conquering army?

If we're talking about free content, what about the risk that Amazon et al use adwords to appear at the top of any page on any piece of classic literature, leading readers into buying the book rather than scrolling down to the link to the wikisource or Gutenburg text?

Finally, what about WikiPedia's many languages? These services don't carry ads in most of the minority regional languages, instead defaulting to the dominant majority language for the area (Catalan gives way to Spanish, Gaelic gives way to English, Breton gives way to French etc). Blanket application of a system such as AdWords across the site would break the integrity of the Catalan, Gaelic, Breton etc versions of the content.

HAL.

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[Andy_R]

I don't find AdWords obtrusive... well not since I added http://.googlesyndication.com/* to my adblock list.

If you don't like adverts, block them! I have no problem with Wikipedia taking ads, frankly, I'd find a blocked ad that I don't see far less intrusive than their constant begging for donations.

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[morgan_greywolf]

These services don't carry ads in most of the minority regional languages, instead defaulting to the dominant majority language for the area (Catalan gives way to Spanish, Gaelic gives way to English, Breton gives way to French etc). Blanket application of a system such as AdWords across the site would break the integrity of the Catalan, Gaelic, Breton etc versions of the content.

It seems like the only problem would be that the AdWords wouldn't trigger the correct ads, which would really only hurt Google. Which might make it in Google's best interests to begin offering AdWords in minority languages. That's good or bad depending...

But I don't think it would be a huge issue for the speakers of those languages at all.

Besides, with Firefox+Adblock Plus, I hardly see adverts at all anymore.

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[benzapp]

These services don't carry ads in most of the minority regional languages, instead defaulting to the dominant majority language for the area (Catalan gives way to Spanish, Gaelic gives way to English, Breton gives way to French etc).

Ahh one of those. I hate to inform you, but the Second Republic was extremely proficient at eliminating any native gaelic dialect in France. Breton as a language is for all intents and purposes extinct, although academics infatuated with global balkanization certainly try to revive it.

As well, the Irish refer to their language as Irish, not gaelic. As for Catalonia, I hope the Spanish level that region to the ground.

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[chris_mahan]

> As for Catalonia, I hope the Spanish level that region to the ground.

That's Nice.*

* In a "Fuck You" kind of way. Have a child or two. You won't be talking about leveling anything after that. Grow up to the responsible adult you think yourself to be.

(Yes, I am new here. Not.)

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[Tazz_ben]

I think the real reason why we should be concerned about advertising in wikipedia is influence not obtrusiveness. The reason why many people, myself included, may have problems with major media outlets is because we feel that they are influenced by powerful large companies that can bring or take millions of dollars. With adwords, you don't have that problem. You have a large number of advertisers that have disparate interests. I would be far more concerned if google or apple "sponsored" wikipedia without ads, even though I think very highly of both those companies, because there may come a time where they want something in return.

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[sheepcentral]

I can certainly see where you're coming from. I expect that putting advertising on the English Wikipedia would probably come close to covering the funding for all the Wikipedias, and if not add adverts to the other top 5 Wikipedias (German, French, Polish and Japanese), if they still want more money then just extend it to the other major languages. The server costs for the minority languages would be minimal and I tihnk could easily be carried through on advertising revenue from the other Wikipedias and/or donations. Remember if you don't like it then you can always fork it.

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[dave1g]

Wikipedia is not a corporation with a single point of failure at the CEO selling out to the highest bidder. Wikipedia is us, the editors. We provide the content with almost no control except those in the wikipedia charter about NPOV and such. If Wikipedia were to somehow change the rules then anyone could start a competing version. With the exact same content with or without the ads.

Re:Are AdWords unobtrusive?

[Half-pint HAL]

As well, the Irish refer to their language as Irish, not gaelic.

Yes, they do.

And us Scots refer to our language as Gaelic.

Mòran taing airson do bheachdan,

HAL.

Don't get Gracenoted !

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, if a lot of money comes in, this tends to attract certain people that want to make a good profit of that money...

Advertising is just part of our world

[dpbsmith]

Advertising has not always been "just part of our world." Do you think Consumer Reports should be forcibly compelled to accept advertising? Do you think they have a valid reason for not accepting it?

In the early 1900s, one could have said "Child labor has always been just part of our world," or "Fraudulent patent medicines have always been just part of our world," or "The six-day work week has always been just part of our world." That doesn't mean they were beyond criticism. Or that they should properly permeate all of our world.

Alexander Pope said "Whatever is, is right." Pangloss said "Everything's for the best in this best of all possible worlds." I say they were both full of it.

If Wikipedia had spent it's donations correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia has seriously changed. In 2004 Wikipedia was generally a great resource and I enthusiastially contriubted. 2005 seen a lot of great contributors leave under the growth. Ever since Wikipedia has hit 1.5 Million articles the project has started to reach bursting point. A lot of good articles have been eradicated under the "notability" reigime. Many old deletion wars have been had and many great articles agrued for over the old vfd style system for could easily be nuked under prod and csd.

The truth is that Jimbo Wales and their merry gang has misled the public and that Wikipedia has become an absolute shambles. There are plenty of "Featured" articles about geeky RPGs for example, but hardly any meatier articles.

Weird Al was right, Wikipedia is just an attempt by "white and nerdies" to "bowl with the gangters".

Wikipedia is currently running on alpha version code. The vandals have had a field day exploiting them (Many main pages were covered in Willy on Wheels pictures today).

The dream of making a complete resource of knowledge has been ruined by the very same interests who make it hard for us to run Linux on our toasters and on our grandmas dell.

I have no sympathy for Wikipedia anymore. I encourage all Slashdotters to invest in real encyclopedias. Encarta 2007 is good, and you can usually get encyclopaedias cheap off of magazines. Don't forget your library or educational institution has access to real encyclopaedias.

Saddam Hussein would of vandalized Wikipedia if he didn't vandalize a country.

Power Corrupts

[CropCircleSystems]

and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

With great power comes great responsibility.

n'all dat

Means the end.

[EinZweiDrei]

If Wikipedia's maintaining corporate objectivity means its ultimate failure or stagnation, I will go down with the ship in a heartbeat.

Re:Means the end.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

If Wikipedia's maintaining corporate objectivity means its ultimate failure or stagnation, I will go down with the ship in a heartbeat. That moved me. Kind of like the musicians of the Titanic, who kept playing as the ship sunk.

Re:Means the end.

[Anonymous Coward]

you and i and many others

Non-issue

[shirizaki]

If I'm reading an article about the peleponesiam war, I sure would like some other books that are about the war or related articles. There's no reason to fear adverts....just yet. Maybe it'll work like amazon's recommendations: based on what you searched it will show relevant ads. If it notices you searching for medical related terms about breast feeding, it might show books related to the social impact of breast feeding in public, the nutritional benefits, and other materials.

Re:Non-issue

[djasbestos]

One could just search for things on Google, Amazon, B&N, etc...I'd rather not be spammed with such rubbish. I find it as annoying as the concept of upselling at fast food joints (and other stores, less so).

I don't think Virgin's support of a pledge drive is so much advertising, but even as "non-invasive" as it is, I find Google Ads to be quite an eyesore. I don't go to Wikipedia looking to buy something, I go there for knowledge (regardless of how reliable one considers it to be). If they need more money, such a fund drive is a good idea. I mean, look how fast it's been going up...you don't need Virgin's name on there to achieve that effect. I honestly should contribute given how often I visit the site.

Re:Non-issue

[wiredlogic]

Wikipedia already has a way to make links to books by their ISBN number. This supports their policy of requiring refeences.

This is really a no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who opposes the idea of advertising on wikipedia should ask himself the following question (better yet: we should ask them): "would you care to donate some bucks for wikipedia?". And not just the idea, no, if the answer is yes then kindly pull out your creditcard and/or pull up paypall now.

If the answer is no then please be carefull with what you're saying. Naturally everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but if you oppose the whole idea yet also don't care as much that you'd be willing to make a financial donation then what else is left to do for wikipedia? I'm not very comfortable with the idea myself but thats about it. I don't think its my place to criticize simply because my wikipedia use is limited to skimming the site or pulling up a few pages every now and then.

You're kidding me, right?

[Antony-Kyre]

You do realize that if there are advertisements on Wikipedia, it will be no different than those sites that are copying Wikipedia? By this I mean all those sites that ripped info from Wikipedia, you can see it in a Google search.

Asking for money isn't the same as selling advertising space.

There is probably a third option that we don't realize yet.

Re:You're kidding me, right?

[wiredlogic]

By this I mean all those sites that ripped info from Wikipedia, you can see it in a Google search.

Those sites are allowed to exist under the terms of Wikipedia's licensing. They willingly give out their database to anyone who wants to pay for the media.

Re:You're kidding me, right?

[Antony-Kyre]

I'm saying if Wikipedia starts putting advertisements on their site, it won't be much different from the rest of the encyclopedic sites on the Internet. Wikipedia is unique, and I hope they don't sell out.

please no

[freg]

It's an open encyclopedia, not a commercial magazine. Ads will be sorely out of place. The fund drive going on now is proof that support can be raised to continue operations and maybe do even more without the use of ads. Please don't let this final unadulterated piece of web real estate be sacrificed to over-capitalism.

NO!!!

[Veetox]

As far as the fund-raising bar at the top is concerned, I think it's a good idea: the "[mentioned organization] will match today's donations" bit is a good way to raise funds. But as far as other advertising is concerned, I think we should answer with a resounding "NO!" Wikipedia doesn't need to fund a complex bureaucracy - public members are bureaucracy enough. Anything more would render Wikipedia FUBAR, as would special interest customers of advertising space. Besides, we have enough trouble with companies like Wal-Mart http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/13 31232 (http://slashdot.org/) screwing with Wikipedia; why do we want to invite more trouble. I don't think Wikipedia is "squandering" its web traffic; I think it's imparting knowledge in a way that surpasses almost all of our other educational endeavors. Well, that's what I think, anyway...

I don't really care...

[Anonymous Coward]

With Adblock I don't think that's going to be an issue for me...

Let the Wikipedia community decide

[lirazsiri]

With money comes politics, conflicts of interest and the threat of corruption, which may ruin the purity and goodwill of the volunteer community that contributes to Wikipedia - a priceless asset to humanity.

There are pros and cons, but if this decision is ever made, it has to be in the hands of the community that contributes to Wikipedia, as should decisions regarding how the money should be spent.

I would even propose that if possible, a fair way would be determined to quantify the contributions of different community members and allow those who contribute more value to Wikipedia to have more of a say in how that value is exploited by the Wikimedia foundation.

My Two Cents

[Slipgrid]

There's enough companies that profit from Wikimedia's existence. Think 6006. They have tons of money, and should donate. I donate enough time to *trying* to help the sorry shape of many of their articles (yes, they have many bad ones). I'm not going to spend any more time to do that is some company is benefiting from overt advertisements.

How to Vandalize Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a new devesating vandal technique which all ex-wikipedians should know.

1. Go to any page
2. Click edit this page
3. Scroll down to the bottom to the list of templates used
4. Open each template that is not protect in a new tab on your browser
5. Paste in lots of image code of your "favorite" picture (eg [[Image:Willys-Knight1920.jpg]]) into themplate.
6. Repeat for each tab.
7. Enjoy the multi-page vandalism
8. Repeat over multiple projects and wikis
9. Help Reclaim Wikimedia for the vandals.

Willy on Wheels, Pelican Shit, CPLOT and all other vandals unite to get revenge on the deletion of the so-called "Not-Notable" GNAA.

http://www.wikitruth.info/
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
http://www.wikipediareview.com/
http://www.gnaa.us/
http://willy.on.whee.ls/

Too late. Read any Wikipedia "articles" of late?

[blueZ3]

There are a good number of entries on Wikipedia that were written by the company in question, where the text reads like a corporate press release. The same is true for a number of entries about various products. I actually watch the dust-up over politicians re-writing their biographies with amusement, since corporations have been doing the same thing for far longer and to better effect.

The problem with an "Encyclopedia" that anyone can edit, frankly, is that anyone will. That means every coporate shill and fly-by-night operator has full rights to change things to say what they want it to say, delete unflattering information, etc. So long to the whole concept of NPOV, eh?

And for all the Wiki-philes out there, the "editors will eventually catch it" argument isn't going to fly. In April I edited a minor article to add an innocuous but incorrect fact. That entry is still there. No omniscient Wikipedia editor has deigned to fix it.

Why not let Google do searching?

[BluhDeBluh]

From what I'm aware, Google pay FireFox for linking to their search engine. Why don't Google (or one of their rivals) contribute some cash to Wikipedia in order for it to become the semi-official replacement for the god-awful Wikipedia search engine? They'd get Adwords stuff, positive publicity and they wouldn't lose much cash at all.

No blatant advertising, improve cashflow and company would get more ad revenue. Win/win.

The real problem: the volunteers hate it

[FooAtWFU]

The real problem with advertising on Wikipedia is that a nontrivial number of people would be extremely upset and stop editing it. What sort of people? Top contributors, editors, administrators. The Wikimedia foundation is wise to realize that despite the potential of earning tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from advertising, the sort of input they obtain from their volunteers is worth more than that.

At one point, the Spanish-language Wikipedia suffered a max exodus over what essentially boiled down to "the rumour of coming advertising" (poor translation in the dialog may have been a factor as well). It set that wiki's development back quite a ways.

Re:The real problem: the volunteers hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I think your estimates are a tad low. I would guess in the region of tens if not 100 million dollars per annum, since they're one of the biggest sites on the net, and have credibility.

Note: I am against ads on WP, luckily forking is an option.

Re:The real problem: the volunteers hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

"At one point, the Spanish-language Wikipedia suffered a max exodus"

Big deal.

Advertizing done RIGHT is not evil(TM)

[Danathar]

I've always thought that unobtrusive advertising that is pertinent to what I need is not a bad thing. Eudora and Opera both used it and as long as it's not IN YOUR FACE I don't mind.

Google's proves my point. Their ad system works.

It's when companies get greedy and stupid (like spam) that causes people to get mad

The only issue is that some may see it as a slippery slope, first google type ads, then pop-unders, then Gifs, etc.

Opt-in

[anss123]

As long as their not CPU hogging flash ads I'd opt-in on advertisements. Hey, it would give me a clear conscience for not donating.

Advertising on WIkipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct title of this post is "... Wikipedia". Both initial letters are capitalized due to technical restrictions.

A plague of spammers shall descend on ye

[ortholattice]

If ads appear on Wikipedia, you can bet that spamm^H^H^H^Hadvertisers will start making changes to pages, from subtle changes to attract their ads to a page to careful changes in a article's wording to put their ad in more favorable light. This already happens now by astroturfers of various sorts, such as those who add "External Links" that are really commercials, but you can be sure the problem will become far worse. It will become harder to detect and correct as advertisers become more sophisticated in order to protect and nourish their advertising investment, just as spammers continually innovate in getting email through spam blockers or bumping up their Google rating. The volunteer editors will be so overwhelmed with spam that "Articles for deletion" will become a joke, and the better editors - who want to see their labor directed towards producing new and better content, not fighting a losing battle against spam - may just give up in disgust and go on to more productive things in their lives. I wish it weren't so, but on the internet it seems that money attracts scum.

Idea for ad spec for Wikipedia

[foniksonik]

Rather than putting up ads on the pages like google adwords or worse yet, banners, etc. Provide sponsorship options for companies for certain entries... and be discreet about whom you let sponsor what.

The form of sponsorship would go something like this... "This entry supported by the good people at " Where the name is a link to a special page that company can create which would highlight their interest in the given topic and allow them to wax poetic about the virtues of the topic and how important it is for all people to understand given topic. More of a PSA than an advertisement.

The company would get a great PR campaign regarding their involvement in the development, study or support of said topic and the rest of us could find out more about the company. Each topic could have as many PSA ads as companies that are legitimately involved in the topic.

Wikipedia would get content control of the PSAs to keep out conflicts of interest... ie only truthful PSA info would be allowed though highlighting good deeds and ignoring bad would be acceptable.

Re:Idea for ad spec for Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah right

This Global Warming article was brought to you by Exxon - the caring company

This Fair Trade Coffee article was brought to you by Starbucks, empowering village communities

This Bush Family biography article was brought to you by the Carlisle Investment Group, reaching out to our global partners

and so on

sponsorship is possibly the worst way of funding in this case

Why not? Your news is already sponsored

[gelfling]

Not just online, but TV news is often created ny advertisers (think drug companies) and simply rebroadcast by the networks. Ever wonder why they always seem to have a new 'expert' on this or that? Because those people don't work for the network, they work for the sponsor. So in the end, it's not all that different from corporate 'infotainment' masquerading as news.

Likewise, Wiki can be sponsored by whomever and it will largely go unnoticed. We may not even care. If we start seeing articles about global warming sponsored by groups who will profit from it, then ok. It's not as if Wiki isn't already whipsawed by junk science or junk politics or whatnot.

Wikipedia's greatest asset: the ability to just go

[Denial93]

I don't support advertising on wikipedia.

The wiki is currently not an attractive target for legal action precisely because it could, in the worst case, just disintegrate at any time and be replaced using backup data, perhaps in a different country. Damage would be done, but the attacker wouldn't get a lot for his efforts. If the wiki had

• lots of money and
• financial obligations to advertisers that nailed it in place,

it would

• have assets worth making an attempt at and
• lack its most powerful means of defense, the hypothetical ability to just go away.

And I think we all agree there are a LOT of opportunities for lawsuits against the wiki, frivolous or otherwise. The sole reason it hasn't been litigated out of existence is that it doesn't have money to pay damages with, and can elect to shut down rather than accept any particular party's view of things.

On a more ideological note, I believe that to become financially dependent is exactly what makes - despite the best of intentions - dictatorships out of revolutions, churches out of spiritual movements and IP defenders out of open source authors, so who knows what it would make out of a free encyclopedia.

Advertisers

[n00854180t]

If advertisers were allowed to run rampant on Wikipedia, they'd likely also end up being able to alter entries on their companies without any backlash. The loss of any credibility is definitely not worth putting ads on WP.

google top result cookie

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like how the top result in a lot of searches on google tries to set a cookie for a website you haven't even surfed to yet! What's up with that nonsense?

Re:google top result cookie

[anotherone]

That's a FireFox thing iirc, it's "pre-fetching" search result pages just in case you decide to click them. There's a way to turn it off.

Re:Too late. Read any Wikipedia "articles" of late

[Dachannien]

So you vandalize Wikipedia and come here to brag about it, when all along you could have been part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem. Fantastic.

Educational distribution

[debrain]

I think Wikipedia should be a shared burden, in terms of cost for overhead such as bandwidth, between universities and other higher educational institutions. It is the very role of government and these higher educational institutions to see that knowledge is dispersed, correlating quite nicely with the objective of Wikipedia.

Universities have the funding, infrastructure, relative impartiality, purpose and incentive that imbues them not just with the ability, but with the obligation in my opinion, to support a global knowledge system such as Wikipedia.

I think advertising on Wikipedia is equivalent to advertising in a University classroom, and barred from the latter for the same reasons it should be barred from the prior.

Is a fork feasible?

[tfinniga]

Perhaps this is answered in a different post somewhere..
As far as I know, all the text of wikipedia is available under some free documentation license. If wikipedia were to start offering advertising or something, what would stop people from simply forking it? Make a site which aims for the current set of ideals, with the current body of documentation?

Ads as way to complement info

[gmuslera]

If im reading an article about some topic, and have attached to it a link to i.e. an authoritative book around that topic, there is some sinergy there.... both the article and the one putting the ad benefits from it.

In fact, the wikipedia articles have already links that could count as "ads", links to external sites, some of them commercial, that talk more about that page topic. What if that page have an ad to that site/page in a less plain way?

Im firmly opposed to generic/bulk ads. But some way to synergy between wikipedia articles and the commercial (or not) world that lives around those articles topics could be benefitial in the long term, if it improves articles content/correctness and gives some profit in return to finance the project or associated ones (of course, the terms to comply to put there ads would be different than in most ad sites, i.e. that the advertised site dont goes against what the article says).

I'd be all for it!

[jafac]

But ONLY if the advertisements were subject to the same standards and scrutiny for factualness and neutrality as the articles are.

Wouldn't you LOVE to see free and open discussion threads for each ad? No way for the advertiser to control the content or threaten to sue? I think that concept could catch on.

Re:I'd be all for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

"the same standards and scrutiny for factualness and neutrality as the articles"

In other words, at the mercy of whichever administrator happens to be most adept at advancing their own petty agenda without attracting too much attention to their abuse of power?

It's a foundation, you set up an endowment...

[alexhmit01]

You guys are so short-term oriented. Wikipedia is raising 1.5m to support themselves, hosting, etc. Let's assume that running the foundation with a decent endowment would cost $300k/year to run (administration, legal compliance, etc.), and the $1.5m they are raising now becomes an annualized cost (I'm sure it's not). If you assume that costs go up with inflation (which is a fault assumption, hosting costs and hardware costs come down), and we have $1.8m in annualized costs, you roughly need to raise 33x that amount so that the money would always be there... i.e. raise $100, invest in treasuries/CDs/etc paying 5% interest, take 3% of that interest and use it for operations, and take 2% to add to the principle, that covers a 2% annualized increase in costs, more than we should suffer when bandwidth+hosting in the main component).

Basically, how long would Wikipedia need to run ads to receive $60m? Set up the foundation that the money CAN ONLY be invested in treasuries, certificates of deposit, etc. (so nobody can see a foundation with $60m and try to steal it... happens all the time, non-profits attract the biggest derelicts because there is a lot of money and no profit-motive to keep people in check... you have to watch the people like hawks, but safeguards are possible). If you assume that Wikipedia could generate $1m/month in advertisement dollars (a conservative estimate), then you need to only run the ads for 5 years and you never need ads again.

If you figure that over the next 5 years, the text-ad market Google created/cornered (syndication, not PPC) will mature or even decline from "text ad blindness", that gives Wikipedia sufficient resources to build a self perpetuating base of human knowledge.

Otherwise you get annual fundraising campaigns.

OTOH, the fundraising helps make Wikipedia accountable to people that they are soliciting funds. And who knows that Wikipedia will have value 5, 10, 15, or 20 years from now... if Wikipedia disappears as a useful resource, there is a nice chunk of change sitting there for someone willing to put the time into corrupting the board and taking out "management fees".

Alex

Re:It's a foundation, you set up an endowment...

[Teancum]

the $1.5m they are raising now becomes an annualized cost (I'm sure it's not)

Unfortunately, it is now an annualized cost. If the WMF wants to keep up and be able to pay for the server farm and bandwidth requirements just for en.wikipedia at the current usage level of activity, this $1.5 million is necessary as an annual cost. By all estimates, Wikipedia is going to continue to grow even well beyond the current usage levels, and it will be very interesting to see just how far this whole project can grow before it starts to collapse under its own weight.

Frankly, I would not want to be on the board of trustees of the WMF at the moment, in terms of trying to project what the project costs are going to be next year and the year after that, and trying to worry about where all that money might just come from. Assuming that the ordinary users are going to fork out enough money to cover the tab just doesn't, from this perspective, seem to be even remotely possible. Trying to raise $5 million for the 2009 budget year seems in a current context as an impossible goal.

I will say, however, that I had some serious doubts that they would be able to raise even the current $900,000 that they have recieved in this latest round of fundraising, so I may be surprised. Considering just a little over two years ago they had some problems even trying to come up with $50,000, this is very remarkable.

On top of the bandwidth issues, there is now a group of vultures who are pounding on the WMF with a boatload of lawsuits and other BS crap that is unfortunately requiring a full time professional staff to deal with those external forces that also want to derail the various projects. Having employees is going to simply cost money, even if they are doing it at nearly volunteer wage rates.

Re:It's a foundation, you set up an endowment...

[bcrowell]

If WP is going to need $5 million in operating costs by 2009, maybe the question should be why its costs need to be so high. I think people are locked into the dotcom bubble mindset, where you keep growing like crazy in order to be the company that beats its competitors, survives the eventual shakeout, and ends up being in the S&P 500. Wikipedia isn't a dotcom business, it's a book -- a big book, but still just a book. There is no reason that it should cost $5 million dollars a year for a book to continue to exist. The quality of WP isn't even improving at this point. Frankly, the database could be made read-only for the next 12 months, and it would have absoutely no effect on quality. If you look at the typical article's edit history, there's no forward progress, just hundreds of edits that end up bringing it back to pretty much its original state.

A wiki is fundamentally a very, very expensive technology for distributing a book digitally. Remember, nearly all WP users never make an edit. It's nuts to be spending millions of dollars a year just to make sure that a casual, read-only user gets *today's* version of the article on Benjamin Franklin, rather than yesterday's (which wasn't any better or worse).

If costs are going nuts right now, the sane thing to do would be to switch to a different system of editing. For instance, we could take that article on Benjamin Franklin, freeze the publicly available in its current version for 12 months, and have a small group of people work on it offline during that time via a mailing list. At the end of that period, it could be thoroughly copyedited by people who know the difference between "its" and "it's," and what a dangling participle is. Then the new version could go live. As an added benefit, articles might start to rise above their current, stagnant level of quality. Not only would cpu costs be cut drastically, but since the content would be largely static, it should be possible to cut bandwidth costs a lot, simply through caching.

Of course this would run counter to the whole instant-gratification hook that got so many people interested in WP in the first place. But so what? The instant gratification ethos has taken WP as far as it's going to go.

Re:It's a foundation, you set up an endowment...

[alexhmit01]

My point is that you should be able to reasonably track costs, some are fixed, some are a O(log n) problem, some are an O(n) problem, and some are going to be O(n^2) or higher.

Administrative overhead: Largely fixed. The cost of running a reasonable sized non-profit doesn't increase (very much) with the size of the finance base. At a maximum, it increases at an O(log n) of the amount processed. Managing 1 million dollars/year growing to 10 million dollars/year should do much more than double the administrative costs, if it increases them at all.

Legal costs: this is going to be the worst, because it grows FASTER than the rate of content added. Because adding content deepens the site, pulls in more internal links, and grows the notice of the site. Also, with more money comes a bigger target. This is the worst of the costs, because even if it isn't high now, it's the O(n^2) problem.

Hosting costs: this scales at a lower rate than the traffic. The bandwidth scales linearly with traffic, as should CPU cycles. Their is a HUGE hit when you go from shared host -> dedicated host -> server farm, with costs increasing at each step, but once you hit server farm, which Wikipedia is at, the scaling is roughly linear. Doubling your traffic may double your server needs, but won't quadruple them once the fixed portion of dealing with replication and redundancy is resolved. In addition, CPU cycles get cheaper, memory gets cheaper, and bandwidth gets cheaper. So if your traffic doubles every 18 months, your hosting costs should be relatively constant, because the equipment/bandwidth gets cheaper at the same rate as your growth.

Now lets look at the revenue side:
Donations: this grows SLOWER than traffic, because the people and organizations willing to contribute are going to be disproportionately the early adopters. As you go through the adoption curve, the interest level is dropping off. This is why I believe that this is a HORRIBLE funding model.

Advertising: this scales FASTER than traffic... if you want it to. If you just stick up Google Adsense, it roughly scales linearly, but as your traffic increases, you are more likely to be able to get more lucrative options. As a major player, Google/Yahoo would no doubt compete for the contract, which would let Wikipedia grab close to 90% of the revenue, compared to the 50%-70% that appears to be standard for affiliate/advertising networks. In addition, if you are willing to put a sales force selling advertisements, as your traffic to relevant sections/pages grow, your opportunity to sell advertisement space at a premium grows. Ford Motor Company would be willing to pay a premium (through their ad agencies) to advertise on relevant pages, far more than shoot at the dark PPC campaigns indicate. HOWEVER, this style creates the appearance of conflict of interest. No matter HOW STRONG the firewall between advertising and content is, the perception is a problem, and the early adopters that are more likely to edit/volunteer seem to be the most conspiracy minded.

I believe that the best play for Wikipedia is a STRONG organizational division between finance, "sales," and content, with MASSIVE transparency into the process. The donation process will NOT scale for Wikipedia, and setting up a strong endowment while they are so popular makes sense. Similarly to a private company going public/selling the business at the top of their game, I would suggest that Wikipedia capitalize on their popularity to set themselves up for the next 15-25 years.

Will some people run away in the fear that their volunteer work is enriching others? No doubt. But the bigger risk right now is that without financial stability, Wikipedia is VERY vulnerable to systematic shocks. A financial judgement against them for $1m or more would no doubt collapse the enterprise, because donors are unlikely to contribute money to pay for a crap judgment, and then this knowledge-base is in trouble. I believe that with transparency, the fear that the site is going "commercial" can be minimized, while setting Wikipedia up for long term success.

Re:It's a foundation, you set up an endowment...

[Teancum]

In reference to the bandwidth requirements for displaying rather than editing a web page via wiki as opposed to a simple ordinary webserver, I think Wikipedia does a pretty good job for those who just casually browse (and hit hyperlinks) to the content.

There are two huge issues here, somewhat related:

1) Bandwidth demands even for those who are doing read-only access to Wikipedia are absolutely huge. The Wikimedia Foundation is buying network bandwidth at industrial rates, being essentially a secondary peer for the most part with much of what they offer. It is almost impossible to comprehend the sheer bandwidth it takes to serve everything, especially considering Wikipedia is now in the top 10 servers in the world by several standards.

2) The number of pages being served by Wikipedia alone are absolutely huge. The raw HTML for just English Wikipedia is close to 7 GB of data. That does include talk pages and user pages, so that number can be modified somewhat for raw content.

I'm not convinced that a mere mailing list would work with the volume of changes that happen to Wikipedia every day, even if you confine it to completed work-overs of articles by legitimate scholars interested in updating the content. And even then you would have to come up with a way to redistribute the changes to everybody interested in the "current revision" (presumably just the people who have made changes recently or want to make some changes).

There have been some alternative systems proposed, including some sort of P2P content distribution system that would allow you to access Wikipedia content and send updated articles to a central server. While technically possible, the software do get something like that going is hardly trivial. Although admittedly it may be possible to spend some of the current $1 million+ budget on perhaps some software developers to work on some of those alternative distribution systems.

There is an effort going right now among the major volunteer software developers with Wikipedia to develop a more static version that would only get updated once those contributing feel like the article is ready to be "published". The reasons for doing this are more for quality purposes than monitary cost, as the network bandwidth savings doesn't appear to be all that significant. I could be mistaken on this point, however.

Most of the CPU bandwidth is mainly conducting information traffic flow rather than performing actions on the behalf of editor/contributors. There is some "page assembly" stuff that happens (converting the Wiki-markup text to HTML, for example), it doesn't appear as though currently the CPU bandwidth is a killer issue.

The reason why I suggested about $5 million per year is in part due to potential growth of other Wikimedia sister projects, and the growth of non-english Wikipedias. Chinese Wikipedia, for example, could potentially grow substantially over its current usage patterns, as can several other major languages including Indonesian and languages of the Indian Sub-continent. I've watched both bandwidth usage and page growth, and both seem to show exponential curves even now, with no "flatening" in sight. It would be interesting to perform some regression analysis on the data, which you can find at http://stats.wikimedia.org/ (regularly updated too!)

Re:It's a foundation, you set up an endowment...

[Teancum]

Unfortunately, I don't think the administrative cost is necessarily as fixed as you imply. Yes, paying for singular things like the domain name and writing check out for the network bandwidth are comparatively trivial, but there is much more involved here. In addition to the rest of the issues that the Wikimedia Foundation is facing, they also now have a very substantial affiliate program (to use a term here that may be misleading) of national chapter associations that requires some substantial "staff" resources to work with.

The largest growth of this "administrative cost" that everybody is worried about is mainly the legal issues. It is precisely this point that lead Brad Patrick to be appointed as the "CEO" of the Wikimedia Foundation, as he is a full-time lawyer and mainly dealing with the legal problems of the WMF. There are several volunteer attorneys involved as well trying to take on the group of idiots who have now lead to a near constant barrage of pleas and complaints.

As for the rest of your reply here, I hope that you are correct that the additional resources will scale with the usage and donations to the WMF. If advertising is to be a source of revenue to keep all this going, it certainly is going to be a very tempting target if it isn't done.

Then again, PBS used to pride itself about being "commercial free", but has so much advertising of commercial products that I don't see how it even qualifies as a non-profit organization, except by congressional fiat that it is so. I don't think the WMF is going to be so lucky.

Re:They already are unreliable

[ajs]

Jimbo gets donations from a bunch of groups like CAIR, suddenly facts that are "not so complimentary" to Islam vanish from the Islam-related pages and editors who try to put them back start getting attacked.

There have ALWAYS been edit wars back-and-forth over every religion, and at some points in time there are "favorable" edit waves and sometimes "hostile" edit waves for certain sets of articles. It's a process, not a destination. I doubt that it had anything to do with any one group donating, though that group may have decided to look into Wikipedia's content becuase they were now involved, and may have brought a wave of positive edits to certain pages for a period of time. That's certainly happened before.

Jimbo gets donations from Virgin Unite (aka The Virgin Foundation) and their page suddenly becomes this big advertising page for their "charity."

This is not the problem you think it is. It happens whenever Wikipedia is the subject of a current event. Some people can't divorce their Wikipedia POV from their edits, and Wikipedia becomes the focus of too much article text. That almost always gets reverted quickly, and over time, the text becomes much more NPOV and much more in-line with policy.

The same thing happens every time. Either Jimbo gets a "donation" and someone magically has their wikipedia entr(ies) scrubbed squeaky clean, or someone threatens a lawsuit and they just remove the page entirely.

Please link to specific edit diffs, and cite examples.

Wikipedia's worth the toilet paper it's printed on, and not a penny more.

Wikipedia is both crap and the best reference work ever produced by human effort. There is simply nothing as comprehensive, and yet it will take decades for Wikipedia to reach a level of quality across most important topics that matches their aspirations. Then again, I've seen countless formerly featured articles stripped of that status as the bar has been raised in terms of sources and quality of writing, and the ones that do make it through are far, far better than ever before. So, I do think there's strong hope for a Wikipedia that's not only more comprehensive than anything else, but overall higher quality, but WP is brand new, when compared with every other major reference work. It will be a long time before it improves.

As for advertising, I think the biggest danger is not in specific, focused changes, but in an overall reluctance on the part of independant editors to "rock the boat" when dealing with a contributor... we'll see, but that's the biggest fear that I have.

mod parent up!

[pimpimpim]

Content=value.

Asking money for content you freely obtained=scam.

Re:mod parent up!

[ZachPruckowski]

The simple fact is that running a top 20 website is heinously expensive. Almost all of that money they make in the fundraiser will have to go right into buying more servers, especially specialized ones for things like searching or for replacing some of the slower database slaves. They could easily drop $50,000 on "servers we've needed for weeks" and still their IT guys would probably have a long list. And that's before they consider adding new features.

This Christmas...

[Anonymous Coward]

...my family donated a combined total of $40.00 to Wikipedia. I know its not a noteworthy sum, but if Wikipedia turns to advertising we will surely feel betrayed.

Ads for charity

[Skrapion]

Few people seem to be considering the benefits of using Wikipedia ads for charity. If Wikipedia remains a not-for-profit organization, they could fund sending printed encyclopaedias or laptops to children in developing countries. There's just so many charities Wikipedia could support with this money.

Here's a screenshot I mocked up. Would that really be so bad? Note that I included the [dismiss] link which Wikipedia currently uses to allow users to hide the pledge drive banner.

It's simple

[puppers]

Ads are a turnoff for contributors because they don't want to feel that the content they create is enriching advertisers. Of course, the byproduct of enriching these advertisers is that it helps Wikipedia. But the best thing about Wikipedia, as opposed to 99% of all other websites, is that it DOES NOT CONTAIN ADS. Advertising is the slipperiest, most insideous force out there - once you let it in it's over. Trust me, I work in advertising. I posted a comment on Digg originally about the fact that allowing advertising for Virgin Unite is simply brand advertising for Virgin, a company whose entire business model is based around a brand identity and very little else. It's a shame that they've managed to play Wikipedia and get 1000x more buzz out of it than they paid for. Good business move for them, bad for all of us. Wikipedia needs to be dogmatic about advertising I'm afraid.

Jason Calacanis interview

[furnk]

Jason Calacanis has a nice interview here. Very well thought out (ideas such as being able to turn ads off, or limiting the number of ads you see).

I'm still not sold. I know that most of the people on this site understand the difference between an ad and editorial content, but there are so many people who get confused, and advertisers always are looking for ways to covertly market to an audience.

I work at a newspaper. At least twice a month I get a call from a reader complaining about a "story" that turns out to be an ad. I'm not saying we should cater to the lowest common denominator, but we should at least recognize that the goal of every advertisement is to sell you something without making you feel like you've been sold on something.

what next?

[beefubermensch]

When will we stop... before every square inch of readable surface is covered in advertisement?

Ads are a degenerate form of human discourse in my opinion.

Would Wikipedia have reached the heights it has if they had advertised from day one? I tend to doubt it. So adding ads now is bait-and-switch. Bad news.

As for putting my money where my mouth is, I have been donating to Wikipedia since they've accepted donations.

I would love it if ad-based services like Google were opt-out. I would happily pay to get rid of the ads. I'd even pay what Google makes on them on average, even though they make far less (like zero) from me.

-Carl

This doesn't need to be a problem.

[raehl]

I will work for Wikipedia for a salary equal to the amount of advertising revenue. If we lose the revenue, you can just fire me, I'll be ok with it. Then the content will be saved!

Re:This doesn't need to be a problem.

[Oktober Sunset]

Except employment law doesn't allow that. I'm a volunteer leader in a caritable trust organisation and our legal advisers have told us we cannot create any kind of middle ground between an employee and a volunteer, we can't ask people to work for what we can afford. It's nothing or a full fixed wage, no middle ground.

Re:This doesn't need to be a problem.

[raehl]

Right, because I was totally serious there.

Holy dramamoli and moley holes.

[WWWWolf]

So what happened? This is what happened: There was a tiny little notice on Wikimedia fundraiser notice that Virgin United (+logo) will match the day's donations. People gave tons of money to Wikimedia. Virgin United paid tons of money to Wikimedia in turn.

Whatever happened to assuming good faith, not just in inter-editor relations but also in bigger scheme of things? The policy says "Assume other people aren't out there to get you and others, unless they actually are." That policy is also meant to be read "assume that The System isn't out there to get us all, unless they actually are."

Look at me. Here I am, naively assuming that Wikimedia Foundation is actually going to hold true to the principles that have already been agreed on, and that this was just an attempt - a successful one, seeing how the money meter jumped forward - to get some money. And a discreet one at that; it's not that they put a giant banner ad there. I sure as heck didn't see a notice on Administrator's Noticeboard that WMF or VU is going to dictate new policies. WMF does dictate policies, but they do take users in consideration; I'm trusting that they won't do a giant policy change without thinking it through and considering when and if it will piss off users.

What justification do I have for this naive assumption? Heck, I don't need a justification. I'm just trusting them. They haven't so far committed an incomprehensible crime against users. This particular move won't even register on any scale, has good intentions too, and if you evaluate it as an ad campaign, it's a profoundly ineffective one. Why the heck are people so worried?

The only thing this is going to change is that the "sponsors" of these fundraisers may be getting less "visibility" from now on...

(Warning: pseudo-intellectual random quotes) I'm assuming the WMF fears the Users, as it should be. The Users, I've seen, have so far had no need to fear WMF.

If they do, they'll have to pay the editors

[Animats]

You can't run a commercial business with volunteers in the US. It's illegal. Violates minimum wage laws. AOL ran into this in 1995, and had to pay back pay to all their forum moderators. "Labor attorney Victor Van Bourg added that volunteers "are employees of the companies, and they should be paid," he said."

With Wikipedia, it wouldn't be hard to establish that many editors are doing real work. There are rules, supervision, control, standards, and lists of things to be done. That's work.

Re:They already are unreliable

[ajs]

Jimbo gets donations from Virgin Unite (aka The Virgin Foundation) and their page suddenly becomes this big advertising page for their "charity."

Interestingly, you make this sound like a bad thing, but in fact Virgin Unite, AKA The Virgin Foundation is in reality the charitable organization formed by the Virgin Group... so how is it "advertising" to say:

Virgin Unite is the working name of The Virgin Foundation, the independent charitable arm of the Virgin Group. Created by Richard Branson and Virgin employees in September 2004, Virgin Unite pools volunteering efforts across the Virgin Group and its hundreds of subsidiaries and associated companies and has partnered with more than a dozen charities worldwide.

That sounds like an accurate description to me, not an ad. Amusingly enough the article doesn't even mention their contribution to Wikipedia (IMHO this is as it should be, since it's not a particularly notable element of their work).

price on ...

[hazygin]

1.what would you put on the price of truth?
2.now what price would you put on the power to influence this so called truth?

if 1 > 2 for most ppl then wiki will survive as it is.

Yes! Wikipedia should have ads, but...

[XNormal]

Wikipedia should have ads, but only if all users can edit them, too!

Ok, now seriously. Imagine letting users have control not over content but over which ads appear, how frequently and whether an ad is relevant to a specific article or not. And if there is a concentrated attack by users against a specific company - so be it. This company's ads will not be shown and they won't pay for it either. They get to spend their advertising dollars elsewhere.

Of course, I'm not talking about big banners or or flash ads - just small text-based ads, not unlike google adwords.

Against

[Nafai7]

Wikipedia absolutely should NOT use advertising. It absolutely WILL compromise Wikipedia content eventually. It's that simple.

Adverising?

[Will2k_is_here]

calling it adverising
Who calls it adverising?

Google should acquire Wikipedia

[drgroove]

Google should acquire Wikipedia. This act would guarantee Wikipedia's long-term health, shield it from concerns about capacity handling and server space, and allow it to tap directly into Google's advertising platform to generate revenue.

Response to objections

[mlinksva]

Hi, I'm the author of the linked article. My response to the gist of a bunch of comments:

The major objection to ads on Wikipedia takes two forms:

• Advertising is profane.
• Advertising would compromose Wikipedia's neutrality.

A common response to the first is that those who don't like ads can run an ad blocker. Easier still, those who don't like ads can log in -- there's little reason to display ads to logged in users, who probably generate a tiny fraction of pageviews. But I don't think either of these responses will satisfy this form of the objection, as it is basically emotional. Some people object to the knowledge that ads exist, even if not experienced personally. I suppose these people don't use search engines. It's a wonder they can stand to use the net at all. I discount them completely.

The second is completely unrealistic. How would third party text ads, e.g., via AdSense, compromise neutrality? There's simply no vector for an advertiser to demand changes and zero reason for Wikipedians to comply. Wikipedia is not a small town newspaper beholden to the local department store, not even close. It isn't even Slashdot, which as far as I can tell has not been compromised by years of running ads. To people with this objection: show me a community site that has gone astray due to advertiser influence.

Sponsors, "being managed by Wikipedia staff (like in newspaper ads, i.e. no uncontrolled 3rd party feeds)", as suggested by Kuba Ober, are far more dangerous than third party ads, because then there is a vector between advertiser and someone with power at Wikipedia.

There may be an opportunity for Wikipedia to completely rethink and remake advertising, or merely compete in some fashion with what some are calling Google's near monopoly, but now it would make tremendous sense to use AdSense or Yahoo! or both -- and I suspect Wikipedia could manage to keep a greater share of revenue than a normal web publisher. Rick Yorgason mocked up what AdSense would look like in the place of the current fundraiser's donation banner.

Slashdot commenter jklooserman summarizes objections from Wikiproject no ads:

1. Wikipedia's philosophy is non-commercial
2. Ads put at risk Wikipedia's principle of Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
3. The information that constitutes Wikipedia is wealth for the community

I don't see "non-commercial" in any form on the Wikimedia Foundation home page. I do see this, in large text:

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

The next line, all bold, asks for help in the form of donations.

Much more money, hundreds of millions, would speed the arrival of that world and fulfillment of that commitment.

As above, there is no realistic scenario for ads undermining neutrality on Wikipedia.

The third objection strikes me as a non-sequitur. In any case, the point of obtaining more resources would be to increase the wealth of the community -- of all human beings.

jklooserman also pointed out that there's a category of Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising. Add it to your user page if you agree.

Re:Response to objections

[David Gerard]

The practical objection to ads on Wikipedia - one you don't cover above - is that if Wikipedia puts ads on then large chunks of the writing and editing community will just get up and leave. Volunteer motivation is annoyingly fragile.

If possible, keep it how it is

[Giometrix]

At first I agreed with what some other folks here said, if the advertisements are not intrusive then its OK. But even something like Google Adwords has potential of tainting the integrity of Wikipedia. Adwords on wiki could be a cash cow for Google, and I can imagine a scenario (whether it is likely or not, I don't know) where Google bumps up how much Wikipedia makes per click (or per 1000 impressions, or whatever) in exchange for only positive articles about Google.

That said, if they need the money to continue functioning, than let them do what they need to and trust that the editors do the right thing. I'd rather have an ad supported wiki than no wiki, but if possible it would be nice if they remained how they are.

It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is one of the last frontiers we have against global internet consolidation in our efforts to advocate a global consumerist culture, surely.

With virtually every internet innovation being snapped up by enormous companies, chances are we will be left with less than ten websites in the world - Google as a personal storage and research portal, NewsCorp controlling all entertainment media and social networking, Microsoft in charge of virtually all commercial software development, eBay for online shopping, etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia could be at risk to losing control to something as transparent as Google ads simply because they lose their financial independence.

A better idea, surely, would be to divide Wikipedia's advertising potential into equally sized 'clusters'. No matter how large the company advertising space and frequency of selection could be limited on a per organisation basis. For example, you will see an advertisement for Virgin Riot Gear as frequently as you would see an ebay seller promoting their collection of adorable plush toys. It may be primitive communism, but then again what is Wikipedia all about?

Wikipedia is free.

[AxelBoldt]

Wikipedia is free, in every sense of the word. You don't have to pay in order to view it. You are free to reuse or change it. You don't have to rent out your eyeballs to use it. You don't have to have your brain polluted by ads in order to view it. You don't even have to install an ad-blocker to view it. It always has been free, and it will stay that way. A project that exists because of the goodwill of the community has no choice but to operate by the highest moral standards.

If you prefer your Wikipedia with ads, there are plenty of mirror sites out there for you. They all smell cheesy.

If you think there is an open source or free content project out there worthy of funding, be my guest and donate. Don't make me pay by putting up ads on Wikipedia.

Funding for Wiki

[Azaril]

This is just a thought on the whole wiki funding situation, but surely any company that supplies wikipedia would be willing to gift products to them, in order to be the company that supplies wikipedia? Its would be pretty good PR for any company to be associated with such a popular organistation in that way, and it wouldnt tie wikipedia into anything itself.

I want more heavy flash popups

[Ranger]

Also I wouldn't mind being forced to watch a commercial before accessing each and every wikipedia article. Oh, and show animated gifs of chicks with bouncing jugs in the sidebars.

Better ways to raise funds

[tobby]

I don't think Wikipedia is the right platform for advertising of any kind, the goal and value of Wikipedia far exceeds any value delivered by advertising. Any commercial interests will compromise its credibility and put off a large number of contributers which is where a lot of its value derives from. Far better to find a more creative way to fund itself.

Let the users opt in to banner ads

[sandymac]

Currently Wikipedia lets users select a theme. I've suggested before that Wikipedia should provide themes that include ads that I can enable as a user as my method to support wikipedia instead of donating cash.

Just put on temporary ads

[jopsen]

Right now there's a block on top of every wikipedia page asking you to donate money... Why not just use one small Google ad, and remove it as soon as the wanted amounts of funds have been raised. You could even make it possible to disable the ads under settings, where you also can change the theme... I don't see the problem, as long they use some random algorithm to place different ads like google ads does...

get off the high horse

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much everyone's objection to advertisement on Wikipedia is because they're knee-jerk utopian dream is coming crashing down. Sure, RMS' view that everything should be free (because thinking, unlike physical production of a good isn't really work?) is a nice thought, the fact of the matter is that things cost money.

When we could make $100,000,000+ for good causes, I think we should put a "spirit" of NPOV aside.

Collective Ass

[nuclearspike]

I definitely support adverts on WP. Pardon the length but I think there are some important points here and a lot of good to be done.

SIZE AND PLACEMENT
Why not have an opt-in for the ads? Right now they have space at the top devoted to getting donations. Instead, have a link that says "Show relevant ads to support Wikipedia" When you click it, do not have the ads appear at the top, but have them display down the left underneath the "in other languages" box. Have it be one of the options when signing up for an account, defaulted to turned off (personally, I would code it to default on but there seem to be a lot of people really up in arms about the idea of ads.) Have a short description of how the money is used. Even if only a fraction of the people turned it on, then they could still have plenty of funds for servers and other projects, maybe not the hundreds of millions that are predicted, but enough. I would rather it was just always on, down on the left side of the page so that more money could be made.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
I don't really understand the conflict of interest argument. With AdSense, what ads show could change daily based on the settings of the different advertiser's accounts and Google's algorithm which determines how good of a fit that ad is. If no one clicks on it, then it isn't a good ad to show for the keywords and it is automatically removed. The only conflict would be information about Google itself since WP would not be receiving money directly from anyone else and wouldn't have to worry about bowing to any of the sponsors. The sponsors may not even know their ads are being shown on WP. If WP were to accept money directly from a company, Chevrolet, for example, then WP may worry about not having anything negative about Chevy's so that they don't lose their funding that they had grown accustomed to. Direct relationships with the advertisers would definitely cause conflicts of interest.

EXISTING EXPENSES
It seems by some of the comments that people are not thinking all the way through this. There was a comment made about how since the contributors add/edit/update for free that WP should do the same. They do not understand handling 2.5 billion page hits in a month costs some serious money for the server farms and bandwidth.

GLOBAL COMMUNITY
Keep thinking all the way through this... suppose WP *is* making $100m per year by ads they have on the site and uses that money to help get clean drinking/bathing water in villages in Africa, helping set up schools in 3rd world countries, etc, etc. There are people in this world who don't have access to some basic necessities of survival that WP could help out and we're throwing tantrums because we have to look at an ad? Seriously?? If having ads served on WP means that a well can be built in a city so that people can have clean water for drinking and bathing are we really such ad-free purists that we are blind to all the good that could be done here? Have we forgotten what WP is about? WP is about the community of the world coming together and producing something of worth.

DISCOURAGING CONTRIBUTIONS
Would ads make me not want to contribute to WP? Absolutely not! If I knew that the money was going toward good causes, then the better WP is (by all of us adding/updating), the more it is used. The more people view it, the more money it makes and the more good they -oops, I mean *WE*- can do. We aren't talking about WP having ads so that they can drive Ferraris and have them take advantage of the contributor's efforts for their own wallets.

BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE
We are possibly on the cusp of the world community banding together through our contributions to and use of Wikipedia to be able to help ridiculous amounts of people. Will there be different people with different agendas for where the money goes? I guarantee it. Does that mean that we shouldn't do it at all? Me and my coworkers may have different ideas about where to go for lunch, bu

Re:They already are unreliable

[Millenniumman]

Wikipedia's worth the toilet paper it's printed on, and not a penny more. Interesting.
Wikipedia has about 12 times as many words as the printed Encyclopedia Britannica. Since Britannica has about 30,000 pages, we can assume Wikipedia would have 450,000 pages.

Now, a roll of toilet paper is about 100 pages, and costs about $1. Wikipedia should then be 4500 rolls of toilet paper.

Therefore, Wikipedia is worth $4500, in your estimation.

You must like it quite a lot, especially considering the conflicts on interest you claim is present.

Consider that Britannica only costs $700, printed, and far less in a digital format.

Slashpedia and Wikidot

[Per Abrahamsen]

It is fun how a lot of people here who claim they would never contribute to an ad-financed Wikipedia, obviously have no problem contributing to another ad-financed community site.

What wikipedia needs

[sideswipe76]

Is someone to donate hosting, and find a little cash. Really, Wikipedia's only cost is hosting -- bandwidth and boxes. google could donate hosting service for them and just write it off. a few bucks to keep a core team operating it would be all you need for cash. Then, even if wiki never gets another fund, it can live forever beign hosted. Look at all the dead projects on sourceforge.

Not fair to existing contributors.

[sbaker]

The problem is that tens to hundreds of millions of individual contributions were predecated on the fact that there is no advertising on the site. It's deeply unfair to all of those people to change the rules only after it has reached maturity. I would never have written a word for them if they supported advertising. Disallowing advertising is one of the Wikipedia core policies.

It's not that Wiki is short of money - they always meet their free donation targets - the present drive has reached $850k in just couple of weeks - the average donation is $47. It doesn't need advertising.

What's going on here is that some people want to use the 'sponsorship' to start new projects - but there is a real ethical question here. Unfair though it would be to use people's free contributions to pay for the upkeep of the encyclopedia when those contributions were given on the basis of an advert-free site - to use that money for something entirely different is downright unethical.

Re:Not fair to existing contributors.

[/dev/trash]

Uh. Take away the Virgin Unite matchi ng funds. DO they still meet their goals? No.

Content under question

[mattsday]

Wouldn't having advertisers also make Wikipedia more careful? I'm sure no one wants their products on the "Erectile Dysfunction" article, or a vandalised page that's gone unnoticed ridiculing a product for it to appear in the register next week.

At the moment, Wikipedia is already struggling to keep its users and the media happy, by adding advertising, it's making yet another headache for itself and it will undoubtedly add more restrictions in the future.

Wikipedia has a whole policy for censoring

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing happens every time. Either Jimbo gets a "donation" and someone magically has their wikipedia entr(ies) scrubbed squeaky clean, or someone threatens a lawsuit and they just remove the page entirely.

 
Please link to specific edit diffs, and cite examples. Jack Thompson is a good example. He threatened to sue, and the article was pulled. It was later re-built making sure not to say anything negative about him. See the current version of the page. They don't have a criticisms section for Jack Thompson of all people.

After Wikipedia got scared of JT, they made a new policy that basically says they'll give in to threats they receive and pull articles if they feel like it because they "don't want to make people sad" (seriously). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICE. On the Office page they have a list of articles that they have stepped in on and basically censored.

It's got nothing to do with donations, they just don't have any balls.

Re:Wikipedia has a whole policy for censoring

[bky1701]

I have to agree. I used to be an editor on wikipedia (I didn't really write but I fixed errors, formated and such) but I left because The Powers That Be started to become very obnoxious, bowing to the most verbose admins (who normally had an ax to grind) and outside influences.

Many times I seen the "deletionists" (A nice word for the pro-censership group) rip apart things that they didn't agree with, praying on the less noticed pages of categories because they didn't have as many people to protect them. One basically said this: "All of the pages on this topic should be deleted, but this one is VFD because not as many people care about it". I lack a link because it was a while since I left, but if you read the VFD page you will see much sentiment like this.

There is too little oversight to the oversight and too few things to protect the site from rogue admins. Once an admin ran a script deleting most userboxes without any type of approval and a whole flamewar started, that is STILL not over.

Wikipedia's problems are the same ones related to democracy in general: the people who talk the most, have the most power and have the most time tend to be the most most bias, and the people who are less bias or of an unsupported view tend to be intimidated and shut out. I can't think of a simple fix to this, but Lord Jimbo doesn't really help the situation.

Wikiad

[Stormy Dragon]

But will everyone be allowed to edit the ads?

As long as...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I get to edit the ads I'm fine with it.

How do I get some?

[SETIGuy]

My main question is how do needy fundraisers like myself get in on the action. :)

Non-pofit != advertising revenue

[SETIGuy]

My understanding of the U.S. tax code is that advertising revenues would not be considered non-profit income, and would therefore be subject to taxes, or worse would jeapordize the Wikimedia Foundation's non-profit status. That is precisely why we can't put Google ads on the SETI@home web page, and need to do things like putting links in our .sigs.

PBS stations walk the fine line between acknowledging their contributors and advertising for them.

Wikipedia is doing just fine with ads

[classh_2005]

There is just no reason to introduce the real or percieved impartiality of corporations, or for that matter, of non-profit "thinktanks" with their own agenda into the Wikipedia mix. There is already enough astroturfing and paid PR content as it is. Someone mentioned NPR and PBS as being good models. Pfftt, PBS news is more conservative now than a lot of for-profit, mainstream media sources. Advertisements are fundamentally corrupt, their aim has always been to bring profits to the corporations that they represent. Truth has no value for advertisers, and therefore, Wikipedia should have no ads, as it is a medium that purports to be trying to be truthful and impartial. Keep ads off of Wikipedia!

Modded "flamebait" for not sucking Jimbo's cock

[M1rth]

oh big surprise. I don't like wikipedia, so my comment is modded down.

Boo hoo. Slashfucks can rot.

In My Experience...

[localman]

Anything they do to increase the money involved in the project will cause them to suck more. Simply because more money attracts more money hungry people, and money hungry people suck.

Cheers.

A variant on "Tragedy of the Commons"

[speardane]

This is a variant on the tragedy of the commons

Wired and others speculated whether the "new economy" would spawn different behaviour patterns. The answer appears to be that business wants to buy in and dominate, using old patterns.

Clearly a fork to a truly free wiki 2.0 ;~)would be permitted under the wikipedia copyright terms. This would seem to be the only answer to such commercialisation.

The strange reflection I have reading what I have written, is that having spent years questioning religion and the belief in "unlimited riches etc" like the dot-com boom, I find that I feel a near relgous need to see communities like Wikipeadia succeed - which for me means no advertising... I believe, I believe.

No Mix

[Tom]

I can't wrap my mind around it that this is even worthy of discussion.

Let's see, what's an encyclopedia all about? Objective fact and information, neutral and impartial.

What's advertisement all about? Presentation of a single, strongly partial and subjective view that has a strict business purpose and is "designed" in accordance to business needs. Facts are to be used if positive, hidden if negative.

How can anyone even think these two could match?