Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
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
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!
Comment of the year
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.
But will everyone be allowed to edit the ads?