Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Debate Over Advertising on Wikipedia

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the my-opinion-should-be-obvious dept.

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."

3 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. End justifies the means by Leadmagnet · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    http://www.leadmagnet.50megs.com
  2. Wikiproject No Ads by jkloosterman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  3. Means the end. by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.