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. It's a Trap! by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  2. Why not let Google do searching? by BluhDeBluh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. I'd be all for it! by jafac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.