Slashdot Mirror
War of Words Over Wikipedia Ads Continues
Willis W. writes "Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales reiterates his opposition to advertising in response to reports that Wikipedia needs a major cash infusion. Responding to Jason Calacanis' charges that he 'has a fringe, anti-corporate bent to him' that is 'holding Wikipedia back,' Wales says that running ads on Wikipedia is not his decision to make. Though he personally dislikes the idea of advertising on Wikipedia, any decision to utilize ads would have to come from the community. At the moment, he won't rule anything out. 'I can't say if I would ever support something like that,' he tells Ars, 'but I can say that I currently maintain the same position I always have: I am opposed to it.'" What do you think Wikimedia should do to shore up the financial situation of the Wikipedia?
You're right. One single BBC program trumps every corporate sponsored television show ever. Especially when you point out that sublime fact using BOLD UPPERCASE.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Oh, so you only want to donate money if they start altering the content, what a generous offer. When I see homeless women I often think I would give them some charitable donations.. but only if they started having sex with me, its only fair. Im not giving my "donation" to someone who isn't going to do what I want. Text ads might be a bit tacky in an educational repository of knowledge, but at least it doesn't effect the site in any way. And if Wikipedia does not have the ability to at least attempt impartiality without strings attached it has nothing.
You could just let wikipedia die. About.com mirrors all of wikipedia's content and clutters it up with ads anyway.
Of course, a generation of high school and college students would be up shit creek without a paddle since they have no idea how to do real research, but they'll either fail or adapt -- either way everyone wins.