Slashdot Mirror
Should Wikipedia Sell Advertising?
The Narrative Fallacy writes "The LA Times has an interesting story on the state of Wikipedia's finances and how with 300 million page views a day, the organization could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars if it sold advertising space. Without advertising the foundation has a tough time raising its annual budget of $4.6 million. The 45,000 or so individuals who contribute annually give an average of $33 each, so campaigns, which are conducted online, raise only about one-third of what's needed. As Wikimedia adds features to its pages, such as videos, costs will rise. 'Without financial stability and strong planning, the foundation runs the risk of needing to take drastic steps at some point in the next couple years,' said Nathan Awrich, a Wikipedia editor who supports advertising."
Okay! That's it. A show of hands please, who wants cake they can't eat?
to a user looking up a definition for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme?
fortune -s -o
WikipediAds, the advertisements anyone can edit! Who better to make the ads than the customers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impartiality
you have to pay the bills. idealism doesn't pay the bills.
Look. Our little liberal is growing up and becoming a conservative....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
> I even plan to start reselling ADSL with a transparent proxy configured my own special way, so other people can also enjoy the same
> advertisement-free Internet experience (and I can make a few quid as a secondary consideration).
I take it you won't be advertising your service?
The idea of Wikipedia - a freely available online encyclopedia that anyone can edit - I believe is better if it is impartial and independent. It becomes encumbered, compromised, by advertising incentives. There is added value in advertisement free - vis-à-vis Consumer Reports.
The question is: Why is Wikipedia so expensive to maintain? If it is bandwidth and servers, is the HTTP client/server model the answer? Is there an efficient model to share Wikipedia entries peer to peer? Or perhaps share costs between Universities or other institutions that act in the public interest?
Additionally, if Wikipedia does go to a peer to peer model, can it integrate projects like FreeNet to ensure that the information remains free and accessible.
If you think the complaints about edits, arbitrariness, capriciousness and bias with Wikipedia are bad now, wait until it commercializes. In my (limited) experience, this will change the paradigm of its management. Wikipedia will cease to be a gift to humanity. It will be owned.
Allow advertising that anyone can edit.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
[Citation needed]