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."

Comments

Prepare yourself

[suso]

Get ready for an onslaught of comments from people who want to have their cake and eat it too. (ie. those that don't want the advertising, but also don't want to make a donation to Wikipedia)

Re:Prepare yourself

[KiloByte]

ie. those that don't want the advertising, but also don't want to make a donation to Wikipedia Ok, I'll bite. What would you say about those who specifically don't donate to Wikipedia because of their policy?

So here's the deal: stop the book-burning deletionist jihad, and those who follow Howard Tayler's campaign will suddenly resume donations. And no, you can't squeeze any advertising money from the likes of me thanks to Adblock.

Unlike commercial encyclopaedias, most of us do pay in some kind: we donate our time, our work, our expertise. Without community editors, Wikipedia would be nothing. Stop throwing away the contributions and a lot more people will be inclined to toss in also some cash.

Re:Prepare yourself

[AvitarX]

1) What you are demonstrating is that even non-add donations can influence (or try).
2) You may repay by editing, but unless you define "us" in "most of us" as people who edit wikipedia than most do not. I will go as far as saying that I live with 2 people who have found errors in wikipedia and not fixed them (one that I remember was the date of a French author's birth, that burned 1/4 of the people in the class (the rest used the text book), and still didn't get fixed.

I would personally think the best way for wikipedia to remain neutral is for it to take advertising from something such as adsense, clearly marking it as advertising. If I go to look up info on a a game, and I get a clearly marked add to buy it, no one loses. Wikipedia would only need to protect itself from the influence of one company, and it should be easier than policing the thousands of donations they get now that may or may not be influencing them.

obviously they should sell advertising

[circletimessquare]

it ruins the impartiality, it ruins the experience, it compromises the purpose, blah, blah, blah, zzz...

you have to pay the bills. idealism doesn't pay the bills. a "compromised" wikipedia is better than no wikipedia

there really isn't anything you can say that is more illuminating on the subject. either you can run the site financially or you can't. it really is that cut and dry

Re:obviously they should sell advertising

[Xacid]

Also if they were able to receive funding, say from the/a government then there could be a lot of speculation again about impartiality (is that even a word) and a whole different set of issues. I would like to see them reach the status though where they *could* receive funding as a library though...

Re:obviously they should sell advertising

[ta bu shi da yu]

Rubbish. A Wikipedia that doesn't even try for NPOV, impartiality or any of the core things that make up the project now is not worthwhile at all.

Won't people stop with the stupid advertising nonsense already? Not everything is about money!

Re:obviously they should sell advertising

[Saint Fnordius]

Well, considering that the Wiki is the one place many go to get first-hand info, I could see a special sort of advertising, where the company overtly contributes to articles about themselves, pay a fee to have an alternative to the normal Wiki page. The advert would come in one of those little Wiki disclaimer tags, for quick linking to the "corporate bullshit disguised as an article" version.

Let's say FUBAR Widgets decides to buy a sponsored article. On the Wikipedia article, there would then be a link that says "This company has its own self-maintained article, which you can see here." On the purchased page, then, the article would be headed with a disclaimer, perhaps "This is a sponsored page owned by the company. The contents of the page are edited by the company itself, and cannot be edited by others."

Of course, companies who abuse this for of advertising should have their pages removed without refund. The actual terms of service, though, are left for the lawyers to haggle. It all boils down to in exchange for having their corporate pages free from editor tyranny, they in return have to play nice elsewhere.

The advantage for the company is that they get to maintain their own entries in the Wiki (not really, but close enough), and the advantage for the Wiki is that it makes it easier to "sandbox" corporate shenanigans on the main entries.

I suppose even another variation is conceivable, where specific pages could be sponsored that are not directly linked to the company. At the bottom of the page, the sponsors could then be listed. "This article about roses is officially sponsored by the following companies: Foo Flowers, Bar Blossoms, Snafu Seeds"

Re:obviously they should sell advertising

[EaglemanBSA]

They can adopt distributed updates and such and ask universities to help with the bandwidth costs. Instead I guess they want to keep all the chips in hand so that they could one day turn into a billion dollar company. Actually, I think Wikipedia would have a hard time getting universities to pitch in - most professors I know don't quite understand it, and absolutely abhor its use. I know of professors who will fail an assignment citing it as a source.
 
It's important to maintain that Wikipedia is not a primary source, but more of a source guide. Encyclopedias always have been. A lot of people forget that.

Re:obviously they should sell advertising

[sjstrutt]

Actually, I think Wikipedia would have a hard time getting universities to pitch in - most professors I know don't quite understand it, and absolutely abhor its use. I know of professors who will fail an assignment citing it as a source.

Wikipedia should not be used in academia, but the usual reactionary attacks ("OMG! Anyone can edit it! Its unreliable!") aren't the reason why. Students shouldn't be citing Wikipedia because it's billed as an online encyclopedia. University students shouldn't be citing any encyclopedia at all including Encarta, Britannica, Wikipedia, etc. Encyclopedias paint a broad picture of a subject and can be used as a starting point in research, but they shouldn't contain any original research and thus shouldn't be used in academia, especially at the university level.

Why?

[abscissa]

Why does Wikipedia need to sell it? They are already a bastion of free "neutral" articles written by POV cronies by corprorate shells. From Republican politicians to large corporations like Wal-Mart, Wikipedia should start invoicing for hosting their "neutral" public relations flyers.

Not only if, but HOW

[Foolicious]

I am sure there'll be a nice raging debate about IF they should do it, which is good. But if they do decide to do it, an important argument is then HOW to do it. Online advertising needs to be intrusive enough to be noticed, but not so intrusive that it becomes, well, intrusive. Their implementation will mean a lot.

Re:Well .....

[Constantine XVI]

One of these days, 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). Sure, as long as you don't call it the Internet. What makes the Internet so special is that the providers (the good ones, anyway) censor/filter NOTHING, and the filtering is left up to the end-user. IMHO, the second you begin denying your customers specific content/services (be it ads or BitTorrent), I no longer consider you a proper ISP, and neither should the law.

And besides, if you can filter all those ads, we don't think you would have a problem filtering out child porn either, right?

Re:Oooh.

[Bombula]

All this criticism of Jimmy Wales seems a bit silly. The guy could easily have created Wikipedia as a for-profit enterprise. It would be no different as a website or a resource, and he could be profiting immensely from it. As for me, text-based ads a la Google don't bother me much. I'm much more irked by the flashy banner ad crap like what's at the top of this slashdot page than a few text links down the right hand margin.

Funny how no one is harassing Coyboy Neil for not running Slashdot like Mother Theresa.

Just use YPN or AdSense

[dbmasters]

It would be nothing to maintain and with contextually sensitive ads they would vbe related to the pages they appear on (in theory) it would be useful and profitable.

Keep an eye on the money!

[guanxi]

Given the independence of the editors (the volunteers) from the publishers (Wikimedia Foundation Inc.), I'm not too concerned about the content. Of course that independence only lasts until Wikimedia insists on seats on the Arbitration Committee or other editorial authority.

But they need a mechanism -- beyond 'trust us' -- to keep an eye on the money. That much money is just too tempting, not only for plain embezzlement but also for things like loans and investments for personal or friends' businesses, unreasonable expenses, etc.

Who controls the money? To whom are they responsible? Ultimately, the responsible party is the Wikimedia Foundation Board. While I don't believe fame and talent are highly correlated, and have no doubts about the board members, it would inspire more confidence if someone was putting a broader reputation on the line for Wikipedia. I want some on the board who have something serious to lose if things go wrong, like Mitch Kapor, Joi Ito, and others on the Mozilla Foundation board. In fact, I wonder why don't have people like already. Certainly it's prominent enough to attract them.

Finally, what mechanisms do similar organizations use to manage windfalls of cash?

It's the opposite

[NewAndFresh]

a "compromised" wikipedia is better than no wikipedia

One of the important things that make wikpedia is that there is no advertising.
Like many people have already pointed out, there are many other options.
You add advertising and it's no longer wikipedia.
So I'll fix that for you:
a "slower" wikipedia is better than no wikipedia.

Re:It's the opposite

[h4rm0ny]

Now that deserves an Insightful mod. I dislike that questions such as this are just accepted without reservation: That you get to choose between Wikipedia and Compromised Wikipedia. Who framed those options and what did they do to reach the conclusion that this choice is inevitable.

-A Proud Wikipedia Donator

-H.

Re:My sympathy is limited

[Eharley]

How do you know it's more expensive for them in SF than in FL? What were their stated reasons for moving?

actually, every human endeavour IS about money

[circletimessquare]

money is really just an abstract expression of human interest and value. pick the most idealistic human endeavour you can think of. it has value to other human beings. therefore, it is monetized. sure, it needn't be expressed in actual dollars, but a conversion to that occurs at some point for anyone who interacts with that human endeavour. the church? marriage and love? science? they all involve cash transations at some point

why do you think you achieve some sort of higher moral ground or purpose by shunning money? all you do is hobble your own ability to properly understand how the world you live in actually functions. i'm not asking you to worship money. and money certainly leads people to do evil things. but again, money is just an abstract expression of human desires. the real evil is aspects of human nature itself, not a piece of green paper with alexander hamilton's face on it

all i'm asking you to do is grant money the proper respect it deserves for quantifying abstract human interest in such a way that it makes the world we live in a better place. yes, money is a great invention, like the wheel or the semiconductor. it makes your world a better place. bartering chickens for school books gets kind of old after awhile. thus the glorious invention of money. and no, i'm not gordon gecko. i'm just a realist. realism trumps cotton candy idealism any day. and the most sober realistic consideration of money in this world is that it makes your life better

cotton candy headed idealists can be so stupid

Re:My sympathy is limited

[Jeff DeMaagd]

3k s.f. isn't that huge, maybe the real problem is the cost of living for those who work there. Isn't San Fransisco pretty big on the Internet? I can see may be some advantages.

you view its strength as its weakness

[circletimessquare]

i trust random anonymous people than "quality" submissions by someone with an agenda to sell

random people off the street have no agenda. or rather, in a nonhierarchical structure, the overlapping agendas of random people cancel each other out to arrive at true neutrality on a subject matter. after all, you are posting anonymously and you obviously have a flawed bias ;-)

"experts" making encyclopedias in the traditional manner have a bill of goods they need to sell us. plenty of "facts" in this world are nothing more than statements of indoctrination into a given agenda. "experts" in a field of study are often champions of indoctrination, not education

true propaganda in this world never tells a single lie. it merely omitts certain unmentioned facts here and there in such a way to color people's perceptions. that's why they are called half-truths. meanwhile, a wide open encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to is the only way to illuminate those corners of propaganda that someone with an agenda doesn't want you to see

even a subconscious agenda a contributor is not aware of: their own biases they are blind to, such that they have no intent to lie to you, this is a threat to real truth

and so what you see as wikipedia's greatest weakness is in fact its greatest strength

you need to come to understand this

Re:They should, begging for money is no business m

[moosesocks]

Wikipedia's not a "business" by any stretch of the imagination.

NPR and PBS have also shown that this "begging for money" business model can indeed work successfully. If anything, Wikipedia should turn to them for inspiration and fundraising advice.

yes; the mirrors do

[Russ Nelson]

Yes, Wikipedia should sell advertising, to cover its costs. After all, the many people who take a copy of wikipedia and republish it with advertisements are making money -- why shouldn't wikipedia itself?

Mozilla Foundation isn't a business either.

[egghat]

I'm happy they struck this deal with Google. I'm happy that they drown in money and I'm happy they give me the best browser, support open source and have saved the world from the Microsoft monopoly spreading to the web.

Yes, you could claim that Firefox isn't about money, but about freedom, open source and standards support. But I'm sure that money has helped them to achieve this goal and as far as I am concerned money hasn't stopped or corrupted them.

bye egghat

You can model it that way, sure

[NickFortune]

You can model any human activity in terms of money, certainly. But that doesn't make that model the predictor for all classes of activity. I mean you can model every human activity in terms of garbage if you want to: every human activity produces some waste materials, if only from from the excrement of those so engaged and the waste heat of the work performed. You can say every human endeavour is about anything with a little ingenuity.

But the fact that we can analyse Wikimedia purely in terms of money is not an argument for them using ads to finance their operation, any more than being able to conduct the analysis based on refuse constitutes an argument for them buying a fleet of garbage trucks.

Don't confuse the map with the territory, dude.

Re:Go Distributed

[billcopc]

I would love to see Wikipedia become the poster-child for peer-to-peer webhosting, but that would require installing a ton of crap software on Norton-loving imbeciles' machines. It opens the whole system up for massive abuses and corruption, intentional or not.

Go for Google ads, I say! Just one block across the top, where their donation banner usually sits. I see no harm in it.

Should cancer patients take cynaide pills?

[damburger]

Wikipedia has definitely peaked. The community has become closed off into cliques and the content has become entrenched to the extent new contributers are actively chased off if they suggest any challenge to the status quo. Selling advertising would crush what is left of the community spirit of the project.

Its a shame, because fundamentally Wikipedia is an OK idea. What is needed is a viable, popular fork. I suppose this is as good as anything for speeding that up.

Re:Oooh.

[Metaphorically]

The guy could easily have created Wikipedia as a for-profit enterprise. Hindsight's 20/20. If he had created it as a for-profit enterprise then would there have been nearly the same participation levels? It wouldn't be in the position it is today if it were created for-profit and we wouldn't be having this discussion.