Wikipedia Almost Reaches $6 Million Target

An anonymous reader noted a story discussing the aftermath of the Wikipedia fundraiser and says "The writer suggests that Wikipedia can earn $50-100 million a month by a simple text ad. He also suggests that contributors should be financially rewarded and that the lack of financial reward is the reason why 98.3% of registered Wikipedia users are inactive. What do you think? Should Wikimedia Foundation put ads on Wikipedia? Should contributors be financially rewarded? What compensation structure would be best?" Personally I think the independence of Wikipedia is great, and any advertising would not only compromise that integrity, but give contributors a sense of entitlement that the site is better off without.

Comments

Re:The outlaw Jimmy Whales

[mfh]

I can understand the idea that by accepting advertising dollars, you somehow compromise your journalistic integrity.

Sorry but this makes no sense. Plenty of commercial journalists make money selling stories to newspapers and online websites. The only reason someone would take Journalism in university would be to enter into that profession as a career path. The fundamental definition of the term career, most certainly involves being able to provide for yourself and your family.

The only existing model for newspaper revenue is advertising, and subscription. Funny how what is good for IRL is bad for the net. If you want to live in communist Internetopia, pack your bags and feel free to.

Personally, if someone wants my hard work, they either pay me for the agreed upon price or they get a good lawyer. My time is limited and my time is valuable.