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:Doesn't really matter what *WE* think, does it?

[smagruder]

Well, first, Wikipedia isn't just another website. It's the largest encyclopedia in history, website or not.

Second, starting a website is indeed rather trivial. But building another Wikipedia, and getting to its current level of depth and critical mass, is nearly impossible.