Should Wikipedia Just Accept Ads Already?

Hugh Pickens writes "Large images of Jimmy Wales have for weeks dominated each and every page on Wikipedia, making Wales arguably the single most visible individual on the planet. Now Molly McHugh writes that Wikipedia is once again pleading for user donations with banners across the top of its site with memos from purported authors and this week, Wales stepped up the shrillness of his rallying cry by adding the word 'Urgent' to his appeal. Wales attempted the same request for donations last year, and failed to meet the company's goal until Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar donated $2 million and Google stepped in with another $2 million gift to the foundation. This time around the foundation is approximately $7 million short of its 2010 fundraising goal, and Wikipedia analysts are saying the site would be better off with a marketing scheme as Alex Konanykhin of WikiExperts explains that the donations-only, no-commerce model restricts Wikipedia to relying exclusively on free volunteers, losing opportunities to involve qualified professionals who charge for their time in addition to the thirty staff members already on the Wikimedia payroll. 'Advertising is not cool. You're not as cool if you have advertising. But you know what else is not cool? Begging,' writes Jeff Otte. 'We do not care if there is advertising on Wikipedia, so long as it is not ridiculously invasive. So please, replace your sensitive mug with a Steak 'n' Shake ad or something, and start making advertisers pay for people to have stuff for free and not feel bad about it. It's the Internet's way.'"

Comments

Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Don't set up an admin system that shits all over people who disagree with you. Maybe then your appeal for donations would be considered by a larger number of people. I've been sending SomaFM at least $50 per year for most of this decade and even /. gets $5 from me every now and then. I bought one Wikipedia coaster set back in '03 before I discovered your incompetence and now I quickly close your 'appeals' without reading them. Some may consider that I'm being too picky, but when I saw that Barack Obama had less criticism on his page than Ghandi or Jesus Christ, I knew your system was still flawed, and the Climate Doctor debacle didn't work in your favor, either - and hey, that was, like, 12 months ago, and now you're running out of money - coincidence? Fix that shit and I'll kick down a Ben Franklin.

Re:Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[Pharmboy]

Um, no you are wrong. There are scores of people with the means to donate to Wikipedia, and were serious editors at one time, but the "system" turned us away from helping in any way. Wikipedia has a lot of good things going, but their management structure is so flawed and filled with self serving, basement dwelling admins that have an axe to grind, that it turns off many people with the means to contribute. Take a look at the number of people who have thousands of edits but haven't editing or contributed in a long time.

The current structure of Wikipedia administration is fatally flawed. It is functional, but flawed to the point of pissing off quality contributors of both time and money. The concept is valid, the execution is not. If not for a few corporations throwing away money in their direction, it would already be gone. Simply put, it needs to be run like a real business, with real accountability and system of checks and balances that is less subject to the whims of a few anonymous individuals. As it is, it is run like a college project, which is why it is in constant financial distress.

Re:Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[magarity]

Ummmm. No. This has virtually nothing to do with donations. What you are running into is human nature. People generally do not pay for things they can get for free.

You are confusing paying for something that can be had for free with donating to a worthwhile nonprofit organization. People donate lots of money to what they perceive to be worthwhile nonprofits. Ever heard of the Red Cross or the Humane Society? The GP is complaining that he doesn't see WP as a worthwhile nonprofit, so he doesn't donate to it. It has nothing to do with getting anything from it for free.

Re:Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[TiberiusMonkey]

The thing is, (and I do plan on giving some money to Wiki next week) the huge "personal appeal" banners are more intrusive than some small (but likely very well paying) adverts would ever be.

Re:Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[Pharmboy]

There may very well be scores of former editors that were once willing to donate but got turned off by Wikipedia's mananagement, but unless those scores of people were millionaires willing to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash, they aren't really going to have any effect at all on Wikipedia's need for donations.

Saying that the thousands of people who can donate a few hundred per year "aren't really going to have any effect at all on Wikipedia's need for donations." is exactly the same type of arrogance that leads to droves of contributors leaving. Do you even realize how that kind of statement guarantees that people will not contribute to the project? It is the same attitude of the admins, that they are the expert and even if 50 editors disagree, it doesn't matter as those 50 people don't has as much effect as themselves. That they care more than those 50 people combined.

And yes, most USERS don't care, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the pool of potential contributors, those of us that have been involved with using and supporting free software for a couple decades and have the means to not donate millions, but our efforts combined IS millions. Saying it doesn't matter just proves that you have exactly what it takes to be a Wikipedia admin.

Re:Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[Thomasje]

Criticism of famous / historical figures has no place in an encyclopedia in the first place; they are supposed to be repositories of information, not opinion. I spent countless hours with major encyclopedias when I was a kid, and whenever I see criticism or praise of people in Wikipedia, it feels jarring and out of place. I don't consider it a problem, though, I just skip over those sections.

What keeps me coming back to Wikipedia is because it is actually truly excellent as an encyclopedia. Whenever I'm looking for something about physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, geography, history, etc. etc. etc., I find what I'm looking for and I find it quickly. The edit wars that so many people seem to have such huge stakes in tend not to affect articles that disseminate actual information, and those are the only ones I'm interested in; those are the only ones that belong there. The fact that lots of other people use Wikipedia as their personal political soapbox or Geocities page is a very minor annoyance, and maybe the way Wikipedia deals with those annoyances is heavy-handed and/or misguided sometimes, but it takes little to nothing away from its true utility. Certainly not enough to stop me from donating $100 a year.

Re:Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[twistedsymphony]

Not even politics but a holier than thou attitude... I own and operate collectorsedition.org it's basically a database of collector's edition video games. A vast majority of the games in the database I bought new, and have taken detailed photographs of the contents and details. then the relevant data is added to the database along with the photos and accompanying descriptions.

Looking though Wikipedia I'd notice some descriptions of the CEs for certain games would be wrong, and/or not sourced, I probably made a dozen small edits one day correcting minor errors and adding my database as a source. All of the edits were denied because my site was deemed an "unreliable source".

I don't know, when a description on Wikipedia is unsourced and says "included a soudtrack CD with 5 tracks" and I change it to read "12" tracks and site a source that has a detailed description as well as a photograph of the liner notes showing 12 tracks... I'm not quite sure how much more reliable they're looking to get.

Another instance is they had some incorrect technical specs listed for the Nissan 240sx, I own two of these cars and know quite a bit about them. I changed the uncited text and and cited a digital copy of the original Nissan Sales brochure that Nissan themselves were hosting online... again my edits were denied with no reason given.

I'd happy contribute time, knowledge, and money on a regular basis, but they've made it pretty clear that they don't want my help, and based on what I've seen on the topics I am already knowledgeable about, I've since stopped using them as a source of information altogether.

Re:Yo, Jimmy, I've got an idea:

[mcgrew]

If that's you, then do you really think your 2c are really worth even 2c? Especially on popular articles, there has been a lot of thought that went into making them; the edit that took you 20 seconds to dream up was probably thought of already.

Did you read my comment? It only took a minute to add the content, yes, but it was about a revolutionarily addition to the old fashioned IOLs. It was FDA approved three years before I added it. Sure, somebody may have dreamed it up first, and likely did. I wouldn't doubt that a hundred people added the accomodating lens (the new one) before I did, only to have THEIR edits deleted before mine was.

Basically, unless you are willing to become "someone from Wikpedia", you're not likely to make a lasting dent

Well, I'm not. I saw a needed edit, edited, and had the edit deleted. I've got better things to do than play office politics with a bunch of strangers; I get enough of that at work.

It's like throwing a dollar in the Salvation Army bucket and seeing the bucket guy fish my dollar out and throw it on the ground.

User revolt

[Gudeldar]

Wikipedia would have to pay a lot of people to edit it because a huge number of their volunteers would probably revolt and quit working on the site if there were ads on it.

I used to donate.

[Winckle]

Every year I used to donate what I could, £5, £10, or £15 but I got so pissed off with the deletionist attitude of the last year or two I just won't give anymore. I'm sick of remembering articles, going to check them and they're gone and yet stupid shit like "List of Catgirls" manages to stay.

The most annoying thing with deletionist attitudes is that it doesn't even make sense. The less popular an article is the less resources i.e. bandwith it uses

Re:Big Empty Space

[Neil_Brown]

What is the difference between it being blank or there being an advertisement there.

With AdBlock, the end result is much the same.

Is AdBlock sufficiently prevalent that ad-based funding is decreasingly viable? Is an advert annoying no matter what site it might be on, or are there many AdBlock users who disable blocking on sites which they want to support through that site's chosen revenue model?

No, wikipedia has to remain ad free

[circletimessquare]

There is information.

Then there is commerce.

Whenever commerce touches information, information has a way of getting warped.

It's really as simple as that.

Single advertiser / benefactor

[Dan East]

As much traffic as Wikipedia enjoys, it seems they could have a single large advertiser / benefactor that could be promoted in a subtle, unobtrusive manner because their "ad" would be visible on every page. To me that would be preferable to context sensitive ads (Google adwords type stuff) or rotating ads which have to scream for attention and thus are a constant distraction.
PBS and other non-profit entities have been able to do similar "advertising" in a very tasteful manner for many decades (between programming - "the following is made possible by donations from..."). That seems most fitting for Wikipedia as well, which is different than flat-out commercial advertising.

Re:Big Empty Space

[pz]

Isn't there a big empty space down the left side of most pages? What is the difference between it being blank or there being an advertisement there.

That is precisely the sort of attitude that gets us enhanced pat-downs and video cameras monitoring our every move.

I use Wikipedia frequently, and made a donation. Did you?

Here's a hint: the money to run Wikipedia comes from somewhere. If it came from advertising dollars, that money would ultimately be reflected in a increase in the cost of products, but because the conversion of money in your pocket through a retailer's payment processing system to the manufacturer's accounts receivable to the marketing department budget to an advertising agency to an adbuy at Wikipedia is horribly inefficient, the total cost for you, out of pocket, will be much higher than if you just send Wikipedia money. The only difference is you won't be obviously, immediately aware of it.

Please, donate directly.

For related reasons, when you donate money to a charitable or non-profit organization, don't take the gifts. That just increases their cost of acquiring your money, making your donation less efficient (and reducing the amount you can deduct on your taxes because the US government considers that a sale of goods and your donation is just the excess above fair market value for the gift you received). Just give the money.

Re:User donation model

[mark72005]

But we use Wikipedia so we don't have to read books.

about.com

[Dalroth]

You want to see what Wikipedia will look like if they start accepting advertising and basing their revenue model on that? Go to about.com. No Thanks,I like Wikipedia just the way it is.

Re:politics warp things more than ads; be open

[circletimessquare]

Anything written by human beings is biased. You can't scrub the bias out of Wikipedia, ever. All you can do is minimize it, and I think Wikipedia does a good job at that.

Look at the "discussion" tab: when it comes to politically charged issues, the concept of bias is simply bombed, stabbed, nuked, and otherwise blown to smithereens. Neutrality is simply impossible.

So when I see people like you, uncomfortable with Wikipedia's "bias," I have to think that you are expecting the impossible. That you don't understand what it means for an issue to be contentious and emotional, and therefore impossible to scrub of bias.

You are somehow expecting Wikipedia to solve a problem no one can solve. So do you not have a Wikipedia entry on something like abortion or palestine? No, you have a page on those issues. And you will never satisfy everyone, and someone will always be screaming bias. C'est la vie. Get used to it.

Basically, you have to stop talking about Wikipedia's bias, it has none. The truth is, on some subjects, everyone has a bias, including you. And this shows on the Wikipedia entry, in what is written, or your reaction to it. Some issues are just deeply charged. So say something in the dicussion tab, or edit a Wikipedia entry. You can't do any better than that. This applies to all of life, not just Wikipedia: go out there and let your voice be heard. You can't passively sit back and expect Wikipedia, let alone ANY media source, to somehow be magically unbiased on issues which are deeply emotional and contentious.

Have your bullshit meter on at all times, and don't hold Wikipedia to impossible standards. That's the best it can ever get, with Wikipedia, and in life.