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:

[TrisexualPuppy]

Exactly. Most people just hate the incessant nagging that goes on with these "Personal Appeal" behemoth banners that have nothing to do with an appeal. Be straightforward and forthcoming, and just ask for the money.

As commonplace as Wikipedia has become, I think that the Web could use less of it. I am tired of seeing the Wikipedia article as the first result on every search. This isn't good for the diversity of information sources in general if everyone is reading from one source and few have a motivating factor to create independent pages or sites on the topics anymore.

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

[buchner.johannes]

Wikipedia is not collecting money for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has enough money.
Wikimedia is collecting money to build up Wikipedia's sister projects and get funding for 3rd world education projects (e.g. free books). But since Wikipedia is the most prominent project, they go from this angle.

Maybe Wikipedia having ads would be the 'internet way'. But the 'internet way' is also shitty websites. And all the projects with 'paid writers' or 'experts' have failed compared to Wikipedia. So better be independent, and (roughly) continue the way its done now.

Of course, I agree with your criticism. I would even be ok with a regular (e.g. every 3 years) database reset that deletes the discussion pages and user (privileges).

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:

[mcgrew]

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.

Back in 2006 I developed a cataract in one eye, so the first thing I did was to look it up on Wikipedia. After looking it up I saw a specialist for the surgery, who informed me of a new (FDA approved in 2003) device that replaced the traditional IOLs, an accomodating IOL that unlike older types, is on struts, is operated by the eye's muscles, and actually lets the eye focus like a young person's.

I checked Wikipedia again, and found no mention of this three year old technology on the page about cataract surgery. They had the single focus and multifocal (working much like bifocal or trifocal eyeglasses) lenses, but not the accomodating lens. So I edited it.

A week later the edit was gone. Re-edited, same thing.

Oddly, after I mentioned this in a slashdot comment in an article about editing wikipedia, maybe a year or so later, the accomodating lens was added to the article. Obviously, someone from Wikipedia had seen my comment.

But I'd already given up editing wikipedia; it makes no sense to take the effort to contribute, only to have your easily fact-verified contributions discarded.

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

[Teancum]

The Wikimedia Foundation isn't pissing people off? I take it you have never read much of the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list (sometimes called Foundation-l), where regularly there are people who do air issues and grievances... including pointed attacks against much of the leadership of the organization.

Some people try to take the issues up the food chain, and on occasion some of those issues do get resolved, but there are some endemic issues that seem to be regularly put off from time to time. One of the issues that seems to still eat at my craw is how the majority of the Wikimedia Foundation is still under the direct control of Jimmy Wales, as he appointed those board members personally and put them into that position. There are "elected" members of the board who as a matter of practice do most of the real heavy lifting work, but they still hold a minority position on the main governing board.

Jimmy Wales himself has sort of stirred the pot from time to time, most notably with his intervention into the governance of Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Commons.... both of which met with some extreme resistance from the respective communities where he was even "uninvited" due to his meddling and forced him to essentially lose his "founder's flag" as a matter of principle with his account. Wikiversity is still a fractured mess, and the Wikimedia Commons community (those who do most of the regular maintenance of that resource) has all but ignored the advise of Jimmy Wales... particularly as it applies to "obscene images".

There are indeed some reasons why there is some complaints about the governance of the Wikimedia projects, and some of it well founded. Perhaps the most current issue is mainly a complaint that the funds are somehow being managed inappropriately. The Foundation headquarters was moved from St. Petersberg, Florida to San Francisco. Perhaps there may have been some merit to that move for several reasons, but it certainly has ended up costing the Foundation much more to hire and keep support staff through financial incentives. Also, the number of staff members has grown considerable over the past couple of years, and there is also some questioning what exactly they are doing other than becoming a bloated bureaucracy of their own which is mainly busy trying to justify their jobs to donors. Most of the new jobs have little to do with the infrastructure of the Wikimedia projects (running the server farm, maintaining the network backbone connection, providing professional software development to the development of the MediaWiki software, etc.) but rather more to "public outreach" efforts or "community relations" issues. In other words, what exactly are those people doing that are spending the donations to the Wikimedia Foundation? In some cases they are duplicating volunteer positions, and those volunteers still exist.

If any of this is new, I hope you are somewhat enlightened. There are some complaints, and for me well founded complaints too. Some of the administrators do get rough from time to time when dealing with new contributors to Wikipedia and the other projects too. An "admin" really is just a volunteer position, which also brings in the problems with volunteer leadership and how to keep that under control. There really isn't an effective way to reign in admins unless they are being blatantly abusive, so for the most part the process to become an admin is usually set at a pretty high bar to begin with. Most of the time what happens when somebody gets upset with Wikipedia is that those new contributors usually have a different viewpoint about what Wikipedia is really all about, and if those new contributions go "out of scope" for what a typical administrator is looking for there are usually conflicts with those new contributors and the admins. Some admins are very blunt about the issues too and don't do a very good job of working with these new contributors either.... which is also why some people occasionally get a bad first impression about Wikipedia. Enough of those with a bad first impression exist where it is a negative factor for new contributors as well.

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.

Wrong person on the banner

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace Jimmy Wales with someone hot and you'll get many more donations.

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

They've already got cash

[arshadk]

I thought about donating some money. I use wikipedia pretty regularly and I'd like to support it. The only problem is I don't think they need any money. Their financial statements are available and it looks like they've got enough cash on hand to run for the year without any more donations. I don't see the need to add to their cushion.

Re:They've already got cash

[Eil]

Care to link? Were you talking aout this?

I find it somewhat surprising that less than half of their money is spent on servers and infrastructure. (On the other hand, it could be a lot less if they were willing to set up a secure mirror system rather than try to serve everything themselves.) Also interesting is that 21% of their total budget ($4.2 million) is planned to be spent on Community Programs. I thought delivering the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia to the masses for free was already something of a community program?

I just get the impression from Wikipedia that they're trying to run this non-profit a little too much like a business. Sure, the company itself doesn't turn a profit in the traditional sense, but I'd be very interested to know how much the staff makes and how that had scaled over time in relation to their annual budget.

Re:User donation model

[God'sDuck]

Sell books.

No seriously -- have an Amazon referral account for Wikipedia. Let users link articles to books on Amazon with more information. Link every footnote to a book to a "buy now" button. It's value-added, not random advertising, and Wikipedia would get a cut. In return for all the traffic, have Amazon serve the site for free. Then the only money needed is for the salaries of the full-time staff, which the book sales would cover.
 
Since there aren't ads everywhere, you can even continue asking for donations with a straight face.

Re:User donation model

[mark72005]

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

Re:Here's Your Cocktail Napkin Business Plan

[RDW]

Pepsi, the Choice of a New Generation! - CITATION NEEDED.

Re:Here's Your Cocktail Napkin Business Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Pepsi, the Choice of a New Generation[1]

[1] Certified Pepsiologists at the Pepsi Foundation determine scientifically that Pepsi is freaking awesome.