Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses

Wikimedia Proposes Advertising [Updated] 274

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the good-idea-bad-idea dept.
user9918277462 writes "The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has announced a new partnership with the Answers Corporation, which provides the content for Google Definitions links. There is also a lengthy discussion, wiki-style for those who wish to participate." Update 10/25 18:42 by SM: An announcement has been posted on Wikipedia to help clarify the original submission (which thankfully was patently false and has since been cleaned up a bit, our apologies to Wikimedia). Answers.com will be creating their own co-branded version which will show ads and no ads will be shown on wikipedia.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikimedia Proposes Advertising [Updated] More

Wikimedia Proposes Advertising [Updated]

Comments Filter:

  • Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:38PM (#13865630) Homepage Journal
    Some issues really need to be clairified.

    Wikis can be really horrible at these sorts of debates-- Sifting through the Wikipedia comments is like looking for a needle in a chickencoop full of hysterical chickens and misinformed roosters.

    Plus, since most of the text can be changed at any moment, how do I know that what I'm reading is accurate at this time, and not the opinion of some troll?

    1. Why does the Wikipedia board feel that they need advertisements? Are there budget problems or other financial issues?
    2. What do the opponents to the advertisements propose as an alternative? *Alterative Solutions* almost always work better then a straightup Boycott.

    3. What does this mean for the end user? Are there going to be advertisements within Wikipedia? I know what the submission says-- but the Wikipedia page itself says "Answers.com will launch a Wikipedia Edition of their popular 1-Click Answers software" [wikipedia.org], which makes it sound like there Answers.com is simply offering their own "Edition" of Wikipedia with some adsl. I can redistribute most of the content in Wikipedia, can't I? Isn't that what some commericial online enclopedias do?

    • Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:52PM (#13865729) Homepage
      Plus, since most of the text can be changed at any moment, how do I know that what I'm reading is accurate at this time, and not the opinion of some troll?

      Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.

      Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button. This has a number of advantages:
      • Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
      • Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
      • Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
      • (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.


      • How do you propose to decide when the Wiki is 'stable' enough for release? Do you expect to get agreement from users? Or would individual articles be marked stable? Even deciding when an individual article is stable would be difficult.

        As far as citing a stable version, its my understanding that a link to wikipedia can include a version so that the same text is referenced, regardless of future updates.
      • You already can link to specific revisions of a page, which is what you should do when you're citing an article, anyway, so that wouldn't be anything new.

      • Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by The Bubble ( 827153 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:44PM (#13866105) Homepage

        I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and especially with the reasons behind it; but you have to consider, not only the implications of these proposals to those who would harm the Wiki, but also the implications to those who would contribute.

        Removing the instant payoff for defacement also removes the instant payoff of contribution, which, to me, is part of the cool factor of the Wiki: if I contribute, those contributions go into effect now, and can be seen by anyone else immediately.

        As you point out, this information would still be accessible in the "unstable" section, but unstable versions of a page are often overlooked, and this could become a serious issue when people go to contribute: a user is reading a page, and want's to make an addition or correction; now they have to check the "unstable" version and see if the change has already been made.

        The simplicity of Wiki editing is a lot of its draw, and a lot of its power. This same simplicity and freedom is also its biggest flaw; but removing this simple freedom is not the answer, and more than dictatorship is the answer to quell those who would break the law of society.

      • Mod parent down! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Da_Biz ( 267075 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @06:54PM (#13867359)
        I don't mind people repeating a comment. Not citing where you got your text from, however, is questionable:

        http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&cid=138 23457 [slashdot.org]

        The text of the comment link above:
        Re:Perhaps they need a team of paid editors
        (Score:5, Interesting)
        by theLOUDroom (556455) Alter Relationship on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13823457)
        Jimbo started by trying paid editors

        What wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.

        Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button.

        This has a number of advantages:

                * Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
                * Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
                * Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
                * (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.

        --
        Life is too short to proofread.

    • Who Cares? Can I just have my info? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by queenb**ch ( 446380 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:53PM (#13865736) Homepage Journal
      I'm writing this as an end-user of Wikipedia, not a contributor. If the ads are Google-esque, who really cares? I don't mind browsing past an ad or two if I can actually find what I'm looking for. My issue with the Wikipedia is that many times I come upon "a stub" that needs to be expanded. Now, the Wikipedia politely asks me if I'd like to add to the stub. The problem with that is if I knew the answer, I certainly would NOT be browsing the f&*^%$# Wikipedia looking for the answer. Given the inflow of dollars to fund more entries, this might make the Wikipedia more useful to everyone. I'm all in favor of that.

      2 cents,

      Queen B

    • Here's the deal (Score:5, Informative)

      by elfguygmail.com ( 910009 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:07PM (#13865835) Homepage
      Before everyone starts inventing stuff about wikipedia having banner ads, here's what the deal is: - A link will be added in the left side bar on Wikipedia to the WP:TOOLS page. - That page lists software that can be used to improve the user experience of the Wikimedia projects, such as toolbars and other web helpers. - On that page the 1-Click toolbar will be listed on top. - People using this toolbar and seeing the ads will bring revenue to both 1-Click Answers and the Wikimedia Foundation.

    • Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Talrias ( 705583 ) <chris.starglade@org> on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:12PM (#13865871) Homepage
      You're right. The press release (as written by both Answers.com and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees) was not exactly what they were trying to say. There's already been a long discussion [wikipedia.org] about exactly what the deal involves one of the mailing lists. I'll try and summarise the facts:

      • Downloading of the tool is optional, and advertising only appears to people who are using the tool.
      • The tool will be listed on an existing Wikipedia page, [[Wikipedia:Tools [wikipedia.org]]].
      • The link can be removed by any Wikipedian if they so choose (but of course this works both ways).
      • Answers.com did not pay the Wikimedia Foundation to get the tool placed on Wikipedia.
      • The Foundation will receive a unspecified percentage of all profits Answers.com gain from advertising using the tool.

      Unfortunately the situation was not helped by a rather badly worded press release which led the community to a false sense of what the deal actually was. The above is what will occur, according to Jimbo Wales and the other members of the Board.

      Chris

    • In other news.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sillybilly ( 668960 )
      Server load on wikipedia is going up - who pays for that? On the other hand, the nice thing about wikipedia is that it doesn't quiver and shake and explode in your face, insulting your intelligence and dignity, like all the other advertising driven sites. Only Google ads are still and calm, I'd have no problem with those, if they get a small, designated ad section - but not like those news sites that blast a picture in the middle of some news story, and squeeze the text to a 5 letter wide column to accomoda

  • Irony alert (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LeonGeeste ( 917243 ) *
    Isn't it funny how people are going to advertise -- on Wikipedia -- a project to keep Wikipedia free of advertisements? Check out this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject _no_ads#Projects [wikipedia.org]

    This of course, just underscores the point made by Walter Block in Defending the Undefendable how even people who ridicule persuasive (non-informational) advertising as "wasteful" take every chance to engage in it themselves. (While the no-ads project may provide information, the advertisements the

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:45PM (#13865676)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Irony alert (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LeonGeeste ( 917243 ) *
        Leftists are actually heavily under-represented in charitable volunteering.

        But that's not the point: people who can insert their bias into an article do so, and it remains until someone corrects it. If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance. I think it's inherent to the format.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • "Leftists are actually heavily under-represented in charitable volunteering."

          "If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance."

          If only left-wingers were interested in a particular topic, then surely only left-wingers would be reading it ?

          You talk about balance, and complain about the "left" but not the "right".

          Aren't you a little unbalbanced ?
      • Project run for free by people with collectivist view of the word resorts to advertising because otherwise number of people who use system without contributing thereto makes system unsustainable... hmm... yes, shocking indeed...

    • Re:Irony alert (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:02PM (#13865796) Homepage Journal
      I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias

      Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias.

      Capitalists would suffocate the project in any attempt to maximize profits. Fascists wouldn't be into the idea of a Wiki at all.

      For the record, I'm mostly just a Wikipedia user-- not a hardcore author or anything.

    • Re:Irony alert (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:24PM (#13865964) Homepage
      "I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias"

      Nonsense. I've seen numerous posts that have a capitalist bias instead of the usual socialist one. They usually read something like this:

        <a href="http://pharmacy-cheap-phentermine.6x.to">che ap phentermine</a> <a href="http://pharmacy-buy-phentermine.6x.to">buy phentermine</a> <a href="http://phentermine-online-pharmacy.6x.to">ph entermine online</a> <a href="http://hydrocodone-online-pharmacy.6x.to">hy drocodone online</a> <a href="http://buy-hydrocodone-pharmacy.6x.to">buy hydrocodone</a> <a href="http://buy-ambien-pharmacy.6x.to">buy ambien</a> <a href="http://texas-holdem-em.6x.to">texas holdem em</a> <a href="http://adware-spyware.6x.to">adware spyware</a> <a href="http://spyware-doctors.6x.to">spyware doctors</a> <a href="http://buy-diazepam.6x.to">buy diazepam</a> <a href="http://pacific-poker-online.6x.to">pacific poker online</a> <a href="http://carisoprodol-pharmacy.6x.to">carisopr odol</a> <a href="http://buy-carisoprodol.6x.to">buy carisoprodol</a> <a href="http://buy-viagra-pharmacy.6x.to">buy viagra</a> <a href="http://viagra-online-pharmacy.6x.to">viagra online</a> <a href="http://buy-tramadol-pharmacy.6x.to">buy tramadol</a> <a href="http://discountpill.hotusa.org/">viagra</a>

      For some reason the evil socialists delete posts like that. Darn idealogues.

  • Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by totallygeek ( 263191 ) <sellis@totallygeek.com> on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:38PM (#13865635) Homepage
    I think that Wikipedia is a great service. The people behind it should be compensated for time, effort, hardware and bandwidth. I have no problem with advertisements to fund this. I mean, it is better than paying for a subscription!

    • Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot.kadin@xox y . net> on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:06PM (#13865830) Homepage Journal
      I agree with you in spirit; the problem I have is that Wikipedia recently had a fundraising drive where they accepted donations. Although they certainly didn't say "we're never going to have ads," I think -- given that they were ad free and asking for donations -- a lot of people may have given them money while under the impression that they were contributing to an ad-free site (or to keep it that way).

      For the Wikimedia Foundation to have taken people's money so freely and then to start putting up ads isn't going to win them many friends with the community they've spawned, and perhaps most especially among the people who just donated.

      At the very least it's going to make a lot of people more reluctant to give money to similar causes in the future, because they'll feel like I do now: I didn't donate anything other than my time (although I was considering it), but if it's true that they're going to an ad-supported business model then I'm just glad I didn't cut that check, since clearly they don't need my money.

      It's not that I don't think Wikipedia is a good service -- I do, or even that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't within their rights to put up ads -- they are. What I'm not comfortable with is that they asked for donations from individuals without exhausting the other options first. In my mind, asking your users for cash ought to be an option of last (not first) resort, and that they did ask for donations should have meant that they had either taken the idea of advertising completely off the table as unacceptable, or already pursued it as far as it could go.

      It's the difference between somebody asking me for money when they're truly destitute and desperate, or asking me for money and then waiting to see how much I cough up before they decide whether to get a job.

      Hopefully there's more to the story that I just haven't found out yet, but right now I think that their timing really stinks, and that a lot of other people will probably agree.
    • Very much agree : I don't mind (non obtrusive) ads, if it let's me see the content for free.
      I think the problem that might arise here is that alot of people contributed to it with their knowledge and time, and those are now not getting any compensation for it.
      A solution to this could be that the money that they gain with advertising, only goes towards server maintenance (and other costs that come with hosting a site like wikipedia), and maybe even donate the rest to some good cause.

      A bit offtopic, but th

    • Re:Not a problem (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kebes ( 861706 )
      I'm not trying to be mean... I agree with the spirit of your post... but let me say:

      I think that Wikipedia is a great service.
      Wikimedia is not a "service" in the traditional (economic) sense. Wikimedia is a not-for-profit organization with a charitable charter to distribute information to everyone for free. They should uphold this charter.

      The people behind it should be compensated for time...
      The people behind it are people like me, who write articles and fix entries all the time. The money that Wi

  • Fundraising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:39PM (#13865648)
    Didn't Wikipedia have a fundraising last time i checked? Why the need for advertising then?

    The first priority should be keep the site clean, because that's one of the strengths of wikipedia, if i would have wanted advertising i would have went to any commercial info site.

  • The 1-Click Software is quite useful (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digid ( 259751 ) * on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:43PM (#13865666)
    I don't mind this at all. This 1-click software is quite useful and others should be informed about it. Anytime I see a word that's unfamiliar I just alt+click and I get the wiki. Any application. Very nice.
    • This 1-click software is quite useful and others should be informed about it. Anytime I see a word that's unfamiliar I just alt+click and I get the wiki.
      Maybe I'm just a nitpicker, but how is "alt+click" 1-click? That sounds like key+click to me, and something that I'd rather do with right-click+click rather than using two hands.
      • Most users tend to have one hand on the mouse and one on the keyboard... as opposed to one on the mouse and one on their joystick. :)

        right-click+click is four separate actions: Right click, Visually locate menu item (May be to right or left of cursor depending on how close to the edge of the screen it is, and the list may have additional items depending on context so it may not even be in the same location), Move mouse to menu item, left click it. This all involves one hand so they MUST be done sequentially
        • ah, but you're oversimplifying.

          When most people are casually web browsing, they're not poised with one hand on the keyboard. So Alt+click involves moving off hand to keyboard, visually locating the alt key, press and hold ALT, then click.

          once I move my off hand to the keyboard, what is going to hold my head up? So there's also the need to stop and manufacture a stick/pillow assemlby, at least the first time.

    • I've recently installed Trillian [trillian.cc] and I noticed it very casually highlights words in your IM-windows, which have Wikipedia entries : You can then either highlight them (and it will popup a small description) or click on it, to go to its Wikipedia entry.
      Very cool stuff in my opinion.

  • Wikipedia Entry for AdBlock Extension (Score:5, Funny)

    by The_Rippa ( 181699 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:44PM (#13865671)
    Can I be the first to update the wikipedia entry on the AdBlock extension with a filterset to hide the wikipedia ads?
    • That'd be hard. All the actual advertisements will appear on pages at Answers.com - not on actual Wikipedia pages. There will be a link to the software at the Wikipedia Tools page, but there are lots of links to software at the Wikipedia Tools page. They'll also put the Tools page in the sidebar, but they were considering doing something like that anyway.

  • Dont act so surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:46PM (#13865681)
    Wikipedia is fast growing in reputation and use. Advertising remains the single source of income for many websites. As long as the advertising is done along the lines of Googles advertising I cant see a problem. This coming from someone who uses Wikipedia plenty.

    There will inevitable be some unrealistic people who want to get something as good as Wikipedia for nothing. I bet they didnt contribute. I did.

    Theres always Encarta *cough*

  • Weird (Score:4, Interesting)

    by augustz ( 18082 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:47PM (#13865689)
    Here's a deal of unknown value (for answers.com it obviously has value, market cap went up $8m on annoucement).

    Folks like google offer to host, but don't seem to be taken up on the offer:
    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting [wikimedia.org]

    Does the board just want more $$ to play with (in other words, hosting doesn't give them the money they want to have the pleasure of spending)?
    • i'll admit i dunno why google hosting is going nowhere atm, some offers are already being used (yahoo knams and lost oasis).

      however the way the wikimedia server setup is currently structured all the high CPU work is done in one place. The other clusters are just caches. Maybe this will change but apparently mysql replication accross networks other than lans is not all that stable.

  • Very mad contributor (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wow. I just wasted 2 years of my life adding tons and tons of information to wikipedia for FREE.

    They want to profit from all that information? I want a piece!!

    I am so mad right now. Very very mad.
    • Negatory. The Wikimedia foundation is non-profit. The money they get out of this deal will be used for keeping their servers online and for charitable encyclopedia-related projects ("printing out copies for children in Africa").

      Or perhaps you were unaware that there were already hundreds of mirrors and forks [wikipedia.org] with tons of ads sitting on Google just to get their operator a few bucks for decidedly NOT nonprofit reasons. Perhaps you should scream at them loudly first, hmm?

    • Wikipedias Do Not Grow On Trees (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EXTomar ( 78739 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:24PM (#13865961)
      As altrustic Wikipedia is, the problem is the machines have physical monetary resources. Someone has to be paid to do the maintance. Someone has to be paid to do the bug fixing. Someone has to front the cash for the lifecycle of the hardware or whatever plan they have for deployment.

      Unless people come forward to do this stuff for free they need to raise cash from somewhere to pay for all of this stuff. And unlike your "contributions" to Wikipedia, these things are hardly easy to do by a guy in his spare time.

      As for "profit" I don't think Wikipedia has a profit motive but lets do the Devil's Advocate. What is wrong with a profit model based upon information mining in Wikipedia? The information is freely available for anyone to use as they chose. If I come up with a clever app that mines choice information out of it then do you still want your piece? The information should be free for anyone to find. For you, me, and Google. Hey wait...why aren't you harping on Google for your piece?

      I'm perfectly happy for Wikipedia to find some sort of revenue stream to keep the thing going. Its either ads or donations/merchandise. Given my choice I would rather do donations and merchandise but I can't understand the financials on whether or not this is reasonable. Or maybe they can get lucky and find out they have a rich uncle who died and left them a fortune the size of the GNP of a small country?
      • There's regular fund drives [wikimediafoundation.org] for their hardware costs anyway (not sure if bandwidth is included), and these have so far been more than successful. Wikipedia also have some sort of deal with both Google and Yahoo! to relieve them of some hardware and bandwidth needs.

        Not sure about the administrator payment -- I assumed this was a group of volunteers such as a large bulk of e.g. Mozilla developers?

        And no, Wikipedia definitely has no profit motive, that's why the creator started it, and why I think it has been
    • You knew all along that it was totally OK for ANYONE to harvest all of it and make money off it, of course while still complying with the license. If you didn't, you are the only to blame.

  • Why is it always advertising? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teutonic_leech ( 596265 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:52PM (#13865728)
    There's an old saying that goes: to a man with a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed to solve any financial woes? So many projects have started on a free basis and there is an old addage in marketing that stipulates that it is very hard to hike prices after selling something for less before (or giving it away for free). I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably (and less annoyingly). How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two a month you have access to a wealth of information you are interested in. This would be a bit like 'packaging' in the cable industry (just it would be better structured). For the hard core among us there might be a a-la-carte menu they could choose from and pay a certain amount per site. I know this sounds a bit strange at first, but it's just a matter of 'redistribution' of funds and cutting out the middle man.
    Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere down the line? Of course some of us buy into it and we spend dollars that get rerouted back to the sites we access for 'free'. It's a very annoying way to make money (who likes advertising after all - and how much energy to we exert to rid us of it?) and it doesn't seem to work very well, meaning you need to cluster bomb the online population to achieve an effect.
    Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

    • Why is it always advertising?-Illusions. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Obviously the artificial desire for whitespace didn't infect you.

      "Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated."

      Because people love their illusions. They want to believe that they're actually getting something for nothing. Paying directl

    • IIRC, the original promise of cable TV was that, since I was paying a subscription fee, there would be no advertising. That obviously isn't the case any more. Now, if I chose to pay for cable (I don't watch any TV any more, let alone pay for it, BTW), I am paying for the opportunity to watch commercials.

      Given that highly-successful precident, I can easily forsee your proposed packaging being bastardized in a similar fashion.

      Of course, you're still working on the premise that there's stuff on teh Intar

    • There is a corallary saying to yours, that I personally believe.. "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a hell of a lot of fun!"
    • Many systems have been tried: subscription, passes, "free" registration, micropayments, and so on.

      People have been well trained to expect a free flow of information on the internet, with no encumberances. Ironically, the least annoying revenue generator from the user's perspective is advertising, since most people are well trained to ignore ads anyway.

      I am aware of only one other method that has not been completely supplanted by advertising, and that is merchandising-only sites (e.g., Homestar Runner). Ho

    • I agree with the previous commenter who suggested advertising creeps into previously "free" services (like cable TV, or like the Web itself, if you can remember back to its pre-pop-up days) because folks can thereby delude themselves that they're still getting it for "free." (It never was free, of course -- it was only parasitizing one something else, e.g. the original Web was a parasite on government-sponsored research computing. But this is a secondary point.)

      Problem is, advertising is not a permanent

  • Advertising is Okay (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dante Shamest ( 813622 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:53PM (#13865735)
    They just have to do it right. Things to think of:
    1. Ads should be relevant to the article, but I don't think pornography/drugs/gambling should be permitted. They'll only affect the image of the project.
    2. They must be noticeable, but not intrusive. No pop-ups! Text-based would be best, something akin to Google's.
    3. They must not seriously affect performance of the site. Wikipedia isn't exactly the fastest kid on the block right now, so I hope the addition of advertising doesn't make it choke.
    Actually, after reading the vague press release, it seems like the ads won't be on Wikipedia itself.

  • Probably not that bad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:54PM (#13865741)
    I use gmail like 20 times a day, and I honestly never notice the text based ads. It should be possible to make unobtrusive ads, or even ads that are benficial. Let's say that I look up a movie on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll get an ad from a store selling the DVD for cheap? They already have external links to websites involved in an article. Maybe if those sites pay to get the ad, it'll help wikipedia.

  • Coca-Cola (n.) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Heffenfeffer ( 888559 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:55PM (#13865746)
    Coca-Cola Coca-Cola is a subpar soft drink, especially compared to PEPSI-COLA (tm). It was designed as a delivery system of cocaine, unlike PEPSI-COLA (tm). Further, the Coca-Cola company uses incredibly moronic advertising to sell its product with no health benefits whatsover - unlike PEPSI-COLA (tm) commercials (click to watch an award-winning PEPSI-COLA (tm) commercial now!)

    Coca-Cola can be found in many resturaunts with health code violations, unlike PEPSI-COLA, which can be found in top-rated resturants KFC (tm), PIZZA HUT (tm), and TACO BELL (tm).

    See also:

    PEPSI
    WILD CHERRY PEPSI
    PEPSI EDGE
    DIET PEPSI

  • Ain't the information gpl'd? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kynde ( 324134 ) <kynde@[ ].fi ['iki' in gap]> on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:55PM (#13865747)
    Couldn't some people just simply mirror the stuff elsewhere and go on from there?

    I agree wholeheartedly that this is a sad thing to happen. Information source of wikipedia's kind should not be mixed with business. Moreover, I was under the impression that they had received quite good money from donations.

  • One possible problem... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wikipedia is a great resource, and generally, I would tend to support the decisions of the organizers to fund it in the way that they see fit.

    However, it is worth pointing out that they currently take in a substantial amount of donations, and that opening the door to advertising would probably blunt the enthusiasm of charitable givers.

    I do hope whatever deal has been hashed out is worth a substantial fraction of currently generated revenues.

  • So Google can do it, but these can't? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xarius ( 691264 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @02:57PM (#13865760) Homepage
    I see a lot of grousing in the linked discussion with people threatening to "leave and never come back". I'd wager almost everyone who is grousing uses Google, and this is exactly the same thing. Let's not forget that servers don't run on scotch mist and the bandwidth fairy certainly doesn't exist.

    Someone needs to pay for this, and I don't see how relevant advertisements can detract from the site at all, in fact they will probably add to it a great deal.

    If it was great big shiny flash banner adds with screeching canary gifs or something, I'd understand. The moaners need to put up, or shut up really.
    • You may be interested to know that Wikimedia currently says that they don't need the money for servers or bandwidth. Currently, fundraising and donations of servers from companies are enough to keep Wikimedia running. Thus, this advertising deal would represent extra funds. The extra funds would (theoretically) be used to further Wikimedia's charitable mission to spread free information to all people on Earth.

      It is clear that Wikimedia needs money to keep running. However, this ad deal is not needed in orde

  • FAQ for your convenience! (Score:5, Informative)

    by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:06PM (#13865824) Homepage

    Frequently Assumed Quandaries resolved:

    1. The deal is not finalized. Nothing is "struck" or required.
    2. Nobody is forced to use the software.
    3. There are no ads/adware/spyware in the software.
      Er, surely there must be adverts in the software, or where does the money come from?? Dan100 [slashdot.org] (Talk) [wikipedia.org] 18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      The software lets you go to a web page, such as http://answer.com/foo [answer.com] - The web page has all the advertisements. -Fennec [wikipedia.org] () [slashdot.org] 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    4. The link to the software will only be at WP:TOOLS [wikipedia.org], nowhere else.
      • A link to WP:TOOLS [wikipedia.org] will be placed in the sidebar, not a link to the software.
    5. The tools page already links to non-free software.
    6. Answers.com could have posted their link on the tools page without offering the Foundation a cent.
    7. Bob Rosenschien and Jimbo Wales have been in firm and absolute agreement from the beginning that the form of link chosen by the community is up to the community.
    8. The community is free to remove the link from WP:TOOLS [wikipedia.org], but know that this will stop Wikimedia from receiving additional funds.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/ 1-Click_Answers#F.A.Q. [wikipedia.org]
    • And something else which might be of interest:

      You've asked what is perhaps the most important question of all: what's to keep them from doing this without any cooperation from the Board or revenue sharing at all? Well, other than the use of our name, there is nothing to keep them from doing it. The fact that they ethically approached us and made a generous offer to help us out in a way that is beneficial for them and us is a credit to them, and something we should applaud.
      --Jimbo Wales 12:51, 21 October 2

  • Don't like it? Pay up. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nerdposeur ( 910128 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:12PM (#13865881) Journal
    My first question when I started using Wikipedia was, "How is this funded?"

    Answer: donations. Since I have never given any money, I'd have no problem accepting ads.

    I hope that the people who are complaining the loudest have given the most. Otherwise, they're mad because they can't get something for nothing.
  • Maru, angry contributer no 5 at the referenced anti-ads page:

    Absolutely not! I will seriously look into retracting my contributions

    Man alive, this could spell disaster! But wait:

    Not to spoil your fun, but you have already licensed all your edits under the GFDL, and can't retract them as such.

    No, a quick click of the revert button, and your carefully-tended articles contributed for no reward are back in print, surrounded by ads!

    Anyway, if the ads are anything like Google, and given the nature of t

  • From Wiki article:
    This article has recently been linked from Slashdot.
    Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism
    What are they saying. /. readers are more likley to vandalise a page? ;)
    • Not necessarily. It could just imply:
      • that a Slashdot reader has an average (or even below-average) likelihood of vandalising, but due to their sheer number the vandalism count may increase
      • that people not otherwise affiliated with Slashdot but who enjoy vandalism go to vandalize the page because it is temporarily a high-profile target

  • Article wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by smeenz ( 652345 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:24PM (#13865966) Homepage
    As is so often the case, the slashdot headline is wrong.

    From the page:

    Welcome to visitors from Slashdot. Please be aware that the Slashdot story is completely wrong. There is no proposal to have advertising on Wikipedia. There are numerous errors of fact on this page. (See below if you're interested.) --Jimbo Wales 19:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    P.S. I originally posted this as AC so as not to be seen to be hording karma, but then I realised it wouldn't be seen if I posted it that way, so here goes again.

    (Wouldn't it be nice if you could EDIT your posts on slashdot)

  • Krabappel: Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium?
    Martin: Ooh ... delicious?
    Krabappel: Correct. I would also accept snacktacular.

  • What did you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcguyver ( 589810 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:26PM (#13865981) Homepage
    Google and Yahoo are giving away bandwish and servers for free? eBay did give money to Wikipedia as an investment and not a donation. The board is run by a bunch people that don't have millions and work regular 9-5 jobs. The partnership with answers.com may be a minor change to the Wikipedia foundation but it's a sign of things to come. There's too much money and opportunity to ignore Wikipedia's advertising potential.
    • +3 insightful?

      How about -5 completely lacking in any relation to reality?

      eBay has never given money to Wikipedia. 1 board member works a regular 9-5 job, the rest don't.
      • Woops, I stand corrected, eBay bought a 25 percent interest in Craigslist.org, not Wikipedia...I'm confusing my dot coms. I still doubt Wiki's ability to remain ad free forever. The people running the show will eventually cash in.

  • shame slashdot is not a wiki (Score:4, Funny)

    by bigmammoth ( 526309 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:27PM (#13865994) Homepage
    its a shame slashdot is not a wiki we could have strained out the inacruacies of the article post by now...
  • Just recently, it was announced [blogspot.com] that Opera would start a partnership with Answers.com as well, mostly for their upcoming Opera 9 browser (which is available already as a tech preview). Seems like they're gaining popularity, and for having such a clean site [answers.com] I can't say I dislike it. Looks like a good site that aggregates info from various sources.

    However, Wikipedia information/vandalism critics may be opposed to that Answers.com heavily use that service, and it's now starting to get seamlessly integrated in

  • Four words.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kiddailey ( 165202 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:35PM (#13866046) Homepage

    Bandwidth is not free.

    Why do people think that sites like this -- that become immensly useful and popular -- can sustanin themselves without a steady revenue stream? A web site is not like TV or radio where you broadcast a signal over the air and any number of people can pick it up without killing your station.

    I don't care how much time or effort anyone spent contributing content to the site. The fact is that SOMEONE has to pay to host that content and serve it to visitors.

    From the Wiki FAQ:
    "Previously, the site was hosted on the servers of Bomis, Inc, a company mostly owned by Jimmy Wales, who is currently the funder of part of the site's operational costs."
    So Mr. Wales pays for part of the operational costs and the rest comes from donations and a few grants and sponsorships.

    We're not talking a few hundred bucks a year and a single server running out of someone's in-home LAN closet. A total of $739,200 was budgeted for the 2005 calendar year alone [wikimediafoundation.org], and that's not pocket change.

    First quarter fund raising earned a miniscule $96,648.70 [wikimediafoundation.org] and if they did as well (surpassing their goal by 25%) every quarter, they'd still be $352,605.20 shy of the 2005 budget.

    Given the very little bit I know from looking at this information, I don't see it being an easy task to survive during their continued growth without some kind of revenue generating system on the site -- whether it be ads or subscription.

    • Despite the figures you quote, the Wikimedia talk page on this subject [wikipedia.org] has a quote from Angela [wikipedia.org] (who is on the Board of trustees [wikimediafoundation.org]). There, she specifically says:

      No, it wasn't necessitated by the budget. I am expecting the revenue would be regarded as something additional to what is needed to keep the site running. For example, special projects like the distribution of content in Africa and so on.

      Thus, this money isn't needed to cover servers and bandwidth. So far, donations have been enough for that, a

      • Yes, but she also says further into the discussion:

        The important points to consider are that the co-branded version will be totally licence compliant (just as gurunet currently is), that its access will be totally opt-in (so you may choose not to use it at all), it keeps Wikipedia totally ads-free as many editors want it to stay, it generates revenues much needed to support our current amazing growth (and limit the number of times a fundraising drive notice will be visible on all pages), and finally, I hope

    • Re:Four words.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mike1024 ( 184871 )
      First quarter fund raising earned a miniscule $96,648.70 and if they did as well (surpassing their goal by 25%) every quarter, they'd still be $352,605.20 shy of the 2005 budget.

      True, but if instead of citing the Q1 fund drive you'd cited the more recent Q3 fund drive [wikimediafoundation.org], you would have reported a rather more upbeat $243,930 USD. If they did as well every quarter, they would have $975,720 -- 32% over what they are budgeted to spend.

      Given that the Q1 fundraising came in 25% over target (target $75,000) and the

  • No ads vs ads? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Matt_Bennett ( 79107 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:40PM (#13866074) Homepage Journal
    I really do trust in the folks behind wikipedia- they want to keep the project going, but at a certain point, someone has to pay for this stuff.

    Why not set up two servers with the same content- one supported wholly by donations (with no ads), the other supported by ads (a la adwords), give them different (but close) URLs and see how it works out? If the free server gets plenty of donations, they will be able to support more users/bandwidth, on the other hand, maybe the ad supported site will get more money and be able to support more users/bandwidth.

    Overall, the most important piece is that the raw data be now *and forever* free to anyone that wants it. Can't the licensing be limited to preventing the forking of a proprietary (non-free) but publicly accessable database?

  • Uncyclopedia also partners with Answers... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:41PM (#13866082) Journal
    Seems like Answers Corporation is making a grab for the Wikishare. Saw this posted on the the Uncyclopedia [uncyclopedia.org], the one true source for knowledge, earlier today.

    The Uncyclopedia has announced a fund-raising (WORK FROM HOME! MAKE SIX FIGURES) partnership with Answers Corporation (http://www.gurunet.com/ [gurunet.com]) and will replace all of the Uncyclopedia content with a growing (Buy PENIS enlargement products NOW!!!) number of unobtrusive advertisements. The Uncylopedia will recieve three easy installments of $19.95.

    It's a sad day for the Wikispace.

  • Some Wikipedians have created the No Ads Wikiproject in response.

    Yeah ... because that's cheaper than taking the annual bill for Wikipedia hosting and bandwidth, dividing it equally amongst themselves, and forking over the cash.

    I hope the proposed solution works for them. It's a lot more reasonable and likely to succeed than the No Ad version.

    • Wikipedia is supported by donations as it is, and it works quite well. The latest fund drive met its goal and then some.

      The greatest asset is already provided by the same people who created the No Ads project page -- namely the content. If Wikipedia turns into something its contributors don't like, Wikipedia will not stay alive for long.

      Wikipedia will likely never have any ads, since the community as a whole generally opposes them on the project that they have donated thousands of hours to. Thankfully, if b

  • As the press release [answers.com] states, some Answers.com software will be receiving "chartered placement" on a Wikipedia tools listing in return for compensating the foundation. I suppose you might say that doesn't constitute advertising (as the "clarification" states) but it's a distinction without a difference.

  • No big deal (Score:3, Informative)

    by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @04:00PM (#13866206) Journal
    The proposed scheme is really as unobtrusive as it can be. You don't get any ads as you browse the Wikipedia, not even in forms of a links. You have to go to the Tools page (the link is in the sidebar), download the software, and then use it to navigate so you get redirected to pages on answer.com, which have ads. Quite a lot of things to do before you see your first ad, so this is very much an opt-in scheme - and who ever had troubles with those?

    But really, I don't mind seeing ads in wiki pages at all. Actually, I think that Google's context ads would fit the concept quite nicely - due to the nature of encyclopedic articles, there should be more than enough keywords to produce ads with very high degree of relevancy.

  • BLATANT KARMA WHORING (Score:3, Insightful)

    by njyoder ( 164804 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @05:51PM (#13867002) Journal
    This is Tim Starling's comment on the Wikimedia foundation: "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps."

    And we're supposed to be surprised that they make unilateral moves like this? They didn't get any kind of consensus before doing this, in spite of that being the basic Wikipedia principle. Of course, Wikimedia principle's are to act unilaterally. I wonder if they'd really honor a trial run at all.

    Yeah, sure, it's "not an advertisement" because they aren't contractually obligated to put an ad for the software on WP:TOOLS. However, they would have never added it without the deal, and, in fact, if the Wikipedians kept the link removed from the tools page the company would withdrawal its funding to Wikimedia. So in other words, Wikipedia is (or will be) hosting a link to a commercial product, w hich when removed, will remove a source of revenue for it. Sounds like an advertisement to me.

    Also, it appears they don't need these profits to even run the servers. THat's right, they're mostly being funneled into random, unrelated charities. While some might consider this noble, the many Wikipedians who contributed their work don't consider it ethical to use their freely contributed work as a means to act as a cash cow for Wikimedia's personal pet charities without any consenus at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Close