War of Words Over Wikipedia Ads Continues 353
Willis W. writes "Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales reiterates his opposition to advertising in response to reports that Wikipedia needs a major cash infusion. Responding to Jason Calacanis' charges that he 'has a fringe, anti-corporate bent to him' that is 'holding Wikipedia back,' Wales says that running ads on Wikipedia is not his decision to make. Though he personally dislikes the idea of advertising on Wikipedia, any decision to utilize ads would have to come from the community. At the moment, he won't rule anything out. 'I can't say if I would ever support something like that,' he tells Ars, 'but I can say that I currently maintain the same position I always have: I am opposed to it.'" What do you think Wikimedia should do to shore up the financial situation of the Wikipedia?
Its so obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Wiki ads (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wikipedia Meme - Topped Out Last Year (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is good for the same thing a conventional encyclopedia is good for: Learning enough about a subject to pick good search terms for, at a minimum, a general search engine, and possibly even more specialized catalogs.
Re:Wikipedia Meme - Topped Out Last Year (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wikipedia Meme - Topped Out Last Year (Score:5, Insightful)
I also like how you used Google Trends, which is an engine that essentially compares for which term is more searched for, and asked it whether MSN.com or Google.com fared better. Because I'm sure the number of people who use google.com to search for google.com are representative of everyone. Everyone with the inability to realize that they are already at the website they want to be at.
Philanthropy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Philanthropy (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, that is not to say that Wikipedia isn't doing something cool, so don't brand me as someone who is against it. Complaining about corruption in a police department, for example, doesn't mean you want the entire police force to disappear. On the whole, Wikipedia is a very useful resource and a good starting point for serious investigation of many topics. I want to see them succeed. However the rapid growth has given them some problems, and until they show that they are trying to address these problems I'm unlikely to donate. That way, I can save my money for a better successor if they end up dying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia is like the wild west, except that the good guys and bad guys both have machine guns that they like to shoot at the citizens in their free time.
Just like the Highway Maintainance (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Philanthropy (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely a better idea would be to just stop them ripping everyone off in the first place and then use that money (via say a fairer tax structure) to fund projects like Wikipedia and the many other "worthy causes" that Philanthropy supports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Philanthropy -- Distributed Hosting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one would be willing a few gigs of his hard drive as well as a small part of his bandwidth. Just leave mine alone. Anyone else with me? :)
Re: (Score:2)
In touch with the people (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that anti-corporate is all that "fringe". Most People feel that Mega-Corps have too much power. Making them a source of revenue, gives them control over the product. Look at the difference between PBS or BBC and most other TV networks. Or just ask your congressman what corperate sponsorship really costs.
Wikipedia sponsor solution proposal (Score:2)
Silulu. Hot Polynesian geek chick. Hot tech news. [scitechpulse.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i hate the lameness filter
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Man, you don't know what you're missing. I'm an American, and I download so many BBC programs that I almost feel as if I should pay into the TV fund in Britain. Along with Doctor Who and several excellent Sci-Fi series, the BBC is also an endless source for fascinating documentaries: The Power of Nightmares, The Century of the Self, Tetris: From Russia With Love, Mortgaged to the Yanks, etc. Then there's exce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All commercial free; content packed.
Not everyone of us expects our "Super Bowl" week after week either. Good things come to those who wait, and to those who donate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, corporate TV has: entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, and entertainment.
Wait... is there a pattern here somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Dan East
Re: (Score:2)
So the question would be: what's in it for Google? PageRank puts Wikipedia at the top because Wikipedia articles get linked to quite a bit.
Re:Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of all the wiki's about games or tv shows or whatever that have pictures etc. I just see it as a problem. Once there's money, some fucking lawyer from some fucking corporation is going to want to pressure wiki to do things as they see it, or else.
Google or someone else with money like BILL FUCKING GATES should donate money to wiki to keep them afloat. It's a nice public service created by the public with good intentions for all.
It would be a shame to see it go the way of corporate buy out or internet advertising and so forth.
Maybe Gates wont donate money cause Microsoft wants to do something similar.... Same for google... but inject ads all over the fucking place. See why Wiki needs to stay ad free? Remember the Do no evil Google statement? Youtube blows. They over censor, you can see violence but not tits, you can type "go suck my dick" in a comment, but you cant show it. You cant post anything as a public video that contains a clip from some tv shwo or anything without being taken down.
I just see it as a nightmare situation and another win for old corporate America if Wiki goes this route. In some respects, i'd rather see them just end Wiki rather than sell out to the sleeze.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, I think Google has a dual position on Wikipedia. They like them because Wikipedia increases the usefulness of the internet, which improves Google's market. On the other hand, for 90% of my information needs, I check Wikiped
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is a lot better at searching Wikipedia than Wikipedia is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I pointed out to him that adding Google text ads would in no way do this, bec
Re: (Score:2)
Ack - speaking of selling out. Google has proven themselves to be no better a company than any other. They made a mockery of their "do no evil" pledge with the whole search in China thing, and with their lobbying efforts in the various states. You may as well sell Wikipedia to Microsoft or IBM.
Wikipedia serves a lot of functions, and it serves a lot of people. I personally have donated to their cause. I guess it just surprises me how many people are willing to use Wikipedia, but how few are willing to pay
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop seeing the world in black and white. They did the right thing given two crappy options and are being punished for it by self-righteous westerners.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
More locked articles please? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I think anonymous edits is just a bad idea. I understand that some folk can't attribute their identities to their edits, but too bad. Without volunteers WASTING THEIR TIME on revision edits wikipedia wouldn't even be a good STARTING place let alone reference...
And please, if you're one of those trolls adding "LOL PENIS" to wiki articles, please stop. It's childish and doesn't make you cool, it makes you an ass making work for others.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More locked articles please? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK twitter, so you replied to a +5 funny joke with an insult, and now someone pointing out that you->joke = ZOOM is working for Microsoft? WTF?
You must think giving advice about "frothy penis" is funny, but I really think you need to talk to a mental health professional. You're beginning to lose track of the line between reality and your conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More locked articles please? (Score:5, Interesting)
A small delay before an account can be used, like on Fark, might also be useful to prevent throwaway accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple "Have a suggestion for this article? Leave it for the editors! _____________ [submit]" would be better.
fringe, anti-corporate bent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you might point out certain things like OS software, or telecom where there are only two or three players and it's often unwise to try to jump in without enormous ba
First (Score:5, Insightful)
Donations continue to pour in, the staff is minimal, and the Wikipedia brand is too powerful to simply disappear into the ether if money ever does get tight.
There you have it. The brand name is what the corps want to exploit. Well if they get their hands on it, then it wil be time to create an alternative based purely on the community. Because this one will become just another "Clear Channel" of web based encyclopedias.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy Solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Private donations should be enough (Score:2, Insightful)
As soon as advertisements are introduced into a project like this, the number of private donations will decrease because the average joe who uses wikipedia and chooses to donate $20 here and there will feel like his money is not what is making it tick anyhow.
User fee for bandwidth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're transferring more than about 100 GB / month with Amazon, by the way, you're getting ripped off to no end. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding some of the comments elsewhere in this thread, I think it's a mistake to assume that all corporate money is tainted. Take an entity like, say, IBM. Do you really think that a company the size of IBM is going to need to "monetize" Wikipedia? Put advertising al
You Want Wikipedia to Survive... (Score:2, Interesting)
You want wikipedia to survive, you have several choices:
Your choice, what is more tolerable?
Re:You Want Wikipedia to Survive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:it exsists (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is curious how everyone seem to think they can just ignore ads, and still corporations find that it repays spending billions buying them.
Also, with ads you still pay for it all, through increased prices the products that are advertised. The only difference is that some of that money is wasted producing the ad (so you actually pay more), and that you have to be bothered watching it. (This is especially accentuated with TV commercials, which is why I have ne
Jimbo anti-corporate? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please. You type that on a computer built only by hardworking locals following the centuries-old traditions of their people? I would wager a fair amount that the vast majority of the things you use in your daily life were produced by a corporation. I'm as willing to throw stones as the next and I fear the rise of the megacorps -- but let's not be silly and pretend that they aren't ruthlessly efficient in
Opt Out (Two Senses) (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly I don't see any good reason not to put even mandatory small tasteful text ads on wikipedia. I think it's silly enough for public radio/TV not to support themselves by ads but at least they do short sponsorship bits and they at least have the argument that they need to maintain the appearance of not being influenced by corporate money but wikipedia, by it's very nature doesn't need to worry about appearing to tailor its information to advertisers.
As far as Wale's claim that the decision isn't up to him it's up to the community it is correct but may not be the right point. My understanding is the default position is that wikipedia will remain without ads and the community would have to get up and make a demand for it to change. It is Wales (and other foundation members) decision to set the default policy and I think it should be the opposite.
Still, having said all that if other people care enough about wikipedia being ad free to donate money to keep it running then that's their prerogative. At one point I donated money for wikipedia but I won't do so again. I have no problem viewing ads to keep wikipedia afloat but since wikipedia could damn well support itself with zero detrimental effect my money could accomplish a great deal more being donated to projects that actually need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or better still: If you don't like them, you could pay a fee to have them turned off.
One of the things that drives me nuts about public radio is that even if you contribute, you still have to endure the pleas for money. PBS would probably get a lot more donors if donating let you shut them up with their fund raisers.
But the Internet doesn't have to force you endure fund-raising wher
Public Funding is the answer! (Score:4, Interesting)
You only has to look to the BBC for proof that this would work. They seem to be able to operate one of the Internet's great resources (with multimedia features which are surely far more demanding than wikipedia's) without the need for adverts or such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.K. government has absolutely zero control over the BBC, which is completely commanded by a group of 'governors' who are people who have worked their way through the organisation and have never had anything todo with national politics.
Furthermore the BBC is often among the present government's harshest critics, as was clearly demonstrated a couple of years ago when BBC investigative reporters (supposably falsely) made several "unfounded" accusations agains
Re: (Score:2)
Board of Directors (Score:4, Insightful)
The revenue from Google ads on the front page alone would surely guarantee the financial viability of the whole Wikimedia brand for years to come.
I see this as a board decision alone. While the community would have an uproar, the organization would survive. The vast majority of their "clients" would never realize the difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that with Wikipedia, the community is much of the organisation. While it would survive in some form, it would be severely decimated, losing a large portion of the most frequent and important contributors. The vast majority would perhaps not notice any difference immediately, but Wikipedia would have a tough
Cost Benefit Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
The question should not be whether wikipedia is better with or without ads. Obviously no one favors hosting ads for free on wikipedia. The question is whether the cost of having ads is more than the benefits ad money can buy.
Can anyone here really say they would take a million dollars from other needy open source/content projects or other worthwhile charity (cancer research etc..) just so people didn't have to see (opt out?) ads on wikipedia? Yet a million dollars is at the low end of the ad revenue wikipedia might generate, the potential to benefit the community is huge. Can you really say that not seeing ads is worth denying the community that much benefit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The free weekly paper in my home city, which has a large political section of a heavily leftist bent, has an enormous number of ads. Some are what one would expect (the local discount movie theatre, bookstores); however, most of them seem to be for porn, strip clubs, and escort services.
advertising is a form of violence (Score:3, Interesting)
two examples:
- mile after mile of billboards as you are driving
- the yellow pages
in the first example you are essentially held captive and forced to see advertising.
in the second you've made the choice to look at advertising in search of products and services.
the first example is for all intents and purposes against your will (thus violent).
the second example is something you choose freely.
if the community wants advertising, my preference would be for a "yellow pages" type of advertising model.
if you are for wikipedia advertising, which example most closely resembles the type of advertising you would choose?
Government funding. (Score:2)
Additionally. with government funding, they have no right to edit content, because of the first amendment. UNLIKE a private corporation, which can ignore first amendment rights.
It's like how some cable public access channels show porn, because of this free right.
I don't see a call to donate (Score:4, Interesting)
Before turning this over to advertisers make an appeal. Put it at the top of every article that comes up on search. You can't just say donations don't work when you don't really make an effort to us know you need them.
Wikipedia actually just did that (Score:3, Insightful)
they should sell software (Score:2, Interesting)
Decentralize? (Score:5, Interesting)
One way would be to figure out a way to decentralise the database. Rather than living on 350 servers perhaps it could live in 35,000,000 screen savers, all communicating peer to peer?
How? Beats me. Maybe start by experimenting with moving mediawiki's change tracking to modeled on Arch [gnuarch.org]? Rendering a wikipedia article would then become an exercise in gathering all the necessary changesets from the P2P network. Instead of querying wikipedia's servers, you could just query your screen saver. Editing an article would consist of making a change then publishing the changeset on the P2P network.
Any other ideas? These are just random musings. There are plenty of people who are seriously studying this stuff.
Mu. (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is - "what should Wikimedia do about the financial situation of the Wik
BBC is thinking about ads too (Score:5, Insightful)
According to The British Internet Publishers Alliance (BIPA), showing adverts to non-UK readers of BBC websites would also undermine the BBC's "worldwide reputation for integrity and impartiality."
Wiki articles are supposed to be written in the neutral point of view and while ads may not compromise that goal, it may be difficult to convey neutrality when you're writing about a product and running a related advertisement at the same time.
paid memberships (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone still has the same free access, but paid members are cited as supporters, with the length and amount of their support - creating a public log of how much they have given to support the encyclopedia. This type of membership is directly in line with the non profit purpose of the organization, so the fees are tax deductible donations.
Basically, it will tie in to the same reason why people give time and knowledge - to support the cause.
Memebers get a little "star" or a bold username of something - and membership is like $25/year.
Users who visit the site without a membership are greeted with a splash screen with the current financial information of wikipedia, burn rate, and a simple way to sign up and become a paid donating member.
9th grade biology (Score:3, Insightful)
As with any project of this size and scope, someone has to pay for it eventually. Whether it's through paid advertisements, user donations, subscriptions, or quasi-advertisements (sponsors) like they have on PBS and NPR these days, someone has to foot the bill.
Fund it with Federal Grants (Score:2, Interesting)
wikipedia.com (Score:2, Interesting)
Where's all the money going? (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I'm not going to make any donations or support advertising on Wikipedia until someone explains where all the money is going.
Re:Where's all the money going? (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I'm not going to make any donations or support advertising on Wikipedia until someone explains where all the money is going.
Wikipedia needs to be distributed -not full of ads (Score:3, Interesting)
Advertising isn't bad, decisions are (Score:2)
Before somebody hits me with the predicable Bill Hicks quote, everyone uses google, and they have advertising. They've just chosen to keep it more tasteful and less intrusive than others. The problem with the amount of specialization in our society is that people are hired because they have a really really really good hammer. The challenge is keeping people in an organzation from making decisi
I totally agree (Score:2)
Jason Calacanis needs to go away. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats sick.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because of this, our nation looked richer than it was. Before Reagan, we were the #1 creditor nation, since we are the #1 debtor nation. Its like we've been living off a home equity loan.
The practical upshot of this is that "lower priority" expenditures at the stat