Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
1–10 of 83 posts
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#2They should place one ad in the sidebar, with a "request for comments" link right above it. Run that for a week, post the results, and let the community decide.
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#3They should place one ad in the sidebar, with a "request for comments" link right above it. Run that for a week, post the results, and let the community decide.
That's a great idea.
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#4Wikipedia should absolutely not run ads that make money. Even if they put the strictest protections in place to prevent advertisers interfering with the content it would still cast doubt in the eyes of those using the service.
If Wikipedia were to become dependent on a revenue stream generated from advertisements for products then over time they would become beholden to those interests.
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#5Ask for money. If this model works for them (it seems to), then there's no reason to change it.
Also, by having "sponsors" you open yourself up to "change this article to be like this, or we'll pull our support from Wikipedia." This may seem like a far-fetched scenario, but unless you only use the ad revenue for extra income and don't depend on it at all, you are vulnerable (no matter how many levels removed you are from the advertiser).
It's also extremely difficult to have a steady source of income and not become dependent on it (like ads). My point being that even if they did run ads, they would have to still depend only on community donations if they didn't want to be held on the puppet strings of the capitalist dollar, which is a hard thing to do.
Note that I'm not against capitalism, but once you depend on it for your income, you and your free speech are at its mercy.
I completely agree with Wikipedia for not running ads. It would open a door that once opened is very difficult to close.
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#6Ask for money. If this model works for them (it seems to), then there's no reason to change it. Also, by having "sponsors" you open yourself up to "change this article to be like this, or we'll pull our support from Wikipedia." This may seem like a far-fetched scenario, but unless you only use the ad revenue for extra income and don't depend on it at all , you are vulnerable (no matter how many levels removed you are…
Agreed if they are selling the ads directly.
They could throw Google AdWords up there and have the ads algorithmically placed.
They won't make as much money but they wouldn't have to beg.
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#7Wikipedia should absolutely not run ads that make money. Even if they put the strictest protections in place to prevent advertisers interfering with the content it would still cast doubt in the eyes of those using the service. If Wikipedia were to become dependent on a revenue stream generated from advertisements for products then over time they would become beholden to those interests.
Agreed if they are selling the ads directly.
They could throw Google AdWords up there and have the ads algorithmically placed.
They won't make as much money but they wouldn't have to beg.
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#8Ads that ask for money: the readers are wikipedia's customers.
Ads that make money: the readers are wikipedia's product.
Incentives matter.
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#9One of the best things about wikipedia, some might argue the best thing, is that it is free from all the conflicts of interest invited in by money changing hands in exchange for services.
This applies to all free culture, including the OSS world. It would be a tragedy to change it.
(Obviously in the OSS world, people do pay for services, but the important thing is you can always choose not to. Just as you can choose not to send money to wikipedia.)
Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?
#10Ask for money. If this model works for them (it seems to), then there's no reason to change it. Also, by having "sponsors" you open yourself up to "change this article to be like this, or we'll pull our support from Wikipedia." This may seem like a far-fetched scenario, but unless you only use the ad revenue for extra income and don't depend on it at all , you are vulnerable (no matter how many levels removed you are…
> Also, by having "sponsors" you open yourself up to "change this article to be like this, or we'll pull our support from Wikipedia."
Why can't the people who donate money do the same thing--that is threaten to stop donating unless an article is changed to their liking?