Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

aaronklein.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#11

Post by orthecreedence »

tzs wrote: post #10
orthecreedence wrote: post #5

Ask 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?

They can...but the difference is that most people reading Wikipedia enjoy the fact that it's unbiased. I can imagine many more scenarios where a company/corporation would NOT enjoy this.

There are also many more readers of Wikipedia than there are advertisers. This makes gathering donations a more distributed means of paying their expenses.

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#13

Post by johnkchow »

These ads serve a secondary purpose of reminding people that Wikipedia's wealth of information originates by public knowledge. A lot of people tend to take knowledge for granted, and I personally feel humbled and grateful for Wikipedia from their ads.

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#14

Post by [deleted] »

tzs wrote: post #10
orthecreedence wrote: post #5

Ask 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?

[deleted]

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#15

Post by blurbytree »

aaronklein wrote: post #6
orthecreedence wrote: post #5

Ask 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.

They would undoubtedly make a lot more.

FWIW I find the current begging really offputting and irritating. More so than small relevant text adverts would be.

Online news sites run ads without worrying about impartiality etc. I don't see why wikipedia worries so much about it.

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#16

Post by orthecreedence »

aaronklein wrote: post #6
orthecreedence wrote: post #5

Ask 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.

In essence, my argument is this: because at their core, they are an unbiased source of information, the less controlling interests involved, the better.

To generate revenue from ads is to "sell" a piece of themselves. Equate it somewhat to raising money from investors. They now have much more revenue, but at the cost of some of the control of their company. Ads certainly don't take away control in the sense investors do, but depending on the revenue from ads in any way is an extremely slippery slope.

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#18

Post by jaylevitt »

JonnieCache wrote: post #9

One 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…

I don't know Wikipedia's donor requirements; how do they avoid that same conflict of interest via donations? Is there some maximum donation per individual, reporting requirement, etc. that prevents corruption any more than using an automated ad network like AdSense would?

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#19

Post by jarin »

orthecreedence wrote: post #16
aaronklein wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In essence, my argument is this: because at their core, they are an unbiased source of information, the less controlling interests involved, the better. To generate revenue from ads is to "sell" a piece of themselves. Equate it somewhat to raising money from investors. They now have much more revenue, but at the cost of some of the control of their company. Ads certainly don't take away control in the sense investors…

How about only showing the ads until each month's (or the year's) costs are met?

That way there's no temptation to try to derive a profit from it, and at worst you end up with ads on Wikipedia for a couple of months out of the year (kind of like you get now).

Re: Should Wikipedia run ads that ask for money, or ads that make money?

#20

Post by spodek »

Reminds me of a time I saw Craig of Craig's List on a forum in the mid 2000s. People asked him why he didn't put ads on the Craigs List. With negligible effort his company could profit hugely.

He politely pointed out that most of the companies that tried to maximize profit that way went bankrupt in the recession. Meanwhile his company was chugging along, free to do what it wanted, delivering a product its customers loved to a global audience with minimal staff, costs, or conflicts of interest.

People don't give you money for nothing.

Note to the original blogger, statements like "Capitalism won, try it," when referring to one of the most successful projects on the net, don't make them look bad. They make you look like you missed something. But that's just my perspective.

Post reply on HN