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

Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#131

Post by btilly »

lwhi wrote: post #114
btilly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is a significant compromise. But it is one that the carriers will fight very hard, so Google considered it worthwhile to get agreement on the rest. That's why it was called compromise, rather than being called what Google really wants. Note that the FTC ruling that they have been lauded for made the exact same compromise, for very similar reasons. What I'm really curious about is the disparity between how t…

What I'm really curious about is the disparity between how they are treated for their respective action The FTC is a regulatory body - Google is a corporation. There's a difference in motivation.

Google's motivation was to encourage exactly what the FTC did by coming up with a compromise position that was politically realistic. Making it something that a major carrier could sign up to was part of their goal.

In short they were attempting to make it easier for the FTC to do exactly what it did.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#132

Post by philwelch »

tptacek wrote: post #126
andywood wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for several years, up until, oh ~2005 or so, Wikipedia was on the path to becoming the repository of all human knowledge. Many people, including myself, found that to be extremely valuable, and exciting. Why don't we get to say that the fundamental point of Wikipedia is to be an aspiring repository of all human knowledge? Asserting that the reason for these policies is that it's [merely] an encyclopedia [more or…

When was that ever the stated goal of Wikipedia? Cite a source?

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." --Jimbo Wales, Slashdot interview, 2004

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/13512...

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#133

Post by kolmogorovcmplx »

tptacek wrote: post #130
kolmogorovcmplx wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This continuous lowering of the "delete or not" bar should be pretty obvious to anybody who has followed Wikipedia for some time. I used to be of the opinion that it was justified, but has realised lately that it has become a tool for political censorship. Some of the editing cliques have become very adept at suppressing unwanted views with dubious, but to many persuasive, application of the verifiability and notabil…

It should be very, very easy for you to produce a URL illustrating this phenomenon for those of us who are skeptical of it.

I have seen this happen on several subjects, but as it has been over a year since I actively participated and followed Wikipedia internals, I cannot immediately give you a particular example.

My observation of this abuse of policy has been as a bystander by the way. I've never actively edited any articles on these subjects.

Typical subjects where there most certainly are well organized and ideologically motivated editorial cliques include US foreign policy, anything to do with Israel, Turkey and its history, anything relating to Islam etc.

Abuse of the notability policy is just one, but very effective, tool for censoring and controlling the content though.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#134

Post by gopi »

I don't understand why they are so adamant about ads... A small adsense block (with 2 text ads) will cover all their expenses and more. It will not be intrusive and useful to visitors in most situations (as their content is well suited for a contextual ad system like adsense)...Also there is precedence in non-profits doing this like firefox with their google search deal (which makes them $100 million or so a year)

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#135

Post by visakhcr »

chaosmachine wrote: post #4
Ryan_IRL wrote: post #2

I'm aware it is temporary, but I'm surely not the only one thinking that banner is more annoying than the occasional ad would have been.

They could definitely make a killing with just a single AdSense block at the bottom of every article. Maybe even just the top 1000 articles. Instead, we get places like Answers.com mass-duplicating Wikipedia content and slapping big image ads on it.

I wrote a blog post on similar lines sometime back in 2008.

"Wikipedia should display ads and donate surplus to charity"

http://bonchibuji.blogspot.com/2008/12/wikipedia-should-disp...

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#136

Post by lwhi »

btilly wrote: post #131
lwhi wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm really curious about is the disparity between how they are treated for their respective action The FTC is a regulatory body - Google is a corporation. There's a difference in motivation.

Google's motivation was to encourage exactly what the FTC did by coming up with a compromise position that was politically realistic. Making it something that a major carrier could sign up to was part of their goal. In short they were attempting to make it easier for the FTC to do exactly what it did.

I don't understand how a corporation can be altruistic and self-motivated at exactly the same time; Google will always have an incentive to create conditions that are favourable to its business aims.

I'd don't think it's possible to view Google purely in terms of 'don't be evil'. 'Don't be evil' is a part of a marketing campaign.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#137

Post by [deleted] »

philwelch wrote: post #132
tptacek wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was that ever the stated goal of Wikipedia? Cite a source?

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." --Jimbo Wales, Slashdot interview, 2004 http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/13512...

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#138

Post by carussell »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #102
redthrowaway wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might feel that way, and certainly there are others who take issue with the general tone of Wikipedia. My advice is simple: try to fix it if you think it's a problem. Wikipedia is generally democratic, but not entirely. it's not majority rules. Come up with convincing arguments and get yourself taken seriously.

you just summed up the problem. democracy sucks. I'm going to be the asshole here and say some of us have things to do. convincing what are probably history majors with too much time on their hands due to being history majors that corrections are needed would be a huge time sink for no reward.

I was with you except for the part about slamming history majors. I'm not one, nor am I friends with any, but it's not clear to me that academics are hurting Wikipedia. If anything, I think Wikipedia could do better by following a more academic approach, and putting more emphasis on things like accountability.
Post reply on HN