4 ms·
Kinda off topic, but I think he's right about wikipedia serving ads. They have so many page views, they could put up a couple of image or text ads on the side a
by 3dFlatLander 17y ago
Kinda off topic, but I think he's right about wikipedia serving ads. They have so many page views, they could put up a couple of image or text ads on the side and make it look very tasteful--unlike mahalo and the other ad filled pages of the internet. Expanding on that, maybe they could only serve non-profits, giving them ridiculously low click or view rates. How could Jimmy Wales not be interested in that?
- cj 17y agoNon-profit with extremely low click rates is an excellent idea.
- hristov 17y agoIt would release a hornet's nest worth of issues. For example advertisers might change articles in which their ads appear in order to influence click-troughs. Then contributors will ask for a cut of the money. Then nobody will donate because they have to look at ads anyway. Then advertisers will start demanding from their sales people that certain content be changed or taken off "or I will remove my ads." So it should only be considered as a desperation move if their donations plummet.
- jimmyjim 17y agoTo really think about it now, it's truly remarkable that such a powerful entity can exist in such a material world, free of spam, ads, etc. I don't think we cherish this great resource as much as we should.
- kprobst 17y agoWales could put three Google text ads on the front page and finance the entire operation.
- bruceboughton 17y agoReally? My experience with Wikipedia is that topic pages are frequently the first result in Google so I don't think I've seen the homepage in at least a year.
- nollidge 17y agoPersonally, I never see the front page unless I'm on a new browser install and need to right-click > "Create Keyword For This Search" in the search box. But I imagine people who don't use nav-bar keywords go to the front page all the time to search for something.
- JoachimSchipper 17y agoMaking money off volunteers tends to make those volunteers disappear. Restricting themselves to charity may help, but it'll be an endless debate that will hurt them a lot.
- rpledge 17y agoPeople still volunteer to help at the Olympics, but I suspect you're right that adding ads would cause people to leave the community
- borism 17y ago> People still volunteer to help at the Olympics Really!?
- viggity 17y agoThis stuff happens all the time. I paid $200 to "volunteer" to work at the PGA Senior Open
- borism 17y agowell, I wouldn't call this stuff volunteering - you're probably interested in some particular (sporting) event and willing to pay for a good access with your work (and maybe some money) wikipedia editors don't get that kind of privileges relative to any random visitor, I'd argue.
- hobbe 17y agoI'd say they could go for pure sponsorships - just a set of logos with a link to each sponsor's homepage, under the heading "Wikipedia Gold Sponsors". Very few options to sponsor a reduced part of Wikipedia (i.e. sensible to allow on language level, not at keyword level). Probably still would make the foundation a healthy sum of money each year - many large corporations would like to be seen as good-hearted contributors to the world's largest source of free curated information.
- varaon 17y agoEven if they adopted an official policy of allowing criticism, there would still be a stigma to including criticism in articles about the sponsors.