4 ms·

Seems like the first time was in April 2009 (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009 http://wiki

by SlyShy 16y ago

Seems like the first time was in April 2009 (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_an...). Personally, I think this is a good idea. Granted, there get to be conflict of interest problems when more deals like this go down. But other than providing access to the data-feed Wikimedia seems like it doesn't have many options for revenue. Advertising and donations come to mind, and they already do the latter. Personally I think AdSense on Wikipedia pages would both be effective (in the same way that AdSense on Google search results are useful--people go to these pages with an intent to find something), but it would also open up a can of worms. I like that Google occasionally gives Wikipedia money so it doesn't have to do that. :-) Of course, I'm sure someone who has thought about it more could find ways to monetize Wikipedia. What if Wikipedia became so important that people would pay to edit the pages? There are corporations who would love to have the final word, and they could, so long as they paid for it, perhaps? What I'd like to see is the importance of Wikipedia as a repository of human knowledge recognized on an international level (like the UN, perhaps) and then institutionalized the way the IMF is. A guarantee that Wikipedia will always be there, funded by the nations of the world, would be great.

jacquesm 16y ago
Thanks for your elaborate answer. The reason I'm curious is because I think that wikipedia is one of the best things ever to come out of the web, at least a fragment of the web seems to have realized its true potential. It bothers me that wikipedia has to make these Faustian bargains in order to stay alive, and I agree fully with you that wikipedia ought to receive some funding from governments, as long as it does not come with 'strings attached'. I see wikipedia and facebook just about as opposite poles on the line of what the web could be like if we all cooperated with each other versus if we try to see how much we can screw each other over. What worries me mostly is that by making more and more commercial ties that wikipedia will lose its independence, and will be beholden to those that fund it, and possibly no longer able to see clearly. I think I'd have less of a problem with an adsense block on wikipedias pages than with these syndication deals, the fact that they could happen anyway (without benefits) doesn't really diminish that in my view.
metachor 16y ago
"What if Wikipedia became so important that people would pay to edit the pages? There are corporations who would love to have the final word, and they could, so long as they paid for it, perhaps?" This is a terrible idea and would lead to serious astroturfing of otherwise neutral articles. This would only serve to make money the final arbiter of truth.

by SlyShy 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

Thanks for your elaborate answer. The reason I'm curious is because I think that wikipedia is one of the best things ever to come out of the web, at least a fragment of the web seems to have realized its true potential. It bothers me that wikipedia has to make these Faustian bargains in order to stay alive, and I agree fully with you that wikipedia ought to receive some funding from governments, as long as it does not come with 'strings attached'. I see wikipedia and facebook just about as opposite poles on the line of what the web could be like if we all cooperated with each other versus if we try to see how much we can screw each other over. What worries me mostly is that by making more and more commercial ties that wikipedia will lose its independence, and will be beholden to those that fund it, and possibly no longer able to see clearly. I think I'd have less of a problem with an adsense block on wikipedias pages than with these syndication deals, the fact that they could happen anyway (without benefits) doesn't really diminish that in my view.

metachor 16y ago

"What if Wikipedia became so important that people would pay to edit the pages? There are corporations who would love to have the final word, and they could, so long as they paid for it, perhaps?" This is a terrible idea and would lead to serious astroturfing of otherwise neutral articles. This would only serve to make money the final arbiter of truth.