5 ms·

Here's my question: what's wrong with advertising? If users don't mind adverts on commercial sites that offer free content, why would they mind it on a not-for

by corin_ 16y ago

Here's my question: what's wrong with advertising? If users don't mind adverts on commercial sites that offer free content, why would they mind it on a not-for-profit site? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for donating to charities in general (and do, regularly), I'm all for donating to Wikipedia (and have done more than once), and I'm all for websites that allow people who donate to disable adverts. But despite having donated to Wikipedia, I'd have no problem with seeing adverts on every page (as long as they're reasonably subtle, and don't consist solely of the cheapest of the cheap adverts, such as "omg you won an ipod lol!!"). In fact, I think I'd prefer seeing normal adverts than the constant reminder that they want donations. "No ads. No agenda. No strings attached." Why does being a "community website" mean they shouldn't use advertising revenue to support their growth?

mwg66 16y ago
Because at times, the interests of advertisers can conflict with the interests of Wikipedia. And should that happen, Wikipedia's reputation and value becomes seriously undermined. I consider it somewhat analog to BBC being funded through a license fee rather than commercial advertising - aka Sky (BSkyB, owned by Murdoch).
- corin_ 16y ago
  BBC does show adverts to non-UK viewers online, though. And while I love that there are no adbreaks on BBC TV, I'd have no problem seeing adverts on the website. (I also fully support the license fee, would never want to see that replaced by advert revenue, just supplemented.) The difference is that adverts on TV actually stop you seeing what you want to see, online they don't. What kind of examples are you thinking of where advertisers can conflict with the interests of Wikipedia? For one thing, if they had an actual sales team rather than just getting adverts from Google then they could filter them out. For another, surely most users can understand that showing an advert doesn't mean the service supports whoever is behind it. People don't want X Factor and think "wow, Simon Cowell must really love Dominos pizza" (is that their main advertiser? Can't remember.)
  - mwg66 16y ago
    Some non-UK programming do show adverts, yes, but that is for different reasons - largely so that the British license fee isn't being seen to subsidise commercial content for other countries. But conversely, the BBC World Service does not including advertisements. I would think the best examples of a conflicts of interest is where particular articles detail unethical behaviour or any content in the public domain that an advertiser would prefer not to be included or made easily accessible. Obviously, its not to say that it will happen but just that it could. And it is naive at best to think that a separate sales team solves the problems of commercial bias or influence. Wikipedia is the single largest body of freely available knowledge in the history of mankind. It must remain so and the best way to do that is to continue accepting donations. I see no reason to change.
lwhi 16y ago
Commercial pressures present conflicts of interest. No form of media can claim to be truly impartial if advertising is displayed in amongst content. One of the defining features of Wikipedia is absence of advertising - introduce adverts and the brand will lose a great deal of its power.
- corin_ 16y ago
  Completely disagree. Even in corporate life, I work for a publishing company and our sales and editorial departments are completely seperate from that point of view, in that if a bad review is going up, we won't stop it going up or edit the content just because it's for a product made by a company who currently have an advertising campaign with us. And even more so in Wikipedia's case. They could even just have an external advertising company deal with all sales, so that even if advertisers complain their feedback doesn't get through to Wikipedia staff.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    The point is, a company can try to artificially shape public opinion by placing an advert. Without trying to be moralistic (or take any view on its relative merit) advertising _is_ largely an art of manipulation. In the context of Wikipedia - advertising would destroy any value Wikipedia has, because it would mean that companies with commercial interests would have a way to counter (and artificially influence) opinion. It would also create a situation where companies with the most money, would have the most clout. I think it would amount to a disaster if advertising was allowed in.
- mootothemax 16y ago
  Surely that's a redundant concern? Wikipedia is already open to being edited; companies can and have been caught editing entries relevant to their interests. Now, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and never will be in its current guise, i.e. with the anyone-can-edit philosophy. It's no bad thing, I love Wikipedia and can spend hours enjoying articles there. Where I'm going with this is that claiming conflict of interest or impartiality problems if advertising is to be introduced, well that just doesn't make sense - there are too many other factors that make Wikipedia unreliable. Personally, I think it's a convenient excuse for an otherwise noble cause: advertising is ugly and intrusive, and in a perfect world it wouldn't be required.
radu_floricica 16y ago
Among other reasons, because it may work. Should it make a load of money (and it isn't at all unlikely, given the traffic), you'll have a big pull to turn it into a commercial entity and maximize profits. And at the end of the day, what do you do with the money? Start paying contributors? Free donation supported model works, so no reason to risk the change.
- corin_ 16y ago
  In what kind of world do charities have to avoid making too much money? If they were the kind of people who would say "shit we're making loads of money, lets start getting rich" and they also believe that advertising might make that much money, then they would have done it already.
ugh 16y ago
The fear might be that many Wikipedia contributors believe that advertisements are wrong and evil. Introducing ads might cause serious upheaval among contributors and corresponding public relations problems. (Think: Digg.)
ig1 16y ago
Because the community of contributors has on multiple occasions strongly objected to advertising, on several occasions resulting in fracturing. In 2002 when the idea of banners ads was seriously raised the majority of the Spanish Wikipedia contributors forked and started Enciclopedia Libre, despite the fact that Wikipedia decided not to go ahead with adverts it took two years to attract enough contributors back to rival the forked site. That's not an experience the Wikipedia community want to repeat. Back in 2004 I proposed that Wikipedia made opt-in ads so people who wanted to support Wikipedia by watching ads could do so, but there wasn't enough support for the idea to gain traction.
- corin_ 16y ago
  And you have the winning answer to my question. Thanks :)
- cabalamat 16y ago
  Furthermore, if they did take advertising it would generate a lot of revenue, enough that the Wikimedia foundation would then spend all its time arguing what to do with it.
  - rmc 16y ago
    They they should only have ads on for X days out of the year. Adjust X depending on how much money you get from ads and how much money you need.
tokenadult 16y ago
You raise an interesting question. I wonder if Wikipedia had steady advertising revenue, then would it have both resources and incentive to drive off many of the point-of-view pushers who now skew so many Wikipedia articles to fringe points of view? From the point of view of many onlookers, that could be either a feature or a bug. The Wikipedia projects worldwide have had a static number of active editors for the last few years http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_P... and I have to think that one thing that turns off conscientious editors who refer to reliable sources is drive-by POV-pushers who can edit more article text per day, because they don't bother looking up sources to verify their opinions. But reasonable minds can differ both about this description of the problem, and about any proposed solution. So far Wikimedia Foundation still prefers the approach of seeking donations.
PostOnce 16y ago
The banners are advertising. It's just the people that want the money are from Wikipedia, rather than Coke or Apple.

by corin_ 16y ago

mwg66 16y ago

Because at times, the interests of advertisers can conflict with the interests of Wikipedia. And should that happen, Wikipedia's reputation and value becomes seriously undermined. I consider it somewhat analog to BBC being funded through a license fee rather than commercial advertising - aka Sky (BSkyB, owned by Murdoch).

corin_ 16y ago
BBC does show adverts to non-UK viewers online, though. And while I love that there are no adbreaks on BBC TV, I'd have no problem seeing adverts on the website. (I also fully support the license fee, would never want to see that replaced by advert revenue, just supplemented.) The difference is that adverts on TV actually stop you seeing what you want to see, online they don't. What kind of examples are you thinking of where advertisers can conflict with the interests of Wikipedia? For one thing, if they had an actual sales team rather than just getting adverts from Google then they could filter them out. For another, surely most users can understand that showing an advert doesn't mean the service supports whoever is behind it. People don't want X Factor and think "wow, Simon Cowell must really love Dominos pizza" (is that their main advertiser? Can't remember.)
- mwg66 16y ago
  Some non-UK programming do show adverts, yes, but that is for different reasons - largely so that the British license fee isn't being seen to subsidise commercial content for other countries. But conversely, the BBC World Service does not including advertisements. I would think the best examples of a conflicts of interest is where particular articles detail unethical behaviour or any content in the public domain that an advertiser would prefer not to be included or made easily accessible. Obviously, its not to say that it will happen but just that it could. And it is naive at best to think that a separate sales team solves the problems of commercial bias or influence. Wikipedia is the single largest body of freely available knowledge in the history of mankind. It must remain so and the best way to do that is to continue accepting donations. I see no reason to change.

lwhi 16y ago

Commercial pressures present conflicts of interest. No form of media can claim to be truly impartial if advertising is displayed in amongst content. One of the defining features of Wikipedia is absence of advertising - introduce adverts and the brand will lose a great deal of its power.

corin_ 16y ago
Completely disagree. Even in corporate life, I work for a publishing company and our sales and editorial departments are completely seperate from that point of view, in that if a bad review is going up, we won't stop it going up or edit the content just because it's for a product made by a company who currently have an advertising campaign with us. And even more so in Wikipedia's case. They could even just have an external advertising company deal with all sales, so that even if advertisers complain their feedback doesn't get through to Wikipedia staff.
- lwhi 16y ago
  The point is, a company can try to artificially shape public opinion by placing an advert. Without trying to be moralistic (or take any view on its relative merit) advertising _is_ largely an art of manipulation. In the context of Wikipedia - advertising would destroy any value Wikipedia has, because it would mean that companies with commercial interests would have a way to counter (and artificially influence) opinion. It would also create a situation where companies with the most money, would have the most clout. I think it would amount to a disaster if advertising was allowed in.
mootothemax 16y ago
Surely that's a redundant concern? Wikipedia is already open to being edited; companies can and have been caught editing entries relevant to their interests. Now, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and never will be in its current guise, i.e. with the anyone-can-edit philosophy. It's no bad thing, I love Wikipedia and can spend hours enjoying articles there. Where I'm going with this is that claiming conflict of interest or impartiality problems if advertising is to be introduced, well that just doesn't make sense - there are too many other factors that make Wikipedia unreliable. Personally, I think it's a convenient excuse for an otherwise noble cause: advertising is ugly and intrusive, and in a perfect world it wouldn't be required.

radu_floricica 16y ago

Among other reasons, because it may work. Should it make a load of money (and it isn't at all unlikely, given the traffic), you'll have a big pull to turn it into a commercial entity and maximize profits. And at the end of the day, what do you do with the money? Start paying contributors? Free donation supported model works, so no reason to risk the change.

corin_ 16y ago
In what kind of world do charities have to avoid making too much money? If they were the kind of people who would say "shit we're making loads of money, lets start getting rich" and they also believe that advertising might make that much money, then they would have done it already.

ugh 16y ago

The fear might be that many Wikipedia contributors believe that advertisements are wrong and evil. Introducing ads might cause serious upheaval among contributors and corresponding public relations problems. (Think: Digg.)

ig1 16y ago

Because the community of contributors has on multiple occasions strongly objected to advertising, on several occasions resulting in fracturing. In 2002 when the idea of banners ads was seriously raised the majority of the Spanish Wikipedia contributors forked and started Enciclopedia Libre, despite the fact that Wikipedia decided not to go ahead with adverts it took two years to attract enough contributors back to rival the forked site. That's not an experience the Wikipedia community want to repeat. Back in 2004 I proposed that Wikipedia made opt-in ads so people who wanted to support Wikipedia by watching ads could do so, but there wasn't enough support for the idea to gain traction.

corin_ 16y ago
And you have the winning answer to my question. Thanks :)
cabalamat 16y ago
Furthermore, if they did take advertising it would generate a lot of revenue, enough that the Wikimedia foundation would then spend all its time arguing what to do with it.
- rmc 16y ago
  They they should only have ads on for X days out of the year. Adjust X depending on how much money you get from ads and how much money you need.

tokenadult 16y ago

You raise an interesting question. I wonder if Wikipedia had steady advertising revenue, then would it have both resources and incentive to drive off many of the point-of-view pushers who now skew so many Wikipedia articles to fringe points of view? From the point of view of many onlookers, that could be either a feature or a bug. The Wikipedia projects worldwide have had a static number of active editors for the last few years http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_P... and I have to think that one thing that turns off conscientious editors who refer to reliable sources is drive-by POV-pushers who can edit more article text per day, because they don't bother looking up sources to verify their opinions. But reasonable minds can differ both about this description of the problem, and about any proposed solution. So far Wikimedia Foundation still prefers the approach of seeking donations.

PostOnce 16y ago

The banners are advertising. It's just the people that want the money are from Wikipedia, rather than Coke or Apple.