3 ms·
In theory, yes. In practice, no. A single big donor, or a network of donors, might threaten to withdraw support unless some change is made, in exactly the same
by mseebach 16y ago
In theory, yes. In practice, no. A single big donor, or a network of donors, might threaten to withdraw support unless some change is made, in exactly the same way a commercial entity might do it (which is very in a very subtle way, typically no smoking guns).
But probably the best shield against pressure: Wikipedia is a property of such a high quality that no single advertiser will ever have larger value than the mass of high quality competitors standing in line to take his place.
- lwhi 16y agoThe way to counter this is to operate as much organisational transparency as possible. Bribery can only take place in private.
- Benjo 16y agoIt probably wouldn't have a effect, but because these things are impossible to measure, there's no way to know for sure. It seems clear that even the perception of possible bias created by ad revenue is of negative value to Wikipedia. It's possible these effects are small. However, as an organization, they've clearly decided that the total costs of advertising outweigh the benefits.
- gus_massa 16y agoThis is exactly what happened last May: "Pressure on the organisation had increased after Fox News reported the story, contacting a number of high-profile corporate donors to the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and related sites." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946