4 ms·
Wikipedia provides more value to me than Google, and it doesn't rely on adverts. And static websites with mostly text are very cheap to host now, and there are
by mrob 7y ago
Wikipedia provides more value to me than Google, and it doesn't rely on adverts.
And static websites with mostly text are very cheap to host now, and there are lots of people willing to share their knowledge without adverts. That was how it was usually done before the rise of web advertising, and old-fashioned websites still exist. You don't even need search engines to find them; there are volunteer-run directory projects like Curlie (successor to Open Directory Project and DMOZ).
Bloated websites full of video and megabytes of Javascript are probably too expensive to host without adverts, but I think the web would probably be better without them. I'd miss Youtube, but how many Youtube videos are really the best way to present the content and a good use of your time? A non-commercial web is possible.
- robbrown451 7y agoAre the "please donate" notices on Wikipedia not ads?
- kakwa_ 7y agoAs the article itself mentions, ads are not inherently bad. When justified, it's a way for a company X to say "hey, I've this product Y that does Z", informing the market. However, things go south very rapidly in our world, and is far from this simple honest task of informing the market. Wikipedia banner falls more or less in the honest category. It's even slightly better as the population "paying" for the product (through gifts) are already using it, and know its quality and its flaws.
- yellowapple 7y agoSure, but last I checked Wikipedia doesn't advertise itself outside of its own domains, nor does it actively spy on you with those ads wherever you go throughout the World Wide Web.
- robbrown451 7y agoRight, so some ads are different than others. Still, I'm trying to imagine what the web would be like if every site that currently does the "bad kind of advertising" put up guilt boxes instead. For one thing, Wikipedia would probably disappear, because all the other sites are competing for people's limited altruism.
- dymk 7y agoWikipedia almost goes under every year if their banners are to be believed. They have to beg for money to stay open. That's not a ringing endorsement of an "ad-less" model.
- philwelch 7y agoWikipedia is lying through their teeth and has tons of expenses well beyond keeping the servers running.
- cameronbrown 7y agoThey're going to shoot themselves in the foot doing that. Eventually people are going to stop donating as people become more blind to the donation drives.