3 ms·
If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?", they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has s
by solipsist 16y ago
If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?", they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has shown the world something that no one would have expected; it seems as if most people would rather have the ads given the circumstances.
- philipn 16y agoMost people being commenters on HN? Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia?
- Untitled 16y ago> Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia? How many of those that donated thought that the advertisements would disappear after they gave money?
- rb2k_ 16y agoI think the problem for a lot of people is that "the website" doesn't seem to be where the majority of the money is going. There are grants, "External contractors", salaries, ... I personally think that most people would be happy if they just concentrated on keeping the site up and running. While they DO need a bit of workforce for that, they should stick to the "core" that is the website. p.s. I'm perfectly happy with another non-profit trying to make workshops, grants and other things, but I'd prefer there to be a "we're just the website" one too...