4 ms·

I have always found Wikipedias begging for money weird. Even if they chose to be driven by donations, I'd have imagined one the biggest website on the internet

I have always found Wikipedias begging for money weird. Even if they chose to be driven by donations, I'd have imagined one the biggest website on the internet has better, more effective ways of raising money. Is it really that bad for non-profits on the internet?

wpietri 5y ago
What did you have in mind as those better and more effective ways?
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  I would guess that's the crux of their efforts now. That is, like it or not, it works. As long as it's effective there's no incentive for them to change.
kettleballroll 5y ago
I can't really any good ways for them to raise money, outside of becoming a subscription service or selling user data. What ways did you imagine? Because the more I think about it, the harder this problem appears to be...
ceejayoz 5y ago
> I'd have imagined one the biggest website on the internet has better, more effective ways of raising money. How many of them are good for users, though? Sure, you can slap some Google AdWords on there, but there's a reputational and privacy cost. NPR-style sponsorships? Maybe, but I cringe when NPR does a story on Facebook that's bookended by "Facebook is a sponsor of NPR" a little. I'm a fan of the current model, in that it makes a conflict of interest quite unlikely.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
  It makes conflicts of interest a little less likely, but not at all unlikely. There are myriads of unsolved, ongoing conflicts of interest on any topic other than non-controversial scientific topics with broad consensus.
colechristensen 5y ago
You end up building your product for who gives you your money. With advertisers you build your product to sap as much attention as possible. With corporate sponsors you start to let them moderate your product. With annoying users for money you at least want your users to like you instead of making them a product of some kind or another.
unethical_ban 5y ago
When did you last donate?
xtracto 5y ago
They should do a "non free wikipedia week": once year for 1 week place a paywall that allows you to pay/donate whatever amount via PayPal, card, crypto or whatever other payment options, so that you can read the articles during that week. That way everyone will learn its value to them and they could collect some $$$
- bashmack 5y ago
  Wikipedia wouldn't do that for two reasons. One, it would force a lot of people to spend a few seconds thinking about what Wikipedia is and is not. And two, it might prompt Google or Amazon or whoever to do what they have always been legally allowed to do, and copy the entire Wikipedia database and host it themselves.

wpietri 5y ago

What did you have in mind as those better and more effective ways?

chiefalchemist 5y ago
I would guess that's the crux of their efforts now. That is, like it or not, it works. As long as it's effective there's no incentive for them to change.

kettleballroll 5y ago

I can't really any good ways for them to raise money, outside of becoming a subscription service or selling user data. What ways did you imagine? Because the more I think about it, the harder this problem appears to be...

ceejayoz 5y ago

> I'd have imagined one the biggest website on the internet has better, more effective ways of raising money. How many of them are good for users, though? Sure, you can slap some Google AdWords on there, but there's a reputational and privacy cost. NPR-style sponsorships? Maybe, but I cringe when NPR does a story on Facebook that's bookended by "Facebook is a sponsor of NPR" a little. I'm a fan of the current model, in that it makes a conflict of interest quite unlikely.

jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
It makes conflicts of interest a little less likely, but not at all unlikely. There are myriads of unsolved, ongoing conflicts of interest on any topic other than non-controversial scientific topics with broad consensus.

colechristensen 5y ago

You end up building your product for who gives you your money. With advertisers you build your product to sap as much attention as possible. With corporate sponsors you start to let them moderate your product. With annoying users for money you at least want your users to like you instead of making them a product of some kind or another.

unethical_ban 5y ago

When did you last donate?

xtracto 5y ago

They should do a "non free wikipedia week": once year for 1 week place a paywall that allows you to pay/donate whatever amount via PayPal, card, crypto or whatever other payment options, so that you can read the articles during that week. That way everyone will learn its value to them and they could collect some $$$

bashmack 5y ago
Wikipedia wouldn't do that for two reasons. One, it would force a lot of people to spend a few seconds thinking about what Wikipedia is and is not. And two, it might prompt Google or Amazon or whoever to do what they have always been legally allowed to do, and copy the entire Wikipedia database and host it themselves.