5 ms·

I completely agree. I've long thought that Wikipedia should sell ads or have commercial partnerships. Another idea is partnering with a search engine. Add "Se

by halo 15y ago

I completely agree. I've long thought that Wikipedia should sell ads or have commercial partnerships. Another idea is partnering with a search engine. Add "Search for X on Google/Bing" to their search drop-downs and add a tasteful "Search in Google/Bing" on each article plus the search landing page. This wouldn't be very intrusive, many users would find it useful, and it's hugely valuable for the search engines. It seems like such a missed opportunity. The additional money raised could be used in so many ways: investing in full-time researchers and fact-checkers, having full-time photographers, creating teaching materials, or freeing up copyrighted content. Content, afterall, is their core competency. Wikimedia could be the Google of content if only it had the leadership and ambition.

waterlesscloud 15y ago
I think there would be a fairly strong uproar if they started making money off people's donated time and energy. The dynamic would change considerably.
- halo 15y ago
  Wikimedia is a not-for-profit. As long as they use the income to achieve their goals, I don't see why it's a problem. People don't seem to have any objection to commercialisation of open source software. The great things they could do with extra income are endless.
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    To be honest; the Foundation doesn't spend money particularly efficiently. And I don't think that now is a good time for them to end up with potentially limitless amounts of cash. I know it has been 10 years; but for various reasons the Foundation still isn't 100% there on the organisational level. Particularly on things like communications. The also spend a lot more than they probably should (for example; the budget for next year is something like $25 Million). That's not a criticism; things are still at the "investment" stage - where the Foundation/community are figuring out what to spend, where to spend it and how to do outreach. So I don't think having ads, and a flood of money, would work well at this stage (or, rather, work effectively). However; the biggest hurdle to ads on Wikipedia has nothing to do with perception or economics - it is simply that the community consistently rejects the idea. And the community has pretty strong autonomy :)
- retroafroman 15y ago
  That's exactly how some of the most popular open source projects work-Firefox for example. A large portion of the income that funds and supports development and sharing of the browser comes from a partnership with Google that puts it as the default search engine. The developers are volunteering their time just like Wikipedia editors.
  - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
    Mozilla developers are not volunteers. Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company.

by halo 15y ago

waterlesscloud 15y ago

I think there would be a fairly strong uproar if they started making money off people's donated time and energy. The dynamic would change considerably.

halo 15y ago
Wikimedia is a not-for-profit. As long as they use the income to achieve their goals, I don't see why it's a problem. People don't seem to have any objection to commercialisation of open source software. The great things they could do with extra income are endless.
- ErrantX 15y ago
  To be honest; the Foundation doesn't spend money particularly efficiently. And I don't think that now is a good time for them to end up with potentially limitless amounts of cash. I know it has been 10 years; but for various reasons the Foundation still isn't 100% there on the organisational level. Particularly on things like communications. The also spend a lot more than they probably should (for example; the budget for next year is something like $25 Million). That's not a criticism; things are still at the "investment" stage - where the Foundation/community are figuring out what to spend, where to spend it and how to do outreach. So I don't think having ads, and a flood of money, would work well at this stage (or, rather, work effectively). However; the biggest hurdle to ads on Wikipedia has nothing to do with perception or economics - it is simply that the community consistently rejects the idea. And the community has pretty strong autonomy :)
retroafroman 15y ago
That's exactly how some of the most popular open source projects work-Firefox for example. A large portion of the income that funds and supports development and sharing of the browser comes from a partnership with Google that puts it as the default search engine. The developers are volunteering their time just like Wikipedia editors.
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  Mozilla developers are not volunteers. Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company.