3 ms·

Having Wikipedia sell ads would lead to insidious conflicts of interest. How do you know that they're not censoring edits to make articles reflect more positive

Having Wikipedia sell ads would lead to insidious conflicts of interest. How do you know that they're not censoring edits to make articles reflect more positively on a company with which they have a commercial relationship? It is possible to remove edits in a way that makes the diffs inaccessible. Currently, such power is used in a tiny minority of cases (e.g. personally identifying information). If Wikipedia entered into commercial partnerships with advertisers there would be great pressure to use those tools in a non-neutral fashion.

halo 15y ago
But how do you know Google isn't doing the same thing for its advertisers?
loire280 15y ago
It seems unlikely that the type of people who shepherd Wikipedia pages in their free time would fail to notice and immediately report that type of censorship. The proof would be unnecessary - even the implication that Wikipedia was tampering with the content of its pages would have a huge effect on its reputation.
- VMG 15y ago
  Still, writing factually correct and positive things about a company or advertiser becomes unnecessarily suspicious.
  - loire280 15y ago
    This isn't an unusual dilemma in publishing - print or online. If for-profit companies can adequately maintain editorial integrity despite pressure from ad partners, I think an ideological non-profit like Wikipedia can manage.
    - eCa 15y ago
      I am not convinced that for-profit companies can.
      - olalonde 15y ago
        Google？
bluekeybox 15y ago
This is nothing that can't be resolved with properly formulated agreements. Perhaps the problem with formulating such agreements is that there is no precedent.
jlarocco 15y ago
I dunno, I can imagine how accepting donations could make that an even bigger problem. Selling ads, they'd get a little money from a lot of people. Angering a company that's paying $50 a month isn't a big deal because it's just $50 and if they pull out Wikipedia can sell the ad to somebody else. On the other hand, in this case they're getting a lot of money from a single person. They might think twice before posting negative information about somebody who just donated $500k.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Having been an editor for years, believe me when I say that no one will think twice about editing Brin's page to include some negative details, especially if they're well-supported. The Foundation itself has almost no editorial oversight over content on WP. Even Jimbo was basically booted from the BDFL role after a few controversial actions, and now has rescinded most of his privileges. If there's anything Wikipedians excel at, it's causing a big furious stink whenever there's some indication of content tampering on the part of the Foundation. This is much easier to do when the vast majority of donors don't have a Wikipedia article on them, than when there is a list of 50 or so companies contributing advertising dollars. The present system works. The banners get annoying, but the content is free from the taint of bought influence.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
I agree the temptation is there, a number of people have accused Google of falling into this trap (sellind ads on search results gives them incentive to manipulate their search results). That being said, a subscription service would be good, and some folks would cry out voiciferously that they can go read the encyclopedia in the library for 'free' why not on the web. Culturally I think the world is coming to grips with the notion that information has intrinsic value, and that compensating that value achieves the goal of creating additional supplies of information. Interesting process to watch.
BobTurbo 15y ago
How do you know that they're not censoring edits to make articles reflect more positively on a company with which they have a donating relationship?

halo 15y ago

But how do you know Google isn't doing the same thing for its advertisers?

loire280 15y ago

It seems unlikely that the type of people who shepherd Wikipedia pages in their free time would fail to notice and immediately report that type of censorship. The proof would be unnecessary - even the implication that Wikipedia was tampering with the content of its pages would have a huge effect on its reputation.

VMG 15y ago
Still, writing factually correct and positive things about a company or advertiser becomes unnecessarily suspicious.
- loire280 15y ago
  This isn't an unusual dilemma in publishing - print or online. If for-profit companies can adequately maintain editorial integrity despite pressure from ad partners, I think an ideological non-profit like Wikipedia can manage.
  - eCa 15y ago
    I am not convinced that for-profit companies can.
    - olalonde 15y ago
      Google？

bluekeybox 15y ago

This is nothing that can't be resolved with properly formulated agreements. Perhaps the problem with formulating such agreements is that there is no precedent.

jlarocco 15y ago

I dunno, I can imagine how accepting donations could make that an even bigger problem. Selling ads, they'd get a little money from a lot of people. Angering a company that's paying $50 a month isn't a big deal because it's just $50 and if they pull out Wikipedia can sell the ad to somebody else. On the other hand, in this case they're getting a lot of money from a single person. They might think twice before posting negative information about somebody who just donated $500k.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Having been an editor for years, believe me when I say that no one will think twice about editing Brin's page to include some negative details, especially if they're well-supported. The Foundation itself has almost no editorial oversight over content on WP. Even Jimbo was basically booted from the BDFL role after a few controversial actions, and now has rescinded most of his privileges. If there's anything Wikipedians excel at, it's causing a big furious stink whenever there's some indication of content tampering on the part of the Foundation. This is much easier to do when the vast majority of donors don't have a Wikipedia article on them, than when there is a list of 50 or so companies contributing advertising dollars. The present system works. The banners get annoying, but the content is free from the taint of bought influence.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

I agree the temptation is there, a number of people have accused Google of falling into this trap (sellind ads on search results gives them incentive to manipulate their search results). That being said, a subscription service would be good, and some folks would cry out voiciferously that they can go read the encyclopedia in the library for 'free' why not on the web. Culturally I think the world is coming to grips with the notion that information has intrinsic value, and that compensating that value achieves the goal of creating additional supplies of information. Interesting process to watch.

BobTurbo 15y ago

How do you know that they're not censoring edits to make articles reflect more positively on a company with which they have a donating relationship?