4 ms·

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

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 Even Jimbo was basically booted from the BDFL role after a few controversial actions, and now has rescinded most of his privileges.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.