4 ms·

The Easiest Way for Wikipedia to Make Money

4 points by justinmares 14y ago

kaolinite 14y ago
There's a big issue with this - it favours Amazon. What both society and the internet really doesn't need is yet another tie-in with Amazon! They're gaining more and more control of the publishing industry and it's scary. Wikipedia tries very hard to stay neutral and avoid advertising, so I think this would be out of the question.
- justinmares 14y ago
  True, though it would be easy to divide this among online book retailers, or even go directly through publisher's stores. Amazon was just the best example with an affiliate structure I could find.
  - kaolinite 14y ago
    Sure, however even if you have the affiliate info of 100 different booksellers, you're still favouring those 100. The fantastic thing about Wikipedia is that it's so damn neutral and I think that introducing any kind of affiliate links (which I do agree is a good idea in theory) will likely damage that.
- calbear81 14y ago
  I'm not sure how this is advertising. The user still sees the same exact link which is the name of a book, they just go to a site that delivers better on the intent of the click which is to read reviews and purchase the book. Often times, clicking out to a publisher site yields a poor site experience, no user reviews, and a more expensive price than Amazon provides not to mention they rock customer service. I for one have no problem with what they're doing to the publishing industry, especially after the e-book pricing fiasco. Lower prices and better service for all.
  - kaolinite 14y ago
    Well, first off - it's only advertising if the links are added in for this purpose - as mentioned in the article. If there are Amazon links already on Wikipedia, and I'm sure there are some, that's arguably alright to add affiliate links onto. However, the issue is that people may begin adding more and more Amazon links onto articles to try and get more money for Wikipedia - then it becomes advertising. Finally, your second point - I like better service and I like lower prices, but I dislike DRM and I dislike companies that obtain monopolies and exert control. It worries me that, in future, you will get kindle-only books or books that can only be bought with DRM. Books that in 50 years time may be lost forever. It really saddens me that we are giving away control of our media. Anyway - that's a rant for another article! Just for perspective: I really support DuckDuckGo using affiliate links with Amazon (and perhaps other retailers too) - I think that's a great way of generating money for the service without resorting to adverts. However, on Wikipedia, I don't think it should be used.

4 points by justinmares 14y ago

There's a big issue with this - it favours Amazon. What both society and the internet really doesn't need is yet another tie-in with Amazon! They're gaining more and more control of the publishing industry and it's scary. Wikipedia tries very hard to stay neutral and avoid advertising, so I think this would be out of the question.

justinmares 14y ago
True, though it would be easy to divide this among online book retailers, or even go directly through publisher's stores. Amazon was just the best example with an affiliate structure I could find.
- kaolinite 14y ago
  Sure, however even if you have the affiliate info of 100 different booksellers, you're still favouring those 100. The fantastic thing about Wikipedia is that it's so damn neutral and I think that introducing any kind of affiliate links (which I do agree is a good idea in theory) will likely damage that.
calbear81 14y ago
I'm not sure how this is advertising. The user still sees the same exact link which is the name of a book, they just go to a site that delivers better on the intent of the click which is to read reviews and purchase the book. Often times, clicking out to a publisher site yields a poor site experience, no user reviews, and a more expensive price than Amazon provides not to mention they rock customer service. I for one have no problem with what they're doing to the publishing industry, especially after the e-book pricing fiasco. Lower prices and better service for all.
- kaolinite 14y ago
  Well, first off - it's only advertising if the links are added in for this purpose - as mentioned in the article. If there are Amazon links already on Wikipedia, and I'm sure there are some, that's arguably alright to add affiliate links onto. However, the issue is that people may begin adding more and more Amazon links onto articles to try and get more money for Wikipedia - then it becomes advertising. Finally, your second point - I like better service and I like lower prices, but I dislike DRM and I dislike companies that obtain monopolies and exert control. It worries me that, in future, you will get kindle-only books or books that can only be bought with DRM. Books that in 50 years time may be lost forever. It really saddens me that we are giving away control of our media. Anyway - that's a rant for another article! Just for perspective: I really support DuckDuckGo using affiliate links with Amazon (and perhaps other retailers too) - I think that's a great way of generating money for the service without resorting to adverts. However, on Wikipedia, I don't think it should be used.