Comments on: I support advertising on Wikipedia http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/ My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:56:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ashok http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-108691 Ashok Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:33:50 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-108691 I strongly support idea of ads on wikipedia. I have donated couple of times in the past and cannot make this as subscription every time. There was a banner that portrays the current donation scale that reaches close to 6 million and was there for almost a month and half. If they could enable that space for ads then it would have reached in few days the same amount. As a end user who craves for information never mind to have some ads on one side of the site, which would help the site to sustains and grow as big as google day by day and I would enjoy more free services as google provides. I strongly support idea of ads on wikipedia. I have donated couple of times in the past and cannot make this as subscription every time. There was a banner that portrays the current donation scale that reaches close to 6 million and was there for almost a month and half. If they could enable that space for ads then it would have reached in few days the same amount.

As a end user who craves for information never mind to have some ads on one side of the site, which would help the site to sustains and grow as big as google day by day and I would enjoy more free services as google provides.

]]> By: Alex http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-100856 Alex Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:32:15 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-100856 Recently Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales placed his image on each and every Wikipedia page, asking for donations. Wikipedia boasts nearly 400 million unique visitors monthly, with 3,000 views every second. In other words, while Wales is soliciting donations he is arguably the single MOST VISIBLE INDIVIDUAL on the Internet, surpassing top celebrities, politicians and religious leaders. While unquestionably effective for promoting Mr. Wales, is relying on donations really best for Wikipedia? At WikipediaExperts.com, we believe that advertising revenues could provide incomparably better financing of Wikipedia, without affecting its neutrality. For example, would we have an easier searchable Internet if, instead of relying on $23 billion of annual revenues, Google adorned every search page with its founders’ pictures and their personal appeal to donate? Recently Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales placed his image on each and every Wikipedia page, asking for donations. Wikipedia boasts nearly 400 million unique visitors monthly, with 3,000 views every second. In other words, while Wales is soliciting donations he is arguably the single MOST VISIBLE INDIVIDUAL on the Internet, surpassing top celebrities, politicians and religious leaders.

While unquestionably effective for promoting Mr. Wales, is relying on donations really best for Wikipedia? At WikipediaExperts.com, we believe that advertising revenues could provide incomparably better financing of Wikipedia, without affecting its neutrality. For example, would we have an easier searchable Internet if, instead of relying on $23 billion of annual revenues, Google adorned every search page with its founders’ pictures and their personal appeal to donate?

]]> By: Matt Lee http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-100266 Matt Lee Fri, 15 May 2009 12:28:51 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-100266 I support the idea. I think all these big sites should have advertising -- any more money they can get to help them move things faster, the better. Something like AdBard -- http://adbard.net/ -- which delivers ads about Free Software to Free Software sites would be good. Some third party service, which delivered ads from within Wikipedia itself -- ie. ads under PD/CC 0/BY-SA or GFDL, protected in some way from being deleted/defaced, but actually served as part of the page itself, instead of via third party javascript, would do well. I support the idea. I think all these big sites should have advertising — any more money they can get to help them move things faster, the better.

Something like AdBard — http://adbard.net/ — which delivers ads about Free Software to Free Software sites would be good. Some third party service, which delivered ads from within Wikipedia itself — ie. ads under PD/CC 0/BY-SA or GFDL, protected in some way from being deleted/defaced, but actually served as part of the page itself, instead of via third party javascript, would do well.

]]> By: Joe Blogs http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-99986 Joe Blogs Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:54:01 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-99986 I support small text based advertising on Wikipedia. A small one line bar at the top of the page would be fine. Perhaps just to people who are not logged in. I would see this as a great way to fund a great project. I support small text based advertising on Wikipedia.

A small one line bar at the top of the page would be fine. Perhaps just to people who are not logged in. I would see this as a great way to fund a great project.

]]> By: Wikipedia fundraising: advertising is cool | Commercial Open Source Software http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-98774 Wikipedia fundraising: advertising is cool | Commercial Open Source Software Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:50:26 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-98774 [...] Wikimedia Foundation might do lots of good things and Slashdot readers objections to ads doesn’t sound good to me [...] [...] Wikimedia Foundation might do lots of good things and Slashdot readers objections to ads doesn’t sound good to me [...]

]]> By: x http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-98201 x Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:40:00 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-98201 wikipedia will have ads sooner or later. when it will be too damn late to take them down:) wikipedia will have ads sooner or later. when it will be too damn late to take them down:)

]]> By: Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia interviewed by BBC HardTalk | Midas Oracle .ORG http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-97249 Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia interviewed by BBC HardTalk | Midas Oracle .ORG Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:10:33 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-97249 [...] question that will be of interest only to mister Mike Linksvayer. How Wikipedia manages to harness the wisdom of crowds is much more [...] [...] question that will be of interest only to mister Mike Linksvayer. How Wikipedia manages to harness the wisdom of crowds is much more [...]

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer » Wikimedia advertising (soft) drive http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-96608 Mike Linksvayer » Wikimedia advertising (soft) drive Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:20:05 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-96608 [...] I support advertising on Wikipedia [...] [...] I support advertising on Wikipedia [...]

]]> By: Your pal Johnny http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-94554 Your pal Johnny Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:46:49 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-94554 <b>Sebastian Says: <i>I do not support advertising on wikipedia. Because then you are making money on information that isn’t yours (e.g. the users)</i> Sebastian, you're a little shaky on the whole "public domain" thing, aren't you? Some things don't have owners. But Chris is right that this decision should be made by the community. Speaking for myself, I support having text ads on Wikipedia.</b> Sebastian Says:
I do not support advertising on wikipedia. Because then you are making money on information that isn’t yours (e.g. the users)

Sebastian, you’re a little shaky on the whole “public domain” thing, aren’t you? Some things don’t have owners.

But Chris is right that this decision should be made by the community. Speaking for myself, I support having text ads on Wikipedia.

]]> By: Hinotori http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-85276 Hinotori Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:38:30 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-85276 Your take on this, while well-written and understandable, drastically oversimplifies the issue. Personally, I don't think there will be any problem -initially-, as you say, but I believe there is a potential slippery slope to a future Wikipedia that is propped up more through commercial advertising than from the very users who keep it alive through effort and donations. If this should happen, those advertisers would find themselves with the ability to apply pressure via the purse strings. While it would be nice to envision a Wikipedia that would never buckle to such pressure and that would always be self-sufficient enough to ignore such threats, that future IS possible. Most importantly, however, you show complete naivete in "completely discounting" the users who are paranoid about advertising. Even if you were right in every way about everything else, credibility is even more important than currency. What good is an encyclopedia if people don't TRUST it? It doesn't matter if that trust or mistrust is misplaced. If people don't trust the project, it is doomed, end of story. Your take on this, while well-written and understandable, drastically oversimplifies the issue. Personally, I don’t think there will be any problem -initially-, as you say, but I believe there is a potential slippery slope to a future Wikipedia that is propped up more through commercial advertising than from the very users who keep it alive through effort and donations. If this should happen, those advertisers would find themselves with the ability to apply pressure via the purse strings. While it would be nice to envision a Wikipedia that would never buckle to such pressure and that would always be self-sufficient enough to ignore such threats, that future IS possible.

Most importantly, however, you show complete naivete in “completely discounting” the users who are paranoid about advertising. Even if you were right in every way about everything else, credibility is even more important than currency. What good is an encyclopedia if people don’t TRUST it? It doesn’t matter if that trust or mistrust is misplaced. If people don’t trust the project, it is doomed, end of story.

]]>