Comments on: Wikipedia advertising redux http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/ My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication. Thu, 24 May 2012 02:05:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Mike Linksvayer » Wikimedia advertising (soft) drive http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-96609 Mike Linksvayer » Wikimedia advertising (soft) drive Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:20:20 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-96609 [...] Wikipedia advertising redux [...] [...] Wikipedia advertising redux [...]

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-73908 Mike Linksvayer Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:40:54 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-73908 Yaron, it would be an understatement to say I agree strongly with seeing <blockquote>Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia sites) as something beyond just good reference sites - they’re proofs-of-concept of a revolutionary approach to knowledge, in which everyone contributes and everything is open-source.</blockquote>And I want to see revenue from ads running on Wikimedia sites used to further that revolution. Adam, Wikipedia would <strong>not</strong> become a for-profit venture by virtue of running advertising. Yaron, it would be an understatement to say I agree strongly with seeing
Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia sites) as something beyond just good reference sites – they’re proofs-of-concept of a revolutionary approach to knowledge, in which everyone contributes and everything is open-source.

And I want to see revenue from ads running on Wikimedia sites used to further that revolution.

Adam, Wikipedia would not become a for-profit venture by virtue of running advertising.

]]> By: Adam Jusko http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-73812 Adam Jusko Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:31:47 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-73812 I can't see Wikipedia adding ads. I think too many people who have contributed would feel like it's a bait-and-switch, as if they were tricked into contributing to a non-profit venture and then once everyone bought into the concept of it, it then became a for-profit venture. Would be very bad publicity, and I imagine the acts of vandalism would increase while the desire to stop them would decrease. It definitely would make a lot of money, though, at least in the short term. I can’t see Wikipedia adding ads. I think too many people who have contributed would feel like it’s a bait-and-switch, as if they were tricked into contributing to a non-profit venture and then once everyone bought into the concept of it, it then became a for-profit venture. Would be very bad publicity, and I imagine the acts of vandalism would increase while the desire to stop them would decrease. It definitely would make a lot of money, though, at least in the short term.

]]> By: Yaron http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-73787 Yaron Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:18:06 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/08/wikiepdia-ads-redux/#comment-73787 Well, I'm against advertising, though unlike some of your commenters I'm not going to be making any "I am Spartacus"-type declarations about it. :) I do think a lot of people, myself included, see Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia sites) as something beyond just good reference sites - they're proofs-of-concept of a revolutionary approach to knowledge, in which everyone contributes and everything is open-source. Yes, there are plenty of successful wikis that have advertising, but Wikipedia is the flagship of the entire "movement", if I can call it that; it dwarfs all the rest in size and importance. To put advertising on it just makes the project seem smaller, its goals more limited; it's just another website. Maybe in the long term that's all it really is, but a lot of people see it otherwise. I agree with you that the fears of people deserting the site are probably overblown; any "true believers" who left would quickly get replaced. Though on the other hand, the Spanish Wikipedia example doesn't exactly prove that, since neither site accepts advertising. Yes, Spanish Wikipedia reserves the right to have ads in the future, but that's not much of a battle cry for people to rally around. Well, I’m against advertising, though unlike some of your commenters I’m not going to be making any “I am Spartacus”-type declarations about it. :) I do think a lot of people, myself included, see Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia sites) as something beyond just good reference sites – they’re proofs-of-concept of a revolutionary approach to knowledge, in which everyone contributes and everything is open-source. Yes, there are plenty of successful wikis that have advertising, but Wikipedia is the flagship of the entire “movement”, if I can call it that; it dwarfs all the rest in size and importance. To put advertising on it just makes the project seem smaller, its goals more limited; it’s just another website. Maybe in the long term that’s all it really is, but a lot of people see it otherwise.

I agree with you that the fears of people deserting the site are probably overblown; any “true believers” who left would quickly get replaced. Though on the other hand, the Spanish Wikipedia example doesn’t exactly prove that, since neither site accepts advertising. Yes, Spanish Wikipedia reserves the right to have ads in the future, but that’s not much of a battle cry for people to rally around.

]]>