Why wikipedia does not run ads
I’m kind of guessing that all of you who have looked up anything on Wikipedia in the last 24hrs will have seen the link to Why Wikipedia Does Not Run Ads. Check it out if not.
It has some really strong arguments about how destructive the injection of cash could be into a commons based peer production environment like this could be. Because I must admit that when I read they operate on an annual budget of $US5 million, my first thought was “but couldn’t they achieve their goals so much more quickly if they were operating under Youtube or Myspace-esque conditions?”. But the article points out the nightmare challenge of deciding what to do with that advertising revenue, which would no doubt lead to bitter divisions in the community.
Wikipedia is also very aware of the perception of advertising as a form of censorship, and how destructive it could be to the credibility readers give their content.
Maybe Wikipedia is another example of the same principle that makes Craiglist work: being just perfect at exactly the size budget you are.
One response to “Why wikipedia does not run ads”:
Your opinion:
Stay in touch
- Our awesome weekly newsletter:
- Twitter: @webdirections
- Keep up with the latest in HTML5, app development, platforms, devices and more at our blog, the web, unplugged
What do you know?
Live dev and design screencasts
State of Web Development Reports
Flip through our detailed reports focussing on the technologies and techniques used by web professionals around the world.
- State of Mobile Web Development (2011)
- State of Web Development (2010)
- State of Web Development (2008)
Slides and podcasts from previous events
- accessibility
- coding
- css
- data
- design
- development
- html
- innovation
- interaction design
- javascript
- mobile
- strategy
- usability
- user experience
- visual design
- wdn08
- wds07
- wds08
- wds09
- web standards
Jobs from jobs.webdirections.org
Post contract, part-time or full-time job offerings for web professionals of all types for free, or find properly qualified job openings as a web professional.
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?