why don't they put some ads??

[kashyap02004]

I was reading the iOS5 wikipedia page. And I saw the CEO's message asking for the donation. In the message, the CEO is "crying" about how wikipedia needs money to continue its operation.

My question is, Why don't they put some text ads like google. They can make millions of dollars. What is wrong with it??

What do you guys think about it?

 

[EricNau]

I've always found it slightly ironic that Wikipedia refuses to place outside ads, at the expense of having to place their own ads asking for money.

I suppose it's applaudable though. (In principle it's really nice that Wikipedia is only funded privately.)

 

[saving107]

Ironicly, their's a wiki for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertisements

 

[zhenya]

Commercial ads would be anathema to the Wikipedia mission. Advertisements always end up affecting content decisions.

 

[szolr]

Commercial ads would be anathema to the Wikipedia mission. Advertisements always end up affecting content decisions.

^ So right. I prefer the way things are now.

 

[Shrink]

Commercial ads would be anathema to the Wikipedia mission. Advertisements always end up affecting content decisions.

Agree ^^.

I know Consumer Reports is not very popular around here, but in their favor is that they don't accept advertising, nor do they allow any product reviewed in CR to use CR ratings in their advertising.

I think the absence of ads at least reduces the possible perception that content is influenced by advertisers - whether CR or Wikipedia.

 

[Hellhammer]

Commercial ads would be anathema to the Wikipedia mission. Advertisements always end up affecting content decisions.

Excellent point. Wiki needs to remain unbiased and keeping it ad-free is one way of guaranteeing that.

 

[KeriJane]

First you'd get Ads....
then more Ads.....
Then waaaay more Ads.

And ultimately, it'll be Pay-as-you-go or some kind of subscription.....
And you would STILL have Ads!

I love Wikipedia exactly as they are.


Please help them out and donate anything at all. And yes, I just donated.

 

[yeah]

Wasteland

 

[gnasher729]

I was reading the iOS5 wikipedia page. And I saw the CEO's message asking for the donation. In the message, the CEO is crying about how wikipedia needs money to continue its operation.

My question is, Why don't they put some text ads like google. They can make millions of dollars. What is wrong with it??

What do you guys think about it?

So you think Wikipedia is stupid, and you know better. How much time did it take you to come to that conclusion? How much time do you think did it take the Wikipedia organization to come to their decision how to get money for the project?

And why the **** would anyone donate their time and knowledge to improve a website that rips off that time and knowledge to make millions? Why would anyone trust information from a website that makes millions from advertisements?

 

[B777Forevar]

Cause Jimbo wants your money.

 

[Nermal]

I'd be happier with the current system if it was set up so that the "please donate" messages go away once you donate.

 

[kashyap02004]

So you think Wikipedia is stupid, and you know better. How much time did it take you to come to that conclusion? How much time do you think did it take the Wikipedia organization to come to their decision how to get money for the project?

And why the **** would anyone donate their time and knowledge to improve a website that rips off that time and knowledge to make millions? Why would anyone trust information from a website that makes millions from advertisements?

If a website has advertisements does not mean that it is ripping people. The news channels and the news papers have ads, so are they ripping off their viewers and readers? It is not the crime. Many profit and nonprofit organizations use ads to generate money. So that they can serve better. Macrumors has advertisements, does that mean that it is ripping off the forum members?

 

[*LTD*]

Featuring ads on Wikipedia would be contrary to the spirit and thrust of the site, which has already been discussed by Wales et al.

It's a topic that remains open, however. I for one, am against ads on Wikipedia, optional or otherwise. I don't feel they're appropriate in this case, regardless of improved generation of funds.

 

[thewitt]

They don't need to post ads. Whenever they appeal for donations they bring in about $1B... Seems to be working.

 

[nonameowns]

ads are annoying.


that's why adblock exist.


stick to donation money

 

[*LTD*]

Cause Jimbo wants your money.
Image

Quite frankly, Wikipedia is one of the few things that are actually worth it.

 

[roadbloc]

I personally don't see how a couple of small ads at the top of a Wikipedia page will make any difference to it's content. I'd say they should do it, but not be stupid about it.

 

[ericrwalker]

I agree, I can let them post my adsense ads on there and I would paypal them 50% of everything I make.

Macrumors has ads and I just don't look at them, and isn't their "begging" for donations an ad in itself?

I personally don't see how a couple of small ads at the top of a Wikipedia page will make any difference to it's content. I'd say they should do it, but not be stupid about it.

 

[macquariumguy]

When a site lives off advertising money, the visitors to that site are not the customers, they are the product.

That's why Wikipedia shouldn't accept ads.

 

[ericrwalker]

I am a product of MacRumors?

When a site lives off advertising money, the visitors to that site are not the customers, they are the product.

That's why Wikipedia shouldn't accept ads.

 

[macquariumguy]

I am a product of MacRumors?

Yes, you are. Did you think MacRumors' product is the content they publish? No, that content exists only to bring visitors to the site. The visitors are the product the advertisers pay for.

 

[Tinmania]

I'd be happier with the current system if it was set up so that the "please donate" messages go away once you donate.

Brilliant idea. Hope you suggested that to them. It would no doubt increase the donations.



Michael

 

[ericrwalker]

In a way yes, but they provide a service and I never touch an ad(at least as of now, unless I see something that interest me). Same can be done with Wiki. They could put just one small ad on their wiki pages. Many people have ad blockers, to which they are not being sold anything. Anyway, I am sure MacRumors wants me to click their ad, just as I would like people to click my ads. I don't ask anyone to click on them and rarely does anyway (my site is small and personal).

I don't think it would change anything on Wiki to have ads there, since they have an ad on there already with the sad face of a grown man on it.

Yes, you are. Did you think MacRumors' product is the content they publish? No, that content exists only to bring visitors to the site. The visitors are the product the advertisers pay for.

 

[zhenya]

In a way yes, but they provide a service and I never touch an ad(at least as of now, unless I see something that interest me). Same can be done with Wiki. They could put just one small ad on their wiki pages. Many people have ad blockers, to which they are not being sold anything. Anyway, I am sure MacRumors wants me to click their ad, just as I would like people to click my ads. I don't ask anyone to click on them and rarely does anyway (my site is small and personal).

I don't think it would change anything on Wiki to have ads there, since they have an ad on there already with the sad face of a grown man on it.

The big difference is that MacRumors is a commercial venture where people come to discuss commercial products. Wikipedia is a non-profit venture with a mission to be a neutral platform where the facts of the world can be described. Advertisements and neutrality don't mix.