why don't they put some ads??

[ericrwalker]

There is a difference between traditional advertising and adsense or something like adsense. If Wiki did traditional advertising, then the advertiser could/would have a say over what is and is not put on the site.

Adsense is totally neutral, and nobody controls you and your content.

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.

 

[zhenya]

There is a difference between traditional advertising and adsense or something like adsense. If Wiki did traditional advertising, then the advertiser could/would have a say over what is and is not put on the site.

Adsense is totally neutral, and nobody controls you and your content.

Rarely (in this day in age) does advertising blatantly control the content and editorial decisions of a publication or media outlet. However, there are all sorts of off-the-record, behind the scenes, or 'soft-pressures' that can certainly affect content. Just having advertising in and of itself changes the nature of a publication in all sorts of subtle ways.

 

[Consultant]

Because Wiki founder is a DOUCHE (humor):
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/jimmy_wales

 

[kashyap02004]

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.

OK I understand that it is a non profit organization. How about this. Why don't they post some ads, keep the money that they need for the operations, and share the rest of the money with the people who make such helpful wikis. They are doing it for nothing, might as well pay them a few bucks.

 

[notjustjay]

I am a product of MacRumors?

Yes, in several ways:

MacRumors posts content which attracts you to the site. This in turn causes page views and ad views which makes money for MacRumors.

You participate in the forums, adding to the collective knowledge, discussion, humour, and general appeal of the site. Other people are then drawn to the forums because of the vibrant and helpful community. This in turn causes even more contribution to the forum, which means more page views and money for MacRumors, and the cycle continues.

I read the front page stories and immediately click on the comments link because I want to read and participate in the article feedback. That's not possible without forum members like yourself. So, thank you

----------

OK I understand that it is a non profit organization. How about this. Why don't they post some ads, keep the money that they need for the operations, and share the rest of the money with the people who make such helpful wikis. They are doing it for nothing, might as well pay them a few bucks.

A nice idea, but by the time you set up the infrastructure to track user accounts and pay them for contributing (which would mean some kind of rating scale so people are paid fairly based on the quality and quantity of the article submissions), you're introducing all kinds of administration costs. Sites like PayPal always want to take a small cut of whatever money you dole out, as well.

Then you have the problem that people are now writing articles for the money, not for the sake of contributing knowledge, and that itself is a slippery slope.

I think it's fine the way it is. Depending on altruism has its own inherent flaws but so far the system is working far better than I ever expected it would.

Edit: whoa, automatic post merging? Cool!

 

[ericrwalker]

MacRumors uses adsense. I am not sure if you are familiar with how adsense works. I have an account, and I have a lot of pages views, this generates ZERO in revenue. The only way to generate money with adsense is to actually click on the ad, and if google suspects it to be a fraudulent click, no money is generated.

Yes, in several ways:

MacRumors posts content which attracts you to the site. This in turn causes page views and ad views which makes money for MacRumors.

 

[GenesisST]

I had always shamefully ignored the messages until I read The Oatmeal: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/jimmy_wales. The I contributed.

As an insomniac, I read Wikipedia a lot...

 

[notjustjay]

MacRumors uses adsense. I am not sure if you are familiar with how adsense works. I have an account, and I have a lot of pages views, this generates ZERO in revenue. The only way to generate money with adsense is to actually click on the ad, and if google suspects it to be a fraudulent click, no money is generated.

Fair enough, but even if browsing the site alone isn't enough to generate revenue, eventually you may see an ad that interests you and you'll choose to click on it. The point still stands that the makers of these ads are hoping to show them to you and this website is the vehicle through which that happens.

 

[*LTD*]

No need for ad clicks, just support the service if you care.

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/S...e_Currency_AvsB&utm_campaign=C11_1114_AvsB_CA

From Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

Google might have close to a million servers. Yahoo has something like 13,000 staff. We have 679 servers and 95 staff.
Wikipedia is the #5 site on the web and serves 450 million different people every month – with billions of page views.

Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others.

When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners, but I decided to do something different. We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others.

If everyone reading this donated $10, we would only have to fundraise for one day a year. But not everyone can or will donate. And that's fine. Each year just enough people decide to give.

This year, please consider making a donation of $10, $20, $30 or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder

------------------------------------------------------------

Makes perfect sense. All this information, gathered in one place, complete with notes, sources, citations . . . all of this is free. And a lot of us use it frequently, in whatever way suits us.

The policy of keeping it clean, commerce-free, and content-focused is a breath of fresh air on the web, and treats the content itself with respect.

Instead of judging Wikipedia or Wales, just give. Wales always finds just enough people to keep things going. So there's no need for ads. But why not be one of the contributors?

Think about how much you spend on iOS apps here and there. Per week? Per month? Maybe add a few dollars to that sum (or for some of you, subtract a few dollars) and donate to a service that has real value as a reference and educational tool. Wikipedia, for some, has replaced an entire set of encyclopedias, and is constantly evolving with the accumulation of knowledge.

Were/are your encyclopedias full of ads? Have you ever read a scholarly work that was full of ads? My book on the Holocaust in Hungary, by Holocaust scholar and political scientist Randolph Braham is sitting on my desk. Not a single ad in it.

Ads have their place, but not in this case. Especially when it comes to children and young people using the service. They are bombarded with plenty of ads already. Wikipedia gives them a free, non-pressure, commerce-free place to learn and do research.

There is no point in criticizing Wikipedia over their decision to stick to what are essentially admirable principles. Wales' current strategy works, and I'd much prefer to see a personal request from him once a year or so than to be exposed to more ads, especially on a site like that.