1. I honestly don't know much more about Jimbo than what I read here on this blog, but I bet that he would change his mind for the right price. Especially since, according to the license of the content, a free copy will always exist somewhere. Perhaps Jimbo is just waiting around for somebody to offer more money -- something closer to that conservative valuation. Or maybe he wants to take the company public himself. Who knows. Either way, Wikipedia's content will be monetized eventually, one way or another. It's inevitable.

Posted at 9:18PM on Oct 28th 2006 by Scott Johnson

2. Wikipedia doesn't have to be commercially focused to make some money, which they could use for good. There are many non-profit organizations that seek to make money in order to help their cause. Wikipedia has a lot of power and I think that should levarage that power for good.

Posted at 10:03PM on Oct 28th 2006 by Chris Sandberg

3. Not everyone is as commercial as you, Mr. Calacanis. Jimbo has ? over and over again ? stated his view that Wikipedia will be ad-free as long as he is in charge. No matter how much it wracks the brain and nerves of you, me, and anyone else, he seems to have his mind made up. In addition, if AOL or anyone else were given special treatment of a button or leaderboard, that could strike a blow to Wikipedia's objectivity and already criticized editorial standards.

Posted at 10:21PM on Oct 28th 2006 by clearthought

4. They do leverage their power for good you muppet. They provide a global repository of information on every topic imagineable, completely for free, while publishing houses continue to lock stuff away.

Jason - your latest maneuver on the other hand is just yet another attempt by you to turn free speech on the Internet into your own personal plaything.

I'm shocked at the lengths you will go to, to promote an air of benevolance and compassion when really I believe that behind the scenes all you care about is self promotion and making even money to pimp yourself even more on the Gilmor gang etc.

Posted at 10:27PM on Oct 28th 2006 by Peter Wright

5. If AOLhasthatmuch money to donate for a 25x25 pixel ad,why don't they just go a step more and donate it for....nothing. It'll still help folks that way,right?

Posted at 10:57PM on Oct 28th 2006 by Cass

6. I don't get it. What's wikipedia?

Posted at 11:44PM on Oct 28th 2006 by stronzo

7. I applaud his stance and his convictions. I despise AOL and this does nothing to make me enjoy them more. AOL/Time-Warner could do so much for the world, could spend time helping new website, media and more. Instead you seek to monetize and corner a market for your own good and market gain.

Not everything on the internet is the property of AOL, Yahoo, Ebay and Google, god help us if that ever becomes the case.

Wikipedia may be monetized someday, but they deserve to do so on their own terms, without meddling from lethargic corporations.

Posted at 12:13AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Joe Youngblood

8. “In my mind it is unconscionable to not monetize the Wikipedia when a leaderboard would do NOTHING to take away from the project. ”

In that context and to those people, that's like saying “just a little bit pregnant” :)

Emir

Posted at 12:20AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Emir

9. I think a few strategically placed ad spots would actually make wikipedia an even more useful site. Look up a topic, see ads related to said topic. Damn good idea, that!

Posted at 12:49AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Donny Pauling

10. Wikipedia should always remain free - regardless.

Posted at 12:53AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Michael Skelton

11. Well, this is timely. We rebutted this post in our podcast, some hours before it was even written: http://wikipediaweekly.com/2006/10/28/wikipedia-weekly-episode-3/

Posted at 12:58AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Daveydweeb

12. I believe you are one of the most money hunger humans I have ever seen in my life.

Burn in hell with Netscape and AOL.

Posted at 1:08AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Christopher

13. What about having two URL's, e.g. Wikipida.com and WikiAd.com, and letting the user choose which to use. If I wanted to use the free entry, then fine. On the other hand if I felt that the Ad-words (leaderboard) might give me a way to contribute to a good charity, and/or get lookup ads that were appropriate to me, I could use the WikiAd.com entry.

Personally, if I felt that I was helping to support a good cause, and the ads were useful I probably would use the Ad entry and still the people who wanted to keep Wikipedia free would have that entry.

Posted at 1:10AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Mike Liveright

14. This article is nothing but a thinly veiled attack on Jimbo because of his refusal to do business with a horrible corporation. Jimbo cares nothing about the world because he refuses an ad? AOL is a demon because it would rather buy a 25x25 add than donate it to millions of dying children. AOL has that much money to blow? Then in my opinion, everyday that AOL execs (including calacanis) make a profit, at the VERY LEAST "every day that goes by we lose a million bucks that could change the world."

Posted at 1:31AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Jimmy P

15. Jason,

I had the opportunity to dialogue a bit with Jimbo about this in email....and He's right.

Wikipedia faces enough challenges every day just trying to provide a decent resource for the world. Jimbo's already done more for the world than you or I. Just creating an information source that is not "dependent" is a huge contribution. (And I use the word dependent in the same manner as Lawrence Lessig in his Wired column)

And while I am a geek who spent his years serving as an officer in the military, *you* have a chance to make a much larger difference.

Put your money where your mouth is--while you're not Gates or Buffet, you can make a contribution that could set valuable parts of our culture free.

If your heart is anywhere near your mouth, you'll donate that money (you can still attach strings towards how its spent) -- you'll get your reward, in some way, shape, or fashion. You'll be thanked, the community will recognize your contribution, who knows, your name might last past your own lifetime. The point being that you can give a true gift.

Go do a little digging on the etymology of the word "wiki". And then tell me if you have respected its spirit.

Posted at 1:31AM on Oct 29th 2006 by adin

16. So Jason is the bad guy... what?

How dare someone actually turn down a corporation.

I think the problem is very simple. This whole machine is a slippery slope. One moment its a small button or "leader board" and the next every time I try to scroll through the article I am getting lambasted with ridiculous ads I don't want, need, or care about that cover up the article I am trying to actually read.

How dare we be allowed information for free. I bet somewhere some suit is just boiling at all of the people getting "free" information everyday.

Posted at 1:38AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Ben

17. Oy. This is a certainly a tough one. On the one hand, I would be very fearful of having any corporate influence on Wikipedia whatsoever, as that would immediately destroy what it originally stood for as a completely user-driven site.

On the other hand, if we're really talking about that kind of money every day and could do it without screwing up the nature of Wikipedia, then we'd be be able to really prove how much the open source movement can play with the big bucks boys.

And imagine what could be done with that kind of money. If Jimbo is as much of a saint as he seems to be, then he's the first guy I'd want to see control where those resources go.

So if it can be proven openly that absolutely nothing of Wikipedia will change besides the inclusion of a 25x25 ad, and if a link to an explanation of why the ad has appeared along with an explanation and discussion of where the money is going is posted right next to the ad, and if all the money is carefully and openly monitored and all that jazz while still being directed by Jimbo, then I'm all for it.

With a proper amount of applied paranoia, this could be a very good thing, I think.

Posted at 2:36AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Square Bottle

18. All kudos to Jimbo for his honest and principled stance. Some people would do well to remember that not everything and not everyone in this world can be bought.

Posted at 5:28AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Lardquake

19. I don't agree with some of you guys. Why do you think that Jason Calacanis is "one of the most money hunger guy"? He is a good businessman. However, I think that what he is saying has sense. Some people don't like term "commercialization" even if that will save millions of lives! Now, how is hypocrit here. I'm not an advocate for Jason, I'm just saying that if that, let say 100M will be donated for children in Africa is much better than placing a leaderboard. No one will accuse Wikipedia for commercialization because of that.

I would like that all of you read this article in Time Magazine about diarrhea and malnutrition and then maybe reconsider your opinion about that donation:

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901061016-1543876,00.html

Posted at 6:13AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Dejan Bizinger

20. I blogged a lunch I had with Jimbo Wales about 12 months ago where I told him to use wikipedia ads to buy a bunch of $100 laptops. He was intrigued with the idea but nothing happened since. My estimates were much, much lower than the ones in this post but one thing is certain: wikipedia has a lot of attention and monetizing it (either for support of the project or support of other cause) is really something that Wales should think about. My guess is that it will happen if enough wikipedians ask for it....from the bottom - up.

Posted at 6:18AM on Oct 29th 2006 by PG