Update: Story is now on digg.
While on the subject of media philanthropy....
I sat next to Jimbo at a Wikipedia dinner over the summer. I begged him to put a leaderboard on Wikipedia and told him I would get AOL to sell it and host Wikipedia--for free. He declined saying there will never be ads on Wikipedia. I then explained to him in detail how that one leaderboard could make over $100M per year. I told him that they should take the $100M and give it to charity. They could help fund MediaWiki, the EFF, Firefox, and dozens of other open source projects.
Jimbo: please reconsider!!! I know I can get AOL to sell the inventory at zero cost to you guys and we will donate the bandwidth. Just give us a little 25x25 pixel thank you (i.e. "Hosted donated by AOL." That's it.
Note: I'm bringing this up again a good friend pointed me to this very, very conservative valuation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia if it was a private company would be worth $5B.
Note2: I'm not a saying change anything else about Wikipeda. I'm not saying make it commercial--I'm saying put a leaderboard up to make the world a better place. $100M in donations would really help the world--heck, it would change the world!
Note3: In my mind it is unconscionable to not monetize the Wikipedia when a leaderboard would do NOTHING to take away from the project. Let's do it people! Even if it's not with AOL, give the inventory to John Battelle or Google to sell--every day that goes by we lose a million bucks that could change the world.
Wikipedia leaves $100M on the table (or "PLEASE Jimbo, reconsider--media philanthropy could change the world!")
Reader Comments
(Page 2 of 3)22. I think you should leave them alone too. A completely made for users website doesn't need to be turned into another money hungry company like microsoft.
Thank You
Posted at 7:15AM on Oct 29th 2006 by precahrge projectnet
23. Kudo's to Wikipedia turning down this insideous offer.
You say: it would take nothing away from the project.
I say: Wrong. Such an offer would not be just a slippery slope, it would be a greased cliff.
It would open the door to even more obnoxious idea's regarding Wikipedia and its brethren. Furthermore, going back in the wayback machine, AOL has OBLITERATED everything it has ever touched. Lets have a short rollcall:
1) WebCrawler -- Marginalized and made irrelevant via AOL's tampering with technology it really didnt understand. One of the great early net tools: destroyed.
2) USENET -- They unleashed their userbase onto USENET (The November that never ended) and refused to patrol, or force their users to adhere to even AOL's own TOS. USENET started becoming a pit.
3) Their own users -- AOL has always been a scourge to its own users. Recent events prove that, with customer service refusing to cancel accounts. But, this is nothing new. Back in the early days of alt.aol-sucks, we documented this kind of nonsense ALL THE TIME. Not to mention, their misleading advertisements "We are the INTERNET!" keeping people away from real value: cheap monthly PPP access to the net. It was nothing more than a lame attempt to keep their idiotic hourly rate business model afloat, due to incessant greed.
The same greed we see here. Nothing much has changed, has it? The spirit of Steve Case lives on, and it drives the attitude that AOL is the be all end all. I have news for you: AOL is nothing. On their way back to the same small level of lame they were back in the C-Serve days.
AOL needs to go away, and trouble the Wiki no more. Take your offer and shove it, and stop trying to marginalize yet another useful thing.
Posted at 8:20AM on Oct 29th 2006 by ASCIIRIDER
24. The real problem here is relevance. The web ad engine knows absolutely nothing about me. It doesn't know where I live, it doesn't know what device I'm on, and has no idea of my interests. Consequently I never click on any ads. I'm absolutely willing to share essentially what is already public information in the yellow pages with the ad engine. Then I would expect to see an ad on the page which knew that I lived in CO, liked cycling and then offered me a promotional ad which pointed me to a local bike store (less than 5 miles away) with a time sensitive offer. Now that's relevance. Our company has a technology which is capable of doing that now on a mobile device. AND the kicker is the user is in control of every piece of his personal data and opt-in or out as he/she desires.
By all means place the ad, HOWEVER make it relevant to me, to where I live and what my interests are.
Posted at 8:35AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Peter Cranstone
25. i'm really against any form of advertising on wikipedia, but i DO see the need for support.
the ultimate sollution to my eyes would be some way to utilize user upstream to support wiki traffic. some sort of client that works as some sort of mini-server providing user bandwith for the project.
this has worked well for bittorrent. i know that this is easyier said than done, but it would be THE way out of wiki's traffic problems.
Posted at 8:52AM on Oct 29th 2006 by jacen
26. 1. Firefox doesn't need the money.
2. The $5b of alleged value would diminish quickly. The sources of that value are the contributing editors, who work to benefit humanity, not AOL.
3. I know Jimmy. He IS just trying (with stunning success) to do the right thing.
Posted at 8:54AM on Oct 29th 2006 by David Cowan
27. This has nothing to do with what AOL did/didn't do right. Jason's offering ressources to which he has access, in this case, AOL. Would you guys feel the same way if he was working for Google and offered the same thing?
I say it's a fantastic idea - you just have to be carefull on how it's implemented.
Posted at 8:56AM on Oct 29th 2006 by mbrunet
28. As some know, Jason and I have tangled a time or two in the old days...but the reaction to his modest proposal is ridiculous and over the top. The cult-like devotion to Wikipedia - which is, I'd point out, a website, nothing more and nothing less - is borderline scary. So is the insistence on control by the mythical Jimbo - and his defenders remind me of those of another Jimbo, as in Jones, as in Kool-Aid.
C'mon people - this is a modest proposal. The fees generated from the tiny ads could be directed to charities supported by the Wikipedia community - free speech causes and the like. Ads are themselves "content." Further, if you really look at Wikipedia with a sharp eye, there are ads everywhere - they are just not paid for. It's self-promotion city, fellas. And friend-promotion. And company-promotion. And book-promotion, movie-promotion, candidate-promotion.
That said, $100 million may be a big target - I suspect it's smaller. But it would be a worthy pilot program. Why not do it? Jason's "media philanthropy" has a strong history, going back to the Ad Council's founding in 1947. It's ready for Web 2.0.
Finally, the personal attacks here merely reveal the emptiness of their authors' arguments. Jason is a new philanthropist, recently into money and figuring out how he wants to give back. Any way you slice it, that ain't bad.
29. Try learning the definition of fork, then how the GFDL works, then looking at the community. Right? Then add in the fact people will choose no ads over adds.
Do you come to the conclusion that everyone would leave and all the hard work promoting Wikipedia would be lost?
I'm glad Jimbo's logical.
30. Emir is absolutely right.
As soon as money comes into play u can forget everything. Money creates dependances and that's exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be... Wikipedia has to stay independent!
Posted at 10:21AM on Oct 29th 2006 by DracoFlameus
31. I don't see why on earth Wikipedia doesn't use simple advertisements to allow the overall operation of the site (hosting & whatever else goes into it) to pay for itself - guys since when did any banner ads have to influence the treasured philosophies and structure of a corporation? More importantly, why recruit its users for funding drives when megabucks can pay for it all?
Posted at 11:39AM on Oct 29th 2006 by daedalusblond
32. Those who think that Wikipedia should be monetized just don't get it, and probably never will.
Posted at 11:45AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Nick Roosevelt
33. Mbrunet and Tom W fail. Fail fail fail. Scary devotion? Yeah. It's always scary when you can't win with a dangle of money, isint it?
Funny how IBM and other companies were able to donate to community driven efforts like Linux, without asking for a splash screen, or an advertisement. Linux. Another group of people accused of being "rabid devotees": The Linux Community.
What Linus, and Jimbo understand is this: if you let one foot in the door, it can give way to a leg. Then a torso. Etc.
Understand this, and learn it well. Once and for all please, so people who understand open working methods do not have to continually school those of you who don't get it: You cannot co-opt any open system with money. You can learn from this, and profit by it, and help contribute in good ways, or you can continually try to sleaze your way in.
Look how well it's worked for SCO (and by proxy Microsoft?) You resent this more because you are faced with a simple fact: you lack control. And you will never have it. Leave wikipedia alone. Like all great successful projects with an open nature (like Linux before it) there will be talk about neutrality, about direction, about how it is funded.
But, the one thing you money (drug) pushers need to realize: there are better, proven methods to pay the bills sometimes, without selling your soul to some has-been corporate slimebag like AOL.
You fail, because rather than embrace the principles of open systems, you attempt to subvert it. But, surprise: we all recognize the paws we see on the "sheep" approaching.
Posted at 11:56AM on Oct 29th 2006 by ASCII
34. Why Wikipedia Should Avoid Ads (For Now)
http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=637
Posted at 12:13PM on Oct 29th 2006 by ashkan karbasfrooshan
35. Why the traditional leader-board advertisement that viewers and contributors have no input on? It's a wiki! Come on.
Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
If there were advertisements on wikipedia, those advertisements should be governed by the same rules/procedures that the contributors utilize. Might make the advertisements 100 times more interesting if there was an edit and a discussion page for each advert.
36. The folks who created that content were doing so under a certain set of assumptions. Don't think it would be right to "sell" their work -- no matter how altruistic the motivation. Start over, Jason.
Posted at 5:36PM on Oct 29th 2006 by ahoving
37. I think Wikipedia should monetize their website and at least donate the money to a good cause this way they could help out thousands of people that are in need.
I urge Jimbo to reconsider this idea and place at least a leaderboard on their homepage.
http://www.portal-of-profits.com
http://www.informative-articles.com
Posted at 6:22PM on Oct 29th 2006 by Cory Haasnoot
38. I think Wikipedia should reconsider. Mr. Calacanis is saying that he could convince AOL to front the bandwidth bill and do all the ad selling at no cost to Wikipedia. Presumably Wikipedia would get all the money from the ads and all AOL gets in return is some (hopefully) positive PR. Now, I've never dealt with AOL, but from what I have observed, they have a pretty good track record or staying out of people's business. They host in part the TWIT podcast network for basically free, they don't control the Weblogs, Inc. content in any way that I am aware of, and they let Netscape explore new horizons.
AOL might have some negative connotation in the minds of the people, but I know from personal experience that you can't judge a whole tree by a few bad apples. AOL seems like an OK company to me.
Were I Wikipedia I would at least reconsider.
39. Qui Bono, Jason? Jimmy Wales no more owns Wikipedia than I do, or you do, or anyone else does. It is the very quintessence of peer-production, and while I do gratefully donate annually to support their bills, I have to wonder: who owns Wikipedia? Because it's the owner of Wikipedia who's do that oh-so-very-very-tempting hundred million dollars a year.
Oh wait: we all own it. Which means, maybe, we should have free and continued uninterrupted access to it, without advertisements? Just possibly there can be some space somewhere on the Web which isn't entirely colonized by commercial memes?
You're an excellent Mephistopheles, Jason. Fortunately, Jimmy Wales is no Faust.
I have a better deal for you: go build the 16th busiest site on the web - maybe, a competitor to Digg or YouTube - then you can give away the ad revenues from that site.
Oh, wait...
Posted at 2:28AM on Oct 30th 2006 by Mark Pesce
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
21. I know where you coming from and definitely understand that Wikipedia could use the Money to promote other worthwhile projects but still I think it isn?t a good idea. There are a few things ?sites? that simply should stay away from publicity and one of those sites is Wikipedia. There are other ways that Wikipedia could make money that aren?t so aggressive.
Posted at 6:37AM on Oct 29th 2006 by Emperor