Wow... that Wikipedia post that I wrote in five minutes before running out to dinner sure did get a huge response. Funny how that happens in blogging isn't it? You can spend two days on a post and it goes by without one comment or link, and you do a throw away post and it gets 100 comments, 600+ diggs, and dozens of inboundlinks.
Anyway, I made one mistake in the post in saying that I found it unconscionable that wikipedia doesn't put ads on their pages. I was talking about from my perspective, which we all know is that of an rabid entrepreneur. I should have said that in a better way and I'm sorry if it came across like was saying that Jimbo or anyone at Wikipedia was anything less than a saint (or even worse, a bad person).
I think the world of wikipedia, Jimbo, wikipedians, and the folks who are building the project. Heck, I'm so impressed that I went to all seven days of Wikimania and learned more from those seven days than I did at the last five $4,000 conference I attended ($20,000 in conference tickets vs. $150 for wikimania... hmmm?). I need to be a little more clear when I blog, I know that. I'm super blunt and when I speaking in front of folks they get to see me smile when I say something blunt, but on a blog you don't get to see that--I'm still learning about this whole blogging thing. :)
Now, there were many folks who lashed me for even bringing up the topic which I thought was unfair. I mean, if you're part of the wikipedia project should you be open to healthy debate right? You don't have to get so personal! Some folks said that I would put ads on the Grand Canyon if given the chance--I wouldn't. Would I put a small sign in a park that said "We thank Sony for their donation for free concerts in the park?" You bet I would!
It's all about balance and choice. I suggest one ad. One ad is the minimum you can do right? I didn't say two or three--I said one.
So, how about this as a suggestion:
Wikipedia put up one Google Adsense leaderboard and there is a large link under it that says "Turn off advertising" and users could select if they donated to Wikipedia with their eyeballs or with a cash donation. Heck, you could even have a selection when you first load the site: I'd like to support the wikipedia by having one, two, or three ads per page."
So, to be clear:
1. I love the wikipedia and I'm sorry if I insulted anyone with the "unconscionable" word--that was a mistake.
2. I don't think we should put Coca-Cola's logo around the frame of the Mona Lise or sell our suit jackets to a sponsor (although, if someone out there gives $100,000 to the scholarship program I'm working on for disadvantaged kids I'll wear your jacket/logo every day--everyone has a price!).
3. I think giving users the option of ads or no-ads in an upfront way means USERS get to choose--not the pro-advertising or anti-advertising camps. If users get to chose who are we to make the decision for them?
4. I will personally volunteer my time (if it helps) to negotiate a deal for Wikipedia with a number of ad partners including AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, Adsense, John Battelle's Federated Media, etc. to rotate the ad units so that Wikipedia is never beholden to any one party (i.e. if someone complains about something we remove them from rotation).
What do you guys think: should users get to decide for themselves if they see ads on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia Advertising Proposal Revision 2.0: Let the users decide (and "I shouldn't have used the word unconscionable--my bad."
Recent Posts
- New of the Day - August 27 2008 (8/27/2008)
- News of the day - August 26 2008 (8/26/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 1)2. Sorry, but I am still of the opinion that Wikipedia should remain ad-free. If a corporate sponsor like AOL wants to donate free hosting to Wikipedia, I wouldn't have a problem with a small button acknowledging that, but a title banner ad is out of the question in my mind.
Not everything on this Internet needs advertising on it. I look at Wikipedia the same way I look at a museum in the real world. Corporate sponsors are one thing, but advertising is another. Just as I would doubt the credibility of a museum that had ads hanging in it, I would doubt Wikipedia's credibility (which it is already struggling with) if I saw a banner ad on it. I would be much less inclined to use the site, and I have a feeling that many other people share my opinion.
Just my 2¢.
Posted at 2:28PM on Oct 30th 2006 by Scott-O-Rama
3. This reminds me of the last scene in Titanic where the old woman throws the necklace overboard. That really pisses me off. To throw away something that has value like that.
I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia or Craigs list stoop to something as pedantic as money. But, it could be used for something other than opressing the little people.
Couldn't it?
Posted at 5:35PM on Oct 30th 2006 by jeff barson
4. Obviously many folks hate advertising and everything it stands for. Others accept advertising in some places (magazines, TV, etc) but don't want to see it in public places like parks or Wikipedia.
I think most folks would love to "pay" for their use of Wikipedia with Google Adsense links. Adsense is related by design, and because they are text base they don't have a huge distraction cost (i.e. they are very easy to ignore if you want).
So, I think that you could find a balance for everyone if:
a) you can turn the ads off forever with ONE click--a click that is right under the advertisement.
b) you ban graphical ads.
In fact, I think Google might give Wikipedia an increadible deal--perhaps 100% of the revenue--since they are so fond of Wikipedia and open projects.
Wikipedia will be the #1 site in the world in a very short period of time--a fact that should be obvious to anyone in the industry. All roads lead back to Wikipedia, and Adsense would perform amazing on the service--at least as good as Google search.
5. Your problem is that you've sold out to advertising and think it's OK on any website: "Think of the good you could do with the money"..
By the same argument I could claim that selling drugs to kids was OK because I could do wonderful things with the money feeding people in africa or some other such nobel thing.
The end doesn't justify the means. Advertising is an evil and I'm impressed with anyone who manages to hold to their principals and avoid soiling their own website with it.
Posted at 7:27PM on Oct 30th 2006 by AndrewN
6. Andrew: do you really think one banner ad is the same as selling crack to kids?!?!?! Come on... be honest, we're talking about one advertisement--not ten--and giving users the ability to turn it off.
If users are willing to look at ads on every other site on the web, why would it be so bad for them to look at one little ad on Wikipedia?!
7. Jason,
I think people donate their content and volunteer their time to Wikipedia because nobody is profiting off their work. It's a share-alike system. Even if Wikipedia takes the money it generates and donates it, there's a quote about power and corruption that inevitably becomes a truism.
Wikipedia's successful because it isn't monetized. Changing that means breaking it.
Posted at 9:36PM on Oct 30th 2006 by Dossy Shiobara
8. It seems you still don't get it. This doesn't deal with issues of credibility or integrity, and you've still yet to explain why Wikipedia needs "so much" more money in the first place.
http://daveydweeb.com/2006/10/31/calacanis-responds-but-still-doesnt-get-it/
Posted at 1:31AM on Oct 31st 2006 by David Still
9. Rather than ask the users, why don't you ask the the top contributors to Wikipedia? They volunteered their time and the top 10 have made tremendous efforts and sacrifice to get Wikipedia to where it is today.
Why don't you ask them if they would like to be compensated monetarily as well as see the Foundation be able to have money to purchase copyrighted material.
For my 2 cents I think most people that posted a comment to say they disagree are meaningless whining.
Posted at 4:50AM on Oct 31st 2006 by Alaska Miller
10. Jason, Andrew was only talking about selling one rock of crack to one kid, not ten...
The thin end of the wedge is the thin end of the wedge, and it leads inexorably to the thick end. What Jimmy Wales understands about wikipedia, and you patently do not, is that he is a curator of a collection of commonly owned knowledge, not the owner of a reference website. As such it is not his place, nor anyone's (certainly not yours) to make the call over whether to dilute the site's vision by the implication of monetising strategies. Wikipedia works so incredibly well precisely because it is free from your type of profit-oriented thinking.
Posted at 6:34AM on Oct 31st 2006 by Jake Evans
11. I actually think your ideas have some merit, Jason. Many - not all, but many - charities use commerical sponsorship, advertising, retail activity etc to supplement their income and in turn pipe the profits back into their charitable works.
Oxfam, for example, has had some very innovative retail ideas in recent times which no doubt have generated some valuable income for them. I don't see anyone suggesting that Oxfam's aims and objectives have been compromised as a result of this.
Fact: Wikipedia is successful right now without advertising. However, I wonder what would happen if a new online encyclopedia started up with ads and profit sharing built in from the get-go.
What would wikipedia do if its hegemony was threatened?
Posted at 7:21AM on Oct 31st 2006 by laurence timms
12. I realize that you think this is new, but this was discussed much earlier this year, when the Wikipedia was on a drive for funding. Jimbo said the same thing. Leaderboards were discussed, as well as the ability to turn the ads off and on with various toggles.
It's not a new idea.
I think that the Wikipedia should be supported by the community; when the community does not wish to support the Wikipedia then the Wikipedia has no *purpose*. Maybe that's where Jimbo is coming from - and it's a good point. It will require taking off the entrepeneurial shoes to understand.
References:
http://www.knowprose.com/node/10172
and something from 2005: http://www.knowprose.com/node/2865
Posted at 9:30AM on Oct 31st 2006 by Taran Rampersad
13. Hi Guys, lets keep wikipedia just as it is. An out of the box thinking is required for the funding solutions. Just my 2 cents of idea, what if wikimedia group create some kind of device that can download and keep all the wikipedia contents and can be browsed offline using that device. This device should be tablet-like, something like the e-book device or smaller as a dopod. Wikimedia can use the income generated by the device sales to supports its operation.
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.
1. Funny. I came to this post from a previous post where Jason said "The core of blogging is based on the authenticity of blogger"
Then he said "a leaderboard would do NOTHING to take away from the project."
Of course it would change the project. Whether that change
would be good or bad or bad-but-worth-it is a matter of opinion but it would be a change.
The best analogy I can give is suppose you believe in supporting your church by putting money in the collection
basket. Suppose you also have 5 or 6 parties at your house each year - a birthday or two, friends over for drinks, perhaps celebrate your kid's graduation. Now your minister mentions that many of your friends would like to support the curch but just don't make it to service. He asks you to put a collection basket in your living room with a small sign. He'll even pay for the basket and the sign and say it won't change your party.
It sure as hell will. And your friend's belief about your authenticity.
Posted at 1:11PM on Oct 30th 2006 by BizCoach