1. This script sounds wrong for a few reasons. First the Google AdSense ToS is clear that you can only post code to a page if authorised by the owner. Second you cannot create software with embedded AdSense code.

As for your comment "So, users can OPT-IN to see ads and donate to Wikipedia with their attention (to the ads)," this is not correct. Unless is the targeted type of ads (CPM) Wikipedia would only benefit of clicks. And users who actively enable this option is the same as saying users are willing to "click to reward" Wikipedia, when they should really "click to visit an interesting product".

This is against the AdSense idea: they are actually providing a service to the advertisers (AdWords) who buys attention from the publishers' audience (AdSense). They are not there to collect clicks!

Posted at 3:05PM on Nov 10th 2006 by M Freitas

2. Wikipedia users who are 'opting in' can be expected to clik on ads to make donations. This flies in the face of what advertisers want and can't help the PPC providers.

Posted at 4:25PM on Nov 10th 2006 by jeff barson

3. As has been mentioned in the comments, the script made by Scott Johnson is a just proof-of-concept. It is not generating revenue, because a test client id is used. If Wikipedia were to decide to allow this feature they would have to register and provide their AdSense client id. Since they don't show ads now, there is no reason to let that bot bother their servers.

I have also thought about users clicking on ads for the wrong reasons. There is a possibility that users will just click on ads when they are not at all interested in the product, but that might not happen (much) in practice. For example I have seen fora which are being funded by donations and ads, so in these cases it would be in the interest of the community to 'click to reward', so this would not really be something new. You can already do it with any site with ads that provides you free service/content, like this one for example.

I also believe to have read that Google can detect abuse (to a certain degree) and punish it, which should encourage users to use it as it is meant to.

And what if you compare it to other forms of advertisement, like ads on tv for example? You leave the tv on during a commercial while you get something to drink and so you don't pay attention to the ads. Or you record a movie and skip the ads. So even though it can be 'abused', apparently it is still worth it, because it is not abused all the time. It's not perfect, but it still works though, although it is difficult to measure. If I click on a link but don't buy anything right away, I might return to buy something later now that I know about the company and their products.

But like I have mentioned before, I think it would be good to contact Google, ask them what they think of it, and find out all the possibilities and requirements.

I see no reason why we can't do a pilot with this, with the script ready, most of the work has already been done. If it turns out that it does get abused, Google can detect it and inform Wikipedia who can send out a message that Google won't pay up because the service is being abused. If the situation doesn't improve it can be stopped entirely and then we can continue like we do today, no harm done. (And we'd know that in the case that Wikipedia would be starved of funds, that this approach is not a valid solution).

On the other hand, if it does work, everybody wins. So I think it's in everyone's interest to at least give this a try.

Posted at 9:10PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Isaac

4. I'm sure that my script wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of Google's legal teams. It does incorporate AdSense javascript code (slightly modified, natch). But as a proof of concept, it goes far enough to show what it would look like to have ads appear on WP without breaking any serious rules and without harming advertisers, WP staff, etc. The script was hurriedly hacked together last night, and I'm certain that there's room for improvement. But that's another topic for another day.

The discussion here today seems to be on the ethics of this script. If you're the type of person who *never* clicks on ads online, you would probably not be the right person to run this script. Personally, I find that Google's targeting is so accurate that at times I feel compelled to click on an ad just to see what's on the other side. After all, that's why the ads are there. And typically, I'll find a cool product or service that I didn't know about before. And I'll typically spread word of mouth on that particular product or service. This is legitimate use of the advertising ecosystem that Google has created for us.

Now if you can imagine a Wikipedia with relevant ads, I could see thousands of dollars per day pouring into the coffers of the Wikimedia Foundation. When I'm looking up a topic on the web that seems like something WP might cover, I will often start there. Other times, I'll Google it and subconsciously search for the first wikipedia.org link. Like it or not, Wikipedia is an authoritative site, and that means that it's often a landing spot for people seeking information via search engines. If I land on a WP page and don't get what I want, I know that I would personally find value in AdSense text links. Video and image links -- no thanks. But the text links seem to be a good fit for WP. And with the proceeds going to WMF for this opt-in program, it's really a win-win.

I would like to reiterate here that the script in its current iteration is serving ads in TEST mode. Clicks on the ads will not generate any revenue, and advertisers will not be charged. We're merely at a proof of concept stage. I have shown that it can be done, but WP's robots.txt is preventing context-targeting. Hopefully we can get these issues worked out and find a new way to fund everyone's favorite online encyclopedia.

Posted at 11:52PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Scott Johnson

5. Forgot to mention: If anyone wants to discuss the monetization of Wikipedia and/or this GreaseMonkey script, please feel free to contact me via my website:
http://scottj.info/contact/

Posted at 11:56PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Scott Johnson

6. great..

Posted at 9:14PM on Mar 11th 2008 by krist

7. Has anyone out there heard about WideCircles.com. It seems like a way better service then wasting money on PPC. Apparently they are using refering websites ( forums, blogs, wiki, etc. ) and have a viral word of mouth distributed approach to it. My friend told me he got around 100 visits from single post which cost him $0.40c. I am going to give them a try today . In case you are intrested here is it. http://widecircles.com?s=imt1

Posted at 11:17AM on May 2nd 2008 by Manish Shukla