Wikipedians still debating advertising

Just listening Wikipedia Weekly 6 (a great show btw).

They mention my appearance on WW4 multiple times. It's ironic how the guys on the show mention "I don't get it" with regard to Wikipedia. I do get it guys. Wikipedia is a non-profit and piece of art... a resource you don't want advertising on. I get it.

However, I think that each Wikipedia user should be able to make that decision for themselves. Why should a small group of Wikipedians make a blanket decision for everyone who users the product? That seems unfair to me. There are many people who would like to help the Wikipedia project by viewing ads on the service, and if they do what harm is there in letting users opt-in to see ads? [ Note: Opt-in in this scenario means that a user would change a setting on their Wikipedia account to turn the ads on, and select how many ads they would like to see (1-3). ]

Even more ironic is that after trashing me for "not getting it" the panel goes on to list all the problems Wikipedia has forming committees, keeping it's finances in order, doing IRS audits, and raising money.

Somewhere between my rabid entrepreneurship and Wikipedia's inability to keep their finances in order and monetize their traffic lies the truth. I think the middle ground is opt-in ads.

At the very least what is the harm in making money off of Wikipedia's search feature? As the panel has said over and over again, Wikipedia will never have a search service as good as Google's search, and Google would give the Wikipedia 65-100% of the revenue from Google searches of Wikipedia --which is what all the power users do anyway!!!! Yes, the Wikipedians are already looking at ads on Wikipedia search, they just don't want to accept the money from Google--crazy! Firefox makes money this way and no one questions them!

Also, the advertising would not even be on the Wikipedia site--it would be on the Google search page!

Someone created a "Greasemonkey Wikipedia Adsense script" and had it's targeting ability banned. Does that mean wikipedia has officially take the position of no ads--even if you opt in!?!? Is this the work of one tech person (as I've been told many Wikipedia decision's are)?

Note: Jimbo has not responded to my emails regarding the blocking of the GreaseMonkey script or the proposal of making money from Google search. Jimbo, why the radio silence? What's your position on the blocking of the script/who did it? What's your position on making money from search?

My guess is Jimbo is doing a deal with Google as we speak.

best j

Nov 23rd 2006 1:36AM
Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [4]

Reader Comments

(Page 1 of 1)

1. Or maybe Jimbo is trapped under a drumstick. Impatient, aren't we.

Posted at 6:56PM on Nov 23rd 2006 by Jackie

2. Here's how I seach WP. Go to Google, put in search term and wikipedia. Most of the time it's more accurate and much faster for me since Opera gives me a Google search from the toolbar if I choose.

What I find most laughable of this whole discussion is the ?if Wikipedia display an ad then it loses all creditability? comments. They seem to feel that WP is somehow making money off of their work but fail to realize that a network that large costs a considerable sum to maintain. Seems that most who have taken issue with your proposals can?t see the difference between free and open content and free service. Or that ?not for profit? does not mean ?doesn?t make money?.

One thing I had mentioned in another post here was an ad to donation model. Maybe another is to get a WP toolbar for all the major search engines that offer pay-per-search. Put all of them up on a page and let users install them if they want to easily search WP. They wouldn?t be forcing it on anyone, it wouldn?t even be on the site, and there wouldn?t be the Google bias that some are afraid would pull Yahoo?s existing support away.

Posted at 9:05PM on Nov 23rd 2006 by -gary

3. Wikipedia does not implement contextual ad systems because this may push abusers to vandalize it just to trigger their ads.

Posted at 4:46AM on Nov 24th 2006 by Emre Sokullu

4. @Emre Sokullu
Like you say, it might lead to vandalization, but maybe it won't. If it causes a problem, then the decision can be reversed easily, nothing will be lost. However if that does not happen, then Wikipedia has found the funding for the Wikipedia project and we have a win-win situation.

I couple of years ago I could also have said that the Wikipedia concept may not work because everyone can edit pages and vandalize them. Yet that didn't stop them from doing it and they show that it does work. It ain't perfect, but it is great. It's possible to do harm, but the edits can be reversed easily.

In both cases I think the benefits outweigh the liabilities.

@Calacanis
Again about Wikipedia banning the targeting ability of the Greasemonkey script, it ain't true. It was not banned to stop the script. They don't let the Google bot bother their servers because it is of no use, since Wikipedia doesn't have an Adsense account (yet). It only makes sense to allow the bot when you use Adsense.

I do think it would be good if Jimbo would contact Google and see what they can come up with. Maybe they can create something that fulfills the requirements.

I think this should be considered for Citizendium as well, although Larry Sanger seems to be against ads as well. It can be discussed on the Citizendium Forum in the Financial Model thread http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,15.0.html

Posted at 3:02PM on Nov 24th 2006 by Isaac

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.