Wikipedia
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- CygnusZero40
So given that the site is one of the most popular on the internet, even if they just had 1 small static banner ad, imagine what they could charge for that. Shit, they're using the entire top part of the site to beg for money anyway. That's an ad as far as I'm concerned, and it's huge!
How many people are really going to donate? So make that space smaller, charge for ad space there, and then start using money as toilet paper.
- rosem0
The servers alone most likely cost a small fortune every month. People complain about a great service like Wikipedia asking for money, but will gladly go spend $20 on some bullshit.
- clearThoughts0
I have to thank Wikipedia for half my degree... things like Artificial Intelligence was a nightmare to study from books, because you had 5 different versions of the same thing.
I probably end up on Wikipedia every day.
- ethios0
http://wikimediafoundation.org/w…
You think they're going to raise $28.3M dollars from selling 1 advertising spot on the top of the site? Are you in make believe land?
- CygnusZero40
There are plenty of companies in this world that would pay a pretty penny for ad space on one of the most popular sites on the entire internet. Imagine the exposure they would get. It's worth quite a bit of money.
- It compromises their integrity. Imagine a brand paying banners, no scandals on their pageernexbcn
- clearThoughts0
Having read the comments here, I don't think we understand how good Wikipedia is and how much better it is for it to be independent, ad free and for it not to be selling our information to corporates...
Wikipedia is probably far more interesting than any library in the world. I guess there is a lot of interesting stuff hidden in the vatican, but it's only a matter of time until that information goes in...
And this is free for us to use.
If this turns into a money making, corporate it would be awful...
- CygnusZero40
^ But apparently they are struggling. How are they going to run a company asking for donations? I keep seeing these messages from Jimmy Wales. I would assume having one ad much smaller than that Jimmy Wales message would consistently make them a lot more money than asking for donations ever would.
We're not talking about them selling ads all over the site. Just something static, not too big. For as popular as this site is, you could charge a fortune for that and companies will pay it.
- d_rek0
@CygnusZero4
You're entirely missing the goddamn point of them asking for donations. They don't *want* fucking advertisments on their website and I, for one, do not want them either. Wikipedia is an amazing information resource and they want to keep it *free*.
Think of it as NPR. NPR is completely funded by donations. They do their radiothons a couple of times a year. Is it annoying to have NPR constantly interrupted and me being asked as a faithful listened to donate? Sure it is. But guess what. I'd rather fucking listen to the radiothon and donate to NPR than to listen to 10 minutes worth of shitty fucking radio advertisements just so I can listen to a few minutes worth of credible radio journalism.
It's the same principle for wikipedia. I don't want to have to navigate even a SINGLE advertisement, nor look at one, to get the information I want from that website. I'll gladly donate a few dollars every few months if that what it takes.
- uan0
Wikipedia to file lawsuit against NSA and US Department of Justice
yes, wikipedia, not wikileaksJimmy Wales and co will be joined by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA in a challenge against mass surveillance by the US government
- ********0
Why doesn't Wikipedia use ads for revenue?
We do not believe that advertising belongs in a project devoted to education, and one that is driven by the values consistent with a balanced, neutral encyclopedia. Our big, global volunteer community (the people who make Wikipedia) have always felt that advertising would have a major effect on our ability to stay neutral, and ultimately ads would weaken the readers' overall confidence in the articles they are reading.The current models for web advertising are also not supportive of our views on user privacy. We do not want to deliver ads to users based on their geography or on the topic they are currently reading about. Contextual advertising (similar to geo-targeted advertising) reads the content you are viewing which goes against Wikipedia's strict privacy policy for users. We respect your right to online privacy, and bring you the knowledge and information you are looking for.
We are not against the world of online advertising, nor are we against other organizations that host ads. We just know ads are not an appropriate thing to find in a project devoted to education and knowledge – and especially one that strives for balance and neutrality.
How much money are you hoping to raise?
The 2014-15 plan posits revenue of $58.5 million from a 2013-14 projection of $50.1 million.^From Wikimedia Foundation site.
Do you think a company would pay $50+ million dollars for a tiny ad for one year? (I'm honestly asking, I don't know what companies pay for web advertising.) And, even if they would, that would make wikipedia slightly less trusted, and eventually cause more problems than the money would be worth.