Wikimedia Proposes Advertising [Updated] 274
user9918277462 writes "The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has announced a new partnership with the Answers Corporation, which provides the content for Google Definitions links. There is also a lengthy discussion, wiki-style for those who wish to participate." Update 10/25 18:42 by SM: An announcement has been posted on Wikipedia to help clarify the original submission (which thankfully was patently false and has since been cleaned up a bit, our apologies to Wikimedia). Answers.com will be creating their own co-branded version which will show ads and no ads will be shown on wikipedia.
Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikis can be really horrible at these sorts of debates-- Sifting through the Wikipedia comments is like looking for a needle in a chickencoop full of hysterical chickens and misinformed roosters.
Plus, since most of the text can be changed at any moment, how do I know that what I'm reading is accurate at this time, and not the opinion of some troll?
1. Why does the Wikipedia board feel that they need advertisements? Are there budget problems or other financial issues?
2. What do the opponents to the advertisements propose as an alternative? *Alterative Solutions* almost always work better then a straightup Boycott.
3. What does this mean for the end user? Are there going to be advertisements within Wikipedia? I know what the submission says-- but the Wikipedia page itself says "Answers.com will launch a Wikipedia Edition of their popular 1-Click Answers software" [wikipedia.org], which makes it sound like there Answers.com is simply offering their own "Edition" of Wikipedia with some adsl. I can redistribute most of the content in Wikipedia, can't I? Isn't that what some commericial online enclopedias do?
Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.
Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button. This has a number of advantages:
Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:2)
As far as citing a stable version, its my understanding that a link to wikipedia can include a version so that the same text is referenced, regardless of future updates.
Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:2)
Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and especially with the reasons behind it; but you have to consider, not only the implications of these proposals to those who would harm the Wiki, but also the implications to those who would contribute.
Removing the instant payoff for defacement also removes the instant payoff of contribution, which, to me, is part of the cool factor of the Wiki: if I contribute, those contributions go into effect now, and can be seen by anyone else immediately.
As you point out, this information would still be accessible in the "unstable" section, but unstable versions of a page are often overlooked, and this could become a serious issue when people go to contribute: a user is reading a page, and want's to make an addition or correction; now they have to check the "unstable" version and see if the change has already been made.
The simplicity of Wiki editing is a lot of its draw, and a lot of its power. This same simplicity and freedom is also its biggest flaw; but removing this simple freedom is not the answer, and more than dictatorship is the answer to quell those who would break the law of society.
Mod parent down! (Score:5, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&cid=13
The text of the comment link above:
Re:Perhaps they need a team of paid editors
(Score:5, Interesting)
by theLOUDroom (556455) Alter Relationship on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13823457)
Jimbo started by trying paid editors
What wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.
Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button.
This has a number of advantages:
* Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
* Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
* Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
* (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.
--
Life is too short to proofread.
Who Cares? Can I just have my info? (Score:5, Interesting)
2 cents,
Queen B
Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) paying the operating costs of WP - serving data isn't cheap.
b) adding additional services to Wikipedia that may be more bandwidth intensive - like large files of video or software.
c) hiring moderators to clear out wikispam and help edit the wiki into a publishable "stable" form.
Hiring people to add content directly goes against the ideas of wiki, and besides - why should they since free work seems to work well?
Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info? (Score:3, Insightful)
Chris
Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunetly wikipedia isn't adding advertisements, which I think would start its downfall
Here's the deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Some issues really need to be clairified. (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately the situation was not helped by a rather badly worded press release which led the community to a false sense of what the deal actually was. The above is what will occur, according to Jimbo Wales and the other members of the Board.
Chris
In other news.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Irony alert (Score:2, Interesting)
This of course, just underscores the point made by Walter Block in Defending the Undefendable how even people who ridicule persuasive (non-informational) advertising as "wasteful" take every chance to engage in it themselves. (While the no-ads project may provide information, the advertisements the
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Irony alert (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's not the point: people who can insert their bias into an article do so, and it remains until someone corrects it. If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance. I think it's inherent to the format.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Irony alert (Score:2)
"If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance."
If only left-wingers were interested in a particular topic, then surely only left-wingers would be reading it ?
You talk about balance, and complain about the "left" but not the "right".
Aren't you a little unbalbanced ?
Re:Irony alert (Score:2)
Yeah, but my point is that you're imagining things. Really, I can't tell if you're statements are merely the result of a misunderstanding, or if you are deliberately trying to spread misinformation and confusion for kicks. Who said that these people are all liberals? Nobody...
In fact, I really appreciate any non-liberals on Wikipedia. The documents can b
Re:Irony alert (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Irony alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias.
Capitalists would suffocate the project in any attempt to maximize profits. Fascists wouldn't be into the idea of a Wiki at all.
For the record, I'm mostly just a Wikipedia user-- not a hardcore author or anything.
Re:Irony alert (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? None of them? Things like sharing and collaboration don't work? Wikipedia is a failure? Are you perhaps confusing the word "socialism" with some right-wing scare tactic?
entire socialist agenda
There's a socialist agenda? Fuck, I must have missed a meeting or something!!! Please tell me what this socialist agenda encompases! Is this different then the Left-wing controlled media? I don't want to miss out!
Seriously, where d
Re:Irony alert (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Irony alert (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense. I've seen numerous posts that have a capitalist bias instead of the usual socialist one. They usually read something like this:
<a href="http://pharmacy-cheap-phentermine.6x.to">ch
For some reason the evil socialists delete posts like that. Darn idealogues.
Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Informative)
For the Wikimedia Foundation to have taken people's money so freely and then to start putting up ads isn't going to win them many friends with the community they've spawned, and perhaps most especially among the people who just donated.
At the very least it's going to make a lot of people more reluctant to give money to similar causes in the future, because they'll feel like I do now: I didn't donate anything other than my time (although I was considering it), but if it's true that they're going to an ad-supported business model then I'm just glad I didn't cut that check, since clearly they don't need my money.
It's not that I don't think Wikipedia is a good service -- I do, or even that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't within their rights to put up ads -- they are. What I'm not comfortable with is that they asked for donations from individuals without exhausting the other options first. In my mind, asking your users for cash ought to be an option of last (not first) resort, and that they did ask for donations should have meant that they had either taken the idea of advertising completely off the table as unacceptable, or already pursued it as far as it could go.
It's the difference between somebody asking me for money when they're truly destitute and desperate, or asking me for money and then waiting to see how much I cough up before they decide whether to get a job.
Hopefully there's more to the story that I just haven't found out yet, but right now I think that their timing really stinks, and that a lot of other people will probably agree.
Re:Not a problem (Score:2)
I think the problem that might arise here is that alot of people contributed to it with their knowledge and time, and those are now not getting any compensation for it.
A solution to this could be that the money that they gain with advertising, only goes towards server maintenance (and other costs that come with hosting a site like wikipedia), and maybe even donate the rest to some good cause.
A bit offtopic, but th
Re:Not a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that Wikipedia is a great service.
Wikimedia is not a "service" in the traditional (economic) sense. Wikimedia is a not-for-profit organization with a charitable charter to distribute information to everyone for free. They should uphold this charter.
The people behind it should be compensated for time...
The people behind it are people like me, who write articles and fix entries all the time. The money that Wi
Re:Not a problem (Score:2)
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a (probably apocryphal) story of a program on the BBC, I believe it was a car review program, who gave a bad review to a certain American car model. The CEO of the company found out about it, was furious and ordered the advertising team to pull all adverts to punish the TV station. The advertising team replied "sorry sir, but the BBC don't run adverts".
While direct comparison between Wikipedia and the BBC would obviously be flawed due to Wikipedia's open philosophy, a hypothetical situation could occur where a corporation which provides a significant contribution towards Wikipedia's hosting (in the way of loaning servers or donations) could theoretically demand that the Wikimedia Board change the content in an article to remove a link or sentence from an article which criticises them as a company, and threaten to pull funding if the Board did not. While this would be horribly hard to enforce (and would be a major PR disaster for the corporation if it were leaked to the press) it is a concievable situation and I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to think of some organisations which would demand this.
I wouldn't describe Jimbo Wales' response to this [wikipedia.org] as particularly eloquent, but I think it gives some comfort to people who hope it will never come to this.
Chris
Fundraising (Score:5, Interesting)
The first priority should be keep the site clean, because that's one of the strengths of wikipedia, if i would have wanted advertising i would have went to any commercial info site.
The 1-Click Software is quite useful (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful (Score:2)
Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful (Score:2)
right-click+click is four separate actions: Right click, Visually locate menu item (May be to right or left of cursor depending on how close to the edge of the screen it is, and the list may have additional items depending on context so it may not even be in the same location), Move mouse to menu item, left click it. This all involves one hand so they MUST be done sequentially
Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful (Score:2)
When most people are casually web browsing, they're not poised with one hand on the keyboard. So Alt+click involves moving off hand to keyboard, visually locating the alt key, press and hold ALT, then click.
once I move my off hand to the keyboard, what is going to hold my head up? So there's also the need to stop and manufacture a stick/pillow assemlby, at least the first time.
Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful (Score:3, Interesting)
Very cool stuff in my opinion.
Wikipedia Entry for AdBlock Extension (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wikipedia Entry for AdBlock Extension (Score:3, Informative)
Dont act so surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
There will inevitable be some unrealistic people who want to get something as good as Wikipedia for nothing. I bet they didnt contribute. I did.
Theres always Encarta *cough*
Weird (Score:4, Interesting)
Folks like google offer to host, but don't seem to be taken up on the offer:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting [wikimedia.org]
Does the board just want more $$ to play with (in other words, hosting doesn't give them the money they want to have the pleasure of spending)?
Re:Weird (Score:2)
however the way the wikimedia server setup is currently structured all the high CPU work is done in one place. The other clusters are just caches. Maybe this will change but apparently mysql replication accross networks other than lans is not all that stable.
Very mad contributor (Score:2, Insightful)
They want to profit from all that information? I want a piece!!
I am so mad right now. Very very mad.
Re:Very mad contributor (Score:3, Interesting)
Or perhaps you were unaware that there were already hundreds of mirrors and forks [wikipedia.org] with tons of ads sitting on Google just to get their operator a few bucks for decidedly NOT nonprofit reasons. Perhaps you should scream at them loudly first, hmm?
Re:Very mad contributor (Score:2)
Re:Very mad contributor (Score:2)
Wikipedias Do Not Grow On Trees (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless people come forward to do this stuff for free they need to raise cash from somewhere to pay for all of this stuff. And unlike your "contributions" to Wikipedia, these things are hardly easy to do by a guy in his spare time.
As for "profit" I don't think Wikipedia has a profit motive but lets do the Devil's Advocate. What is wrong with a profit model based upon information mining in Wikipedia? The information is freely available for anyone to use as they chose. If I come up with a clever app that mines choice information out of it then do you still want your piece? The information should be free for anyone to find. For you, me, and Google. Hey wait...why aren't you harping on Google for your piece?
I'm perfectly happy for Wikipedia to find some sort of revenue stream to keep the thing going. Its either ads or donations/merchandise. Given my choice I would rather do donations and merchandise but I can't understand the financials on whether or not this is reasonable. Or maybe they can get lucky and find out they have a rich uncle who died and left them a fortune the size of the GNP of a small country?
Re:Wikipedias Do Not Grow On Trees (Score:2)
Not sure about the administrator payment -- I assumed this was a group of volunteers such as a large bulk of e.g. Mozilla developers?
And no, Wikipedia definitely has no profit motive, that's why the creator started it, and why I think it has been
Re:Very mad contributor (Score:2)
Why is it always advertising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere down the line? Of course some of us buy into it and we spend dollars that get rerouted back to the sites we access for 'free'. It's a very annoying way to make money (who likes advertising after all - and how much energy to we exert to rid us of it?) and it doesn't seem to work very well, meaning you need to cluster bomb the online population to achieve an effect.
Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
Why is it always advertising?-Illusions. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated."
Because people love their illusions. They want to believe that they're actually getting something for nothing. Paying directl
The cable model worked so well, too (Score:2)
IIRC, the original promise of cable TV was that, since I was paying a subscription fee, there would be no advertising. That obviously isn't the case any more. Now, if I chose to pay for cable (I don't watch any TV any more, let alone pay for it, BTW), I am paying for the opportunity to watch commercials.
Given that highly-successful precident, I can easily forsee your proposed packaging being bastardized in a similar fashion.
Of course, you're still working on the premise that there's stuff on teh Intar
Re:Why is it always advertising? (Score:2)
Because advertising is the only one that works (Score:2)
People have been well trained to expect a free flow of information on the internet, with no encumberances. Ironically, the least annoying revenue generator from the user's perspective is advertising, since most people are well trained to ignore ads anyway.
I am aware of only one other method that has not been completely supplanted by advertising, and that is merchandising-only sites (e.g., Homestar Runner). Ho
because Marx was wrong and Smith was right (Score:2)
I agree with the previous commenter who suggested advertising creeps into previously "free" services (like cable TV, or like the Web itself, if you can remember back to its pre-pop-up days) because folks can thereby delude themselves that they're still getting it for "free." (It never was free, of course -- it was only parasitizing one something else, e.g. the original Web was a parasite on government-sponsored research computing. But this is a secondary point.)
Problem is, advertising is not a permanent
Advertising is Okay (Score:3, Insightful)
- Ads should be relevant to the article, but I don't think pornography/drugs/gambling should be permitted. They'll only affect the image of the project.
- They must be noticeable, but not intrusive. No pop-ups! Text-based would be best, something akin to Google's.
- They must not seriously affect performance of the site. Wikipedia isn't exactly the fastest kid on the block right now, so I hope the addition of advertising doesn't make it choke.
Actually, after reading the vague press release, it seems like the ads won't be on Wikipedia itself.Probably not that bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Coca-Cola (n.) (Score:5, Funny)
Coca-Cola can be found in many resturaunts with health code violations, unlike PEPSI-COLA, which can be found in top-rated resturants KFC (tm), PIZZA HUT (tm), and TACO BELL (tm).
See also:
PEPSI
WILD CHERRY PEPSI
PEPSI EDGE
DIET PEPSI
Ain't the information gpl'd? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree wholeheartedly that this is a sad thing to happen. Information source of wikipedia's kind should not be mixed with business. Moreover, I was under the impression that they had received quite good money from donations.
Re:Ain't the information gpl'd? (Score:3, Insightful)
To summarize:
GPL != FDL
Re:Ain't the information gpl'd? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Ain't the information gpl'd? (Score:3, Interesting)
Answers.com has been ripping Wikipedia since forever. Google searches frequently turn up hits with identical text from both domains.
Here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Graves [wikipedia.org]
http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-graves [answers.com] (scroll down a bit)
Re: Ain't the information gpl'd? (Score:2)
The entire point of open source is that people can take it and do whatever they want with it as long as they share it. This is the same as RedHat selling Linux, Answers.com is making money off ads from Wikipedia content.
Re: Ain't the information gpl'd? (Score:2)
Are you deficient in reading comprehension?
One possible problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, it is worth pointing out that they currently take in a substantial amount of donations, and that opening the door to advertising would probably blunt the enthusiasm of charitable givers.
I do hope whatever deal has been hashed out is worth a substantial fraction of currently generated revenues.
So Google can do it, but these can't? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs to pay for this, and I don't see how relevant advertisements can detract from the site at all, in fact they will probably add to it a great deal.
If it was great big shiny flash banner adds with screeching canary gifs or something, I'd understand. The moaners need to put up, or shut up really.
Re:So Google can do it, but these can't? (Score:2)
It is clear that Wikimedia needs money to keep running. However, this ad deal is not needed in orde
FAQ for your convenience! (Score:5, Informative)
Frequently Assumed Quandaries resolved:
- The deal is not finalized. Nothing is "struck" or required.
- Nobody is forced to use the software.
- There are no ads/adware/spyware in the software.
- Er, surely there must be adverts in the software, or where does the money come from?? Dan100 [slashdot.org] (Talk) [wikipedia.org] 18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The software lets you go to a web page, such as http://answer.com/foo [answer.com] - The web page has all the advertisements. -Fennec [wikipedia.org] () [slashdot.org] 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The link to the software will only be at WP:TOOLS [wikipedia.org], nowhere else.
- A link to WP:TOOLS [wikipedia.org] will be placed in the sidebar, not a link to the software.
- The tools page already links to non-free software.
- Answers.com could have posted their link on the tools page without offering the Foundation a cent.
- Bob Rosenschien and Jimbo Wales have been in firm and absolute
agreement from the beginning that the form of link chosen by the
community is up to the community.
- The community is free to remove the link from WP:TOOLS [wikipedia.org], but know that this will stop Wikimedia from receiving additional funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:ToolsRe:FAQ for your convenience! (Score:2)
Don't like it? Pay up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Answer: donations. Since I have never given any money, I'd have no problem accepting ads.
I hope that the people who are complaining the loudest have given the most. Otherwise, they're mad because they can't get something for nothing.
Trouble at t' mill. (Score:2, Funny)
Man alive, this could spell disaster! But wait:
No, a quick click of the revert button, and your carefully-tended articles contributed for no reward are back in print, surrounded by ads!
Anyway, if the ads are anything like Google, and given the nature of t
I like their disclaimer: (Score:2)
What are they saying.
Re:I like their disclaimer: (Score:2)
Article wrong (Score:5, Informative)
From the page:
Welcome to visitors from Slashdot. Please be aware that the Slashdot story is completely wrong. There is no proposal to have advertising on Wikipedia. There are numerous errors of fact on this page. (See below if you're interested.) --Jimbo Wales 19:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I originally posted this as AC so as not to be seen to be hording karma, but then I realised it wouldn't be seen if I posted it that way, so here goes again.
(Wouldn't it be nice if you could EDIT your posts on slashdot)
Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium? (Score:2, Funny)
Martin: Ooh
Krabappel: Correct. I would also accept snacktacular.
What did you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:2)
How about -5 completely lacking in any relation to reality?
eBay has never given money to Wikipedia. 1 board member works a regular 9-5 job, the rest don't.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:2)
shame slashdot is not a wiki (Score:4, Funny)
Thoughts about Answers.com growth and GFDL (Score:2)
However, Wikipedia information/vandalism critics may be opposed to that Answers.com heavily use that service, and it's now starting to get seamlessly integrated in
Four words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bandwidth is not free.
Why do people think that sites like this -- that become immensly useful and popular -- can sustanin themselves without a steady revenue stream? A web site is not like TV or radio where you broadcast a signal over the air and any number of people can pick it up without killing your station.
I don't care how much time or effort anyone spent contributing content to the site. The fact is that SOMEONE has to pay to host that content and serve it to visitors.
From the Wiki FAQ:
So Mr. Wales pays for part of the operational costs and the rest comes from donations and a few grants and sponsorships.
We're not talking a few hundred bucks a year and a single server running out of someone's in-home LAN closet. A total of $739,200 was budgeted for the 2005 calendar year alone [wikimediafoundation.org], and that's not pocket change.
First quarter fund raising earned a miniscule $96,648.70 [wikimediafoundation.org] and if they did as well (surpassing their goal by 25%) every quarter, they'd still be $352,605.20 shy of the 2005 budget.
Given the very little bit I know from looking at this information, I don't see it being an easy task to survive during their continued growth without some kind of revenue generating system on the site -- whether it be ads or subscription.
Re:Four words.... (Score:2)
No, it wasn't necessitated by the budget. I am expecting the revenue would be regarded as something additional to what is needed to keep the site running. For example, special projects like the distribution of content in Africa and so on.
Thus, this money isn't needed to cover servers and bandwidth. So far, donations have been enough for that, a
Re:Four words.... (Score:2)
Yes, but she also says further into the discussion:
The important points to consider are that the co-branded version will be totally licence compliant (just as gurunet currently is), that its access will be totally opt-in (so you may choose not to use it at all), it keeps Wikipedia totally ads-free as many editors want it to stay, it generates revenues much needed to support our current amazing growth (and limit the number of times a fundraising drive notice will be visible on all pages), and finally, I hope
Re:Four words.... (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but if instead of citing the Q1 fund drive you'd cited the more recent Q3 fund drive [wikimediafoundation.org], you would have reported a rather more upbeat $243,930 USD. If they did as well every quarter, they would have $975,720 -- 32% over what they are budgeted to spend.
Given that the Q1 fundraising came in 25% over target (target $75,000) and the
No ads vs ads? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not set up two servers with the same content- one supported wholly by donations (with no ads), the other supported by ads (a la adwords), give them different (but close) URLs and see how it works out? If the free server gets plenty of donations, they will be able to support more users/bandwidth, on the other hand, maybe the ad supported site will get more money and be able to support more users/bandwidth.
Overall, the most important piece is that the raw data be now *and forever* free to anyone that wants it. Can't the licensing be limited to preventing the forking of a proprietary (non-free) but publicly accessable database?
Re:No ads vs ads? (Score:2)
Re:No ads vs ads? (Score:2)
At least if there is an alternate ad supported site, it still exists- it doesn't die an unglorious death due to non-payment of bandwidth fees.
Uncyclopedia also partners with Answers... (Score:4, Funny)
The Uncyclopedia has announced a fund-raising (WORK FROM HOME! MAKE SIX FIGURES) partnership with Answers Corporation (http://www.gurunet.com/ [gurunet.com]) and will replace all of the Uncyclopedia content with a growing (Buy PENIS enlargement products NOW!!!) number of unobtrusive advertisements. The Uncylopedia will recieve three easy installments of $19.95.
It's a sad day for the Wikispace.
No Ads? Then pay for its use ... (Score:2)
Some Wikipedians have created the No Ads Wikiproject in response.
Yeah ... because that's cheaper than taking the annual bill for Wikipedia hosting and bandwidth, dividing it equally amongst themselves, and forking over the cash.
I hope the proposed solution works for them. It's a lot more reasonable and likely to succeed than the No Ad version.
Re:No Ads? Then pay for its use ... (Score:2)
The greatest asset is already provided by the same people who created the No Ads project page -- namely the content. If Wikipedia turns into something its contributors don't like, Wikipedia will not stay alive for long.
Wikipedia will likely never have any ads, since the community as a whole generally opposes them on the project that they have donated thousands of hours to. Thankfully, if b
Story is flawed but not patently false (Score:2)
As the press release [answers.com] states, some Answers.com software will be receiving "chartered placement" on a Wikipedia tools listing in return for compensating the foundation. I suppose you might say that doesn't constitute advertising (as the "clarification" states) but it's a distinction without a difference.
No big deal (Score:3, Informative)
But really, I don't mind seeing ads in wiki pages at all. Actually, I think that Google's context ads would fit the concept quite nicely - due to the nature of encyclopedic articles, there should be more than enough keywords to produce ads with very high degree of relevancy.
BLATANT KARMA WHORING (Score:3, Insightful)
And we're supposed to be surprised that they make unilateral moves like this? They didn't get any kind of consensus before doing this, in spite of that being the basic Wikipedia principle. Of course, Wikimedia principle's are to act unilaterally. I wonder if they'd really honor a trial run at all.
Yeah, sure, it's "not an advertisement" because they aren't contractually obligated to put an ad for the software on WP:TOOLS. However, they would have never added it without the deal, and, in fact, if the Wikipedians kept the link removed from the tools page the company would withdrawal its funding to Wikimedia. So in other words, Wikipedia is (or will be) hosting a link to a commercial product, w hich when removed, will remove a source of revenue for it. Sounds like an advertisement to me.
Also, it appears they don't need these profits to even run the servers. THat's right, they're mostly being funneled into random, unrelated charities. While some might consider this noble, the many Wikipedians who contributed their work don't consider it ethical to use their freely contributed work as a means to act as a cash cow for Wikimedia's personal pet charities without any consenus at all.
Re:People still do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:People still do that? (Score:2)
Re:Might be reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I stopped using Wikipedia (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wiki? (Score:2)
Re:Wiki? (Score:4, Funny)