With respect, this is a fairly strange line of
argument. Objectively,
there is nothing particularly bizarre or strange about Wikipedia as an
online community. There are other wikis, there are other collaborative
projects, there are other online forums etc etc. So all of that is not
in itself a reason to say "Wikipedia is so different that it makes sense
for it to continue being different by having no ads".
Or maybe there's an ideological connection between GFDL and adlessness
that I (and slashdot,
linux.org and others...) don't (yet) see.
There is a very strong connection between adlessness and credibility.
Adfree stuff appears to me as much more reputable and trustworthy than
other media riddled with ads. I believe that that is one of the
reasons for Wikipedia's success. If Wikipedia had ads, there would be
absolutely no reason for me, as a reader, to use Wikipedia instead of
any other random site. As for the monetary problem, Jimbo definitely
is a hero and a saint for funding Wikipedia which probably has costed
him a fortune. But he can't be the only philantropical millionare out
there who would love to fund Wikipedia.... right?
--
mvh Björn