I'm absolutely opposed to ads appearing anywhere on Wikipedia or any commercially-influenced content for that matter. Jimbo says that people will question "why miss out on all that revenue?" To me this is a backwards way of looking at the question of ads. I say "why risk introducing ads if they are not really needed?" Some argue they are "needed" because the foundation needs more money. If this is the case, then the question should be "how can Wikimedia generate revenue?"
Given the large number of reasons why there should not be ads (I won't repeat all of them), Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be funded by donations or other sources which can have no special influence over the content. The donors ought to including big corporations, again with no special privileges to commercially influence Wikipedia. These corporations would be ones which derive value from Wikipedia by the mere fact that it exists and has thousands of editors worldwide; whose business model depends on the existence of Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia community which encourages many individual contributions. [Recently, Lisa Lynch blogged about why Google and Yahoo commercially benefit from Wikipedia and this is a very important perspective. Wikipedia is very useful for microscale data mining/analysis (regardless of what value it might have for the individual readership)http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2005/12/why_google_and.html]. Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia data at the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?
Lisa
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston
Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia data at the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?
Much as I appreciate and admire your principles, what you are proposing makes little sense if you go to the other side of the boardroom table. You might as well ask "Why don't individuals benefiting from Wikipedia contribute?", because a company is just a group of individuals, namely the shareholders. You are surely not suggesting that we have a log on screen so that anybody who might get a benefit from WP enter their credit card details before being granted access.
And even if we accept the premise that Bill Gates the individual be allowed free access but Microsoft the corporation should pay megabucks, just how do we enforce it? We cannot. And what commercial enterprise with a responsibility to its shareholders is going to shell out money they don't need to?
If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial benefit from WP and should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading MediaWiki, hiring some professionals, and building their own encyclopaedia, perhaps as a joint effort with Google along with toolbars and popups and so on? That way, they'd get the same benefits as well as control over the operation and a more focused product.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston
Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia data at the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?
<snip>
If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial benefit from WP and should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading MediaWiki, hiring some professionals, and building their own encyclopaedia, perhaps as a joint effort with Google along with toolbars and popups and so on? That way, they'd get the same benefits as well as control over the operation and a more focused product.
There's one thing they wouldn't get - control of the community. Yes, WP is primarily an encyclopedia, but it wouldn't be /anything/ without its contributors.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email) Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2006 00:09 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston
Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia data at the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?
<snip> > If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial benefit from > WP and should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading > MediaWiki, hiring some professionals, and building their own > encyclopaedia, perhaps as a joint effort with Google along with > toolbars and popups and so on? That way, they'd get the same benefits > as well as control over the operation and a more focused product. >
There's one thing they wouldn't get - control of the community. Yes, WP is primarily an encyclopedia, but it wouldn't be /anything/ without its contributors.
Granted, but I'm quite sure that recruiting a few thousand ambitious know-it-alls isn't as big a task as you might imagine. In fact, I think Googleopedia or Wikiexpedia would merely have to open their doors and they would instantly get tens of thousands of enthusiastic contributors and media exposure that we can only dream about. Remember all that fuss when Gmail began and Gvites were being auctioned on eBay for sizable amounts?
Peter
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email) Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2006 00:09 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston
Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia data at the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?
<snip>
If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial
benefit from
WP and should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading MediaWiki, hiring some professionals, and building their own encyclopaedia, perhaps as a joint effort with Google along with toolbars and popups and so on? That way, they'd get the
same benefits
as well as control over the operation and a more focused product.
There's one thing they wouldn't get - control of the community. Yes, WP is primarily an encyclopedia, but it wouldn't be /anything/ without its contributors.
Granted, but I'm quite sure that recruiting a few thousand ambitious know-it-alls isn't as big a task as you might imagine. In fact, I think Googleopedia or Wikiexpedia would merely have to open their doors and they would instantly get tens of thousands of enthusiastic contributors and media exposure that we can only dream about. Remember all that fuss when Gmail began and Gvites were being auctioned on eBay for sizable amounts?
So what can (insert name of commercial fork here) offer that WP can't? Will they pay their editors?
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Granted, but I'm quite sure that recruiting a few thousand
ambitious
know-it-alls isn't as big a task as you might imagine. In fact, I think Googleopedia or Wikiexpedia would merely have to open their doors and they would instantly get tens of thousands of
enthusiastic
contributors and media exposure that we can only dream
about. Remember
all that fuss when Gmail began and Gvites were being
auctioned on eBay for sizable amounts?
So what can (insert name of commercial fork here) offer that WP can't?
I don't think Google would have any trouble attracting "a few thousand ambitious know-it-alls". Surely you don't think that WP has cornered the market on such people?
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/2/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I don't think Google would have any trouble attracting "a few thousand ambitious know-it-alls". Surely you don't think that WP has cornered the market on such people?
Peter (Skyring)
I actually think that people would go to a Googlepedia pretty quickly. There's always that prestige associated with saying to someone "I work with Google." With the strength of its name alone, Google could attract a sizeable population in a matter of months. How it would work out, I'm not sure. Isn't Google a supporter of Wikipedia though, in terms of server space and PageRank?
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ben Emmel
On 1/2/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I don't think Google would have any trouble attracting "a
few thousand
ambitious know-it-alls". Surely you don't think that WP has
cornered
the market on such people?
Peter (Skyring)
I actually think that people would go to a Googlepedia pretty quickly. There's always that prestige associated with saying to someone "I work with Google." With the strength of its name alone, Google could attract a sizeable population in a matter of months. How it would work out, I'm not sure. Isn't Google a supporter of Wikipedia though, in terms of server space and PageRank?
I think Google and Wikipedia work well together. I don't know if there's any formal relationship, but certainly each benefits from the other.
I don't think Google is going to start up a competitor any time soon, however. Not unless, as Lisa suggested, we try to make them fund WP.
Pete (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Granted, but I'm quite sure that recruiting a few thousand
ambitious
know-it-alls isn't as big a task as you might imagine. In fact, I think Googleopedia or Wikiexpedia would merely have to open their doors and they would instantly get tens of thousands of enthusiastic
contributors and media exposure that we can only dream about. Remember
all that fuss when Gmail began and Gvites were being
auctioned on eBay for sizable amounts?
So what can (insert name of commercial fork here) offer that WP can't?
I don't think Google would have any trouble attracting "a few thousand ambitious know-it-alls". Surely you don't think that WP has cornered the market on such people?
He-he. We also haven't cornered the market for trolls and vandals. The first ones they would get would be the ones we got rid of, and who are now looking for a place to carry on their activity. 8-)
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
I don't think Google would have any trouble attracting "a
few thousand
ambitious know-it-alls". Surely you don't think that WP has cornered the market on such people?
He-he. We also haven't cornered the market for trolls and vandals. The first ones they would get would be the ones we got rid of, and who are now looking for a place to carry on their activity. 8-)
This is all getting very hypothetical, but I think that if Google or Microsoft or Yahoo put out a call for editors, those who responded would tend to be constructive people, who would deal with vandalism in a common-sense way.
Peter (Skyring)
Given the large number of reasons why there should not be ads (I won't repeat all of them), Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be funded by donations or other sources which can have no special influence over the content.
While there are many valid reasons to not have ads, this is not one of them. Something like Google AdSense uses a computer algorithm to find out what a page is about and then to serve appropriate ads. An article about Java the coffee will have ads for coffee while an article about Java the programming language will have ads for that. No humans are involved so no influence can be applied.
However, it should be noted that I am personally opposed to having ads on Wikipedia itself due to current widespread community rejection of the idea *and* my own concerns over the possibility of losing our soul. But I strongly believe that the community needs to base their decision on this matter on real facts and a consideration of what we are missing out on along with the potential pitfalls.
I think a good compromise is to create our own mirror of stable and vetted Wikipedia content at nupedia.org. That site would have ads so no wiki would ever need them. It would take some time before there are enough stable/vetted articles to make that a useful place for readers to go to, but that's fine.
That mirror would be optimized for reading while the wikis would be as they are - optimized for writing. The mirror will be constantly out of date but stable while the wikis would be constantly up to date but unstable (the instant display of vandalism will need to be snuffed out though). There would also be plenty of prominent back-links to and from each. Yin and Yang.
-- mav
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com