[Foundation-l] A modest proposal: ads on wikipedia.com

Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 08:00:24 UTC 2007

On 23/04/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/04/07, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And you will really put an end to the beautiful experience that it was.
> It's a beautiful experience if you can access the content at all. This
> is precisely what I mean when talking about comfortable, well-fed
> first-world citizens (such as you or I) who can treat access to
> Wikimedia sites as a convenience.

So, do we in fact need ads (or other income streams) to keep the sites
live or not? David seems to be suggesting we do. Others have suggested
we do not.

Guilting us into accepting ads based on scaremongering of "the sites
might go down" is one thing. Rationalising that we could use
squillions of cash to buy back copyrights and pay for content writers,
etc, is another. So - ?

Jean-Baptiste is right, that Wikimedia is a nice oasis. So is that a
first-world conceit that doesn't mean much, or if we were to introduce
ads might we not all lament it in five, 20 years when we see the
Foundation wasn't going to collapse, after all?


More information about the foundation-l mailing list