[WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

[charles matthews]

"Steve Bennett" wrote

>At the moment we charge nothing, so isn't charging *anything*
> better?

For whom?  For what purpose?

>And any relatively active user is probably going to generate $5
> worth of Adsense ads anyway, isn't he?

As soon as you start counting the eyeballs of users, rather than the edits 
of editors, you actually change the whole dynamic of the project.

>I don't know what percentage of
> users donate currently, but it's probably very low.  Even assuming that
> all these people drastically reduce their contributions in reaction to
> the introduction of ads, you'd probably be a long way ahead.

What if the best editors move to a clone that doesn't have ads?
>
> I know that there are many ideologies at play in the Wikipedia world,
> like "free" information, unrestrained contribution (even by anonymous
> users), GFDL licensing etc - but I don't see a logical connection from
> there to the provision of an ad-free service.

Because there is a five-year history of those ideals getting the job done. 
You don't need a _logical_ connection, when you have a track record.

>In any case, I as a user
> would be more than happy to put up with a few ads (or a low yearly fee)
> to be rid of server strain, and the feeling of using a service running
> on a shoestring.

If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring.  A 'low' yearly 
fee - would be relative to the income of a developed-world person in work, 
or a villager in Asia or Africa in subsistence.agriculture?

The 'server strain' argument occurs only because exponential growth has been 
seen.  WP _has not_ crumbled under the strain.  Traffic seems to have risen 
50% in December alone.  We all know this can't continue for ever.  But we 
can't possibly know enough and rationally discuss how much money WP needs, 
until we have a clearer idea of where it is headed.  (It is the dotcom boom 
upside down, by the way - we have only an upside risk on the traffic, and 
apart from Jimbo's seed money we are not burning through the money in the 
bank, but visibly making it easier to get money, with no strings, simply by 
posting a notice on the sites.)

Charles