On 10/24/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Some, like Andrew Keen, have argued exactly the
opposite - that unpaid
editors are inevitably bound to create content which serves their own
purposes, so what you end up with when you don't have explicit
advertising is hidden advertising. I think it's a reasonable point of
view, and something we're starting to see quite a bit of in Wikipedia.
The fact is that people who are paid and who are unpaid can both
create great work. There are bloggers out there who are unpaid and do
an amazing job, and there are bloggers out there who are paid
(boingboing, Engadget, etc) and do an amazing job.
So, Andrew is probably wrong about that. He does have some valid
points about anonymity and the fact that experts-- or folks with a lot
of knowledge -- can have a hard time having their voice heard above
the wisdom of the crowds. Of course, that's another thread. :-)
The problem is there's no real way to fix it
without throwing away so
many of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. So while it might be the
best way to go, it's probably best saved for another project. Maybe
Citizendium could try it, it fits in much better with their model.
The part about the Wikipedia's anti-advertising contingent that
confuses me is that they seem opposed to even OPT-in advertising. Is
my perception of this correct? If Wikipedia gave users the option to
turn on advertising "to support the foundation" would folks be opposed
to that?
I know if there was a blank leaderboard up top and it said "Ads
on/off" a significant # of folks would turn them on.
Seems to me 100% opt-in advertising would be a nice middle ground.
Thoughts?
j
---------------------
Jason McCabe Calacanis
CEO,
http://www.Mahalo.com
Mobile: 310-456-4900
My blog:
http://www.calacanis.com
AOL IM/Skype: jasoncalacanis