On 10/24/07, Anthony wikimail@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