Wikipedia’s tin-cup approach wears thin

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

Spurred by the recent buzz around Jimmy Wales’s ethics, The L.A. Times has a good piece asking, Why doesn’t Wikipedia just sell ads? That would solve the site’s perennial money woes. (The story mentions the incredibly creepy fundraising video I blogged about last year.) By refusing to seek any serious income aside from donations Wikipedia is tying one hand behind its back.

The idea that monetizing their traffic would somehow corrupt the snow-white purity of the Wikipedia experiment is bogus. As long as the ads are placed by computer, there isn’t a problem. The story doesn’t mention them, but the Wikimedia Foundation should seek inspiration in the Mozilla Foundation and Craigslist, two non-profits that are making gobs of money without losing their altruistic visions.

Mar 12, 2008 | Comments | Tags: , ,

Related entries

One comment posted

  1. Posted by suckerpunch-tm - 03/13/2008

    Ummm, money corrupts. That’s what it does, period.

Subscribe to this entry's comments

Post a comment