Yes, Wikipedia should take the money

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.

17wiki.190-1.jpgOver at Techdirt, Tim Lee takes issue with my post suggesting that Wikipedia should consider selling ads instead of asking for donations. He has a good point, which is that right now the only reason to volunteer to work for Wikipedia is because you’re passionate about it, but that might change if money became involved. But I think Tim overstates his case:

Being a member of the Wikipedia board would no longer be a thankless exercise in public service, but would be a relatively glamorous opportunity to direct hundreds of thousands of dollars to one’s pet causes. Over time, the senior leadership positions would be sought out by people who are more excited about doling out largesse than editing an encyclopedia.

I’m not sure why that would be the case. By that rationale we could never have large philanthropic foundations because they would attract self-interested directors. As long as their actions are transparent and they are accountable to the wikipedians, I don’t see why the money couldn’t be directed for the benefit of Wikipedia. And if the directors enjoy some vicarious “glamour” as a result, then I think that’s a fine reward for hard work—it might even attract better candidates than are interested today.

Since it’s Sunshine Week I’ll stress that the key is transparency. And Tim is right on this point, too: institutions matter. Right now Jimmy Wales is taking some heat for conducting his Wikipedia business in a less than transparent manner. If that’s how Wkipedia is going to operate, them perhaps money will corrupt it and Tim is right that “there’s no reason to think an institution built to edit an encyclopedia is going to have any special competence to oversee the spending of millions of dollars.” Still, I guess I’m just more optimistic about what the Wikipedia community is capable of.

Mar 17, 2008 | Comment | Tags: , ,

Wikipedia’s tin-cup approach wears thin

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 | 1 Comment | Tags: , ,

I live-blogged the Senate hearing on e-government and transparency today over at TLF.

I like Jimmy Wales and love Wikipedia, but in this new promotional video he looks like such a toolshed. What’s up with the freaky close-ups of his eyes and the hand-wringing?

  •  
  •