[WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

Sun Jan 1 23:40:01 UTC 2006

> With respect, this is a fairly strange line of argument. Objectively,
> there is nothing particularly bizarre or strange about Wikipedia as an
> online community. There are other wikis, there are other collaborative
> projects, there are other online forums etc etc. So all of that is not
> in itself a reason to say "Wikipedia is so different that it makes sense
> for it to continue being different by having no ads".
>
> Or maybe there's an ideological connection between GFDL and adlessness
> that I (and slashdot, linux.org and others...) don't (yet) see.

There is a very strong connection between adlessness and credibility.
Adfree stuff appears to me as much more reputable and trustworthy than
other media riddled with ads. I believe that that is one of the
reasons for Wikipedia's success. If Wikipedia had ads, there would be
absolutely no reason for me, as a reader, to use Wikipedia instead of
any other random site. As for the monetary problem, Jimbo definitely
is a hero and a saint for funding Wikipedia which probably has costed
him a fortune. But he can't be the only philantropical millionare out
there who would love to fund Wikipedia.... right?

--
mvh Björn