[WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

Mon Jan 2 13:45:59 UTC 2006

charles matthews wrote:

> "Anthere" wrote
>
>> Might another solution in the future be to really have two websites. 
>> One "stable", for readers only (a mirror we would run ourselves) with 
>> light advertisement. And the editable one with no ads (and much less 
>> traffic) ?
>
>
> Questions:
>
> (i) If the market is really saying that there is a huge revenue 
> available since people 'in general' don't mind ads (the good French 
> verb is 'mithridatiser', I recall), why is no corporation not 
> sincerely chasing this money with a high-quality WP clone?

Since there are already mirrors with ads, yes, there are people
chasing that money now. A high-quality clone that could compete with
WP's name recognition would require significant investment up front,
and take several years to establish itself in the public's mind;
there are a hundred easier ways for entrepreneurs to make money with
the net. Even so, venture capitalists are probably getting WP-related
proposals every week.

> (ii) If WP added advertisements, what would its attitude be to GFDL 
> licencees of WP material who would be 'diverting' income?  Would it be 
> _absolutely unchanged_, i.e. 'go ahead, we give this stuff away'?
>
It would have to be. WP's copyright is jointly held by thousands of
individuals, all of whom would have standing to take the Foundation
to court. Need more plaintiffs? Just have them edit for a day... :-)

Stan