Ad Supported Wikipedia

I know a lot of people want Wikipedia to remain free of advertising.  I am not one of them.

It seems that Jimmy Wales can't make up his mind about commercializing Wikipedia and is concerned about a "backlash" if he does.

I say do whatever you need to do Jimmy.  The service is awesome and I am happy to use it ad-supported or not.  If the ads are targeted, so much the better.

But it does raise the question about the small committed group of people who do most of the work to keep the service accurate and current.  They do that for a host of reasons right now, none of them financial.  If Wikipedia starts to make money, will that impact their desire to continue to work for free?  I would bet that it does, and so the most important thing that Jimmy needs to do, if he wants to commercialize Wikipedia, is figure out how he keeps the community involved in a commercialized service.

There are a multitude of ways to do that.  I am not going to try to suggest which are the best ones here.  But I think all the hand wringing over this issue is much ado about nothing.  Wikipedia can exist in a commercial form.  And frankly, I'd love to see that happen as it can provide a roadmap for others working in user generated media to follow.

Comments

[Rex Hammock]

I agree with you. There are many ways to reward the volunteers, but frankly, I've discovered that most people share their knowledge online in the context of Wikipedia or blogging for incentives other than direct financial compensation, rather it is related to recognition, reputation, or the "maven" role that Gladwell explains in Tipping Point. Like when one agrees to be on a panel at a conference, rarely is it the compensation that motivates them to say yes. (Which is good, because most conferences don't pay.)

[Jason Chervokas]

I dunno Fred, I think an ad supported Wikipedia could be problematic for exactly the reason you identify. Why would people be inspired to volunteer their time or knowledge with the awareness that someone else was profiting financially from it.

I know that people do such things all the time and you can assemble a list, but I think you risk breeding resentment among the best possible contributors leaving you with the worst possible contributors. I know that I might add to wikipedia now, but if I knew it were a commercial venture I'd be extremely disinclined to do so, just like I won't wear apparel w/ an enormous logo on it (Abercrombie & Fitch should be paying my daughter to wear their advertising, not the other way around). A commericalize Wikipedia would, I suspect, cease being an open-source information community and begin moving inexorably towards a traditional heirarchical encyclopedia with a paid staff of editors and researchers. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But we've already got plenty of those.

[Joe Wilson]

It seems to me that there is an obvious solution to Jason's concern (which I share) - pay the contributors a revenue share. In fact, you could use this to create an incentive for people to contribute. For example, allocate a percentage of the revenue from the ads on a particular page to the contributors. You would clearly need fraud detection, but as others contribute to a topic, you could easily allocate portions of the revenue based upon a variety of factors (size of the update, a ratings system, lift in traffic, etc).

Yes, this amounts to creating a paid staff, but it also allows for the open-source aspect of the project to remain largely intact since most contrbutors would not see substantial revenue from contributing (but they would know they are getting their fair share).

[Nivi]

Wikipedia is a trademark of the non-profit Wikipedia foundation. If they served ads, one would assume that the revenue would go to the non-profit to support its mission.

[Charlie]

If they need to make money, why don't they just become a Tacoda data provider?

[Marina Architect]

How about operating as a non-profit accepting advertising/sponsorship in the identical manner of NPR.

That works perfectly without eroding the integrity and grassroots aspect of how it has grown.

In fact, if contributing entries to Wikipedia would help the service grow as a non-profit, more people would contribute entries.

The success of Wikipedia can be in everyone's interest. Take the advertising (text-only from select advertisers). It's a great evolution of this enduring public service.

[Jawahar Mundlapati]

If possible, is it desirable for Wikipedia to go for an IPO.

[Steve Rimland]

Answers.com seems to be making a fine living out of repurposing Wikipedia content among others. Infact, they're on the Nasdaq- answ. Google also links into answers.com for a users more defined search. If you go to Google and search for say Diabetes, in the right hand corner in blue you'll find definitions. Click on definitions, and it takes you to answers.com. Answers.com must be sharing ad revenues with these deals.

[MJ]

Being non-profit does not mean that you cannot generate revenue and use that revenue to compensate those that maintain the site and operations.

People that work for non-profits are paid a salary, and these organizations spend money to actually run these non-profits - like any other company, they buy PCs, desks, rent office space, etc. etc.

It's no different here. The only distinction that I can think of is that instead of making $$$ donations, it is the contribution of one's time writing an article, which has two kinds of value: increasing the value of the public good, and creating an asset that can generate revenue via advertising that can then be reinvested to further the goals of the non-profit.

Fred, you're right. This is much ado about nothing.

Of course, if you are talking about the idea of Wikipedia taking VC backing, and making it a for profit business, well that is a different matter entirely.

[Pete Cashmore]

Joe Wilson has a good point, although revenue sharing could be problematic at first, and would result in gaming of the system (not that you couldn't overcome it, but it's something to consider).

By the way, Joe, you didn't get back to me about Tacoda yet.

[Pete Cashmore]

Oops - I just remembered that its Ryan I emailed at Tacoda, not Joe. I've emailed him back now.

[paul]

I feel that the company should have an IPO in order to make more money for the non profit organization agendas.

[Bill]

IPOs are for companies who are in business to make profits for their investors....wikipedia is a non-profit, so if they end up giving all their money away why would you want to be holding the stock?