tkid124

January 05, 2009 at 7:30pm

I understand that when you are the host of information, like Wikipedia is it can be tough to decide on advertising, due to possible conflicts of interest, but there may be a need to do so, I like how Wikipedia isn’t rolling in cash, it’s good to have limited resources to prevent idleness among employees, however a failed Wikipedia, would most likely result in a for-profit taking over. With one of two likely situations, either Google or another company fighting for internet dominance, or a company all ready in the encyclopedia business that doesn’t know how and likely won’t learn before destroying Wikipedia how to run a user written encyclopedia.

So Wikipedia filing for bankruptcy is bad, but is their discovering that advertising is a cash-cow, good? Wikipedia is either responsible and ignores of advertisers and their request to monitor and edit content, or they jump into the cash, overload the site with adds, go on a hiring spree, edit content, redirect the power pyramid, so that users are now more restricted in what they can edit.

Somewhere in-between going bankrupt and handing the content over to advertisers, is a grand place for Wikipedia to be, now Wikipedia just has to find that place.

tkid124

January 05, 2009 at 7:29pm

I understand that when you are the host of information, like Wikipedia is it can be tough to decide on advertising, due to possible conflicts of interest, but there may be a need to do so, I like how Wikipedia isn’t rolling in cash, it’s good to have limited resources to prevent idleness among employees, however a failed Wikipedia, would most likely result in a for-profit taking over. With one of two likely situations, either Google or another company fighting for internet dominance, or a company all ready in the encyclopedia business that doesn’t know how and likely won’t learn before destroying Wikipedia how to run a user written encyclopedia.

So Wikipedia filing for bankruptcy is bad, but is their discovering that advertising is a cash-cow, good? Wikipedia is either responsible and ignores of advertisers and their request to monitor and edit content, or they jump into the cash, overload the site with adds, go on a hiring spree, edit content, redirect the power pyramid, so that users are now more restricted in what they can edit.

Somewhere in-between going bankrupt and handing the content over to advertisers, is a grand place for Wikipedia to be, now Wikipedia just has to find that place.

horzo

January 02, 2009 at 11:39am

Considering how much I use Wikipedia, I had no problem donating.

BoxyBrown

January 01, 2009 at 4:07pm

I smell a for sale sign in the future unless they start letting advertisers in. Too bad though, the site was pretty awesome.

AndyYankee17

January 01, 2009 at 2:44pm

I'd buy an overpriced wikipedia t-shirt

I Jedi

January 01, 2009 at 12:19pm

I had no idea that Wikipedia was in dire need of money.