Wikipedia Makes Another Plea for Donations

10

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

keyboardJuice

a wonderful free service. i mean c'mon people i bet you would hate to see ads for boner pills on that website.

avatar

aether

While I would love it to remain ad free, I think they should adopt the pandora music business model. Subscribers/Donaters get ad free usage and non-subscribers/donators don't. I think it's the best of both worlds and it gives us users a choice while making their business economically viable. It also wouldn't hurt to give donator's exclusive access to some special feature with wikipedia to give people more incentive to donate (again like pandora, where they give users access to a sleek streamlined windows gadget to control pandora). What this might be I do not know, but I am sure they could whip something up.

avatar

livebriand

Honestly, this might be worth donating to. I imagine their server expenses really aren't that high, considering the amount of visitors, because all the content is user-generated. That said, as a student, I'd really prefer to not fork out any money.

avatar

tornato7

I donated. Even just one unobtrusive text ad on the left sidebar would give them enough money, though.

avatar

Dartht33bagger

Ad it up.  I use adblock anyways.

avatar

alexw1234

Ads are fine. Between adblock and flashblock, i never see them.

avatar

jgrimoldy

In the abstract, an ad-based model, especially a judiciously applied one, sounds like it'd work.  In practical application though, it's a poster-child for the "slippery slope" crowd.  Like a "temporary" tax, once the ads are there, they're never going away.

This whole thing feels like a contemporary PBS pledge-drive.  It'd be really nice if Wikipedia got government grants.

avatar

lhatten

Speaking of "Slippery Slope", would not it be wonderful if the government controlled er donated to  them.  Then the government could 'lean on them" er ask them to modify content.  No thanks.  Would much rather have the "PBS" pledge-drive than that.  Donate.

avatar

tekknyne

Chapman and those who reinforce the ad-based model to which most websites subscribe can shove off as far as i'm concerned. Once net-neutrality hits, we'll have nothing more than a shiney version of TV around here. Keep my internet pure, clean and commercial free.

Rants aside and while I understand that ad-revenue is vital to many websites-do you think if companies/people weren't pouring money into all this ineffective marketing horse-sh**, we'd all have a little more dough to spend on things that are actually useful like Wikipedia?! THINK ABOUT IT.

PS: Wikipedia rules. I donated, have you?

avatar

aether

Net neutrality is mainly about QoS from a data delivery perspective and ISPs, not advertisements. But yes an Internet without ads would be beautiful. The thing that angers me more about ads is not that they detract from the content of interest but that these ads which are for the most part totally ignored by people amounts to a HUGE amount of wasted bandwidth. And taking it one step further, this leads to a huge amount of wasted energy.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.