Should Wikipedia Give Charity or Take It
I greatly respect Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. I love their mission to provide everybody with free access to quality information. And when I see them running another fund-raising campaign I have to ask: why is the Web’s 10th biggest site (in US unique visitors) begging for money?
With moderate advertising, Wikipedia could probably generate hundreds of millions of dollars every year, which they could use to fight poverty and disease in Africa (for example). Instead they ask for charity funds to cover their own expenses.
There are those at Wikipedia, I think including both Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley, who are driven by a desire to provide everybody with free access to quality information. Running relatively unobtrusive ads on their site could help them accomplish their goals. But there are others who feel that any interaction with capitalist society (other than requesting donations) would be a betrayal. Which is a pity.
Some disclaimers: Answers.com has had a strong relationship with Wikipedia for years. I have to admit that at first I was very skeptical about the quality of their content, but I’ve been impressed by how it keeps improving. We now consider it one of our best sources on Reference Answers. Our WikiAnswers is built on the MediaWiki, and we view Wikipedia as a role model and an inspiration for continued quality improvements. We’ve sponsored some Wikimania conferences. On a personal note, my wife used the MediaWiki (which is remarkable) to put together her pet site (shameless plug: a great place to get info on dogs, cats, birds, and more). A few years ago, an attempt by Answers.com and Wikipedia to work together to generate some revenue was shot down strongly by some members of the Wikipedia community, who argued that any company that created non-free software was by definition unethical, and that any effort by Wikipedia to generate revenue was a betrayal of the editors and of the wiki principles.
Wikipedians are obviously entitled to their opinions. I’m thankful that we live in a society where neither I nor anybody else can force the Wikimedia Foundation to fulfill their potential of contributing hundreds of millions of dollars a year to worthwhile charities. And I repeat my opinion that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing a great deal of good. And they’re in a position to do even more good. They can remain free and not-for-profit, while generating revenue, so that they can give to charity instead of taking it. I hope one day they make that decision.
What do you think?
November 2, 2011 @ 6:42 pm
Just stumbled across this one… you’ve missed the point, though. I suspect that many Wikipedians – who produce the high quality content that you love – would not toil away for free to support an organization that was bringing in ad revenue. It’s not just social mores that keep us from going down that road: it’s the danger that monetization brings with it.
November 5, 2011 @ 8:40 pm
Hey Philippe. I guess I’m still missing the point. Wikipedia (much to my surprise, I must admit) has become a financial juggernaut, bringing in more than $20 million last year. Why would the people toiling away for free now stop if it accepted ads instead of corporate and private donations? It gets $2 million from Google today in charity, why is that less dangerous than accepting a payment for running AdSense ads on a few highly monetizable topics? On your benefactors page you certainly seem to have SEO agencies paying Wikipedia for excellent, followed links on high value keywords like “Free Shipping Codes,” “Balance Transfer Credit Cards,” and “Phone Cards.” People are cool supporting an organization that sells links but not an organization that runs a few ads? Is it only because everybody would see the ads and very few people ever find the SEO scam? I’m using harsh language. Donating money to a non-profit and receiving a link may not be a scam. But I remain at a loss to understand the community’s moral and aesthetic revulsion to ads at the bottom of some pages while they accept other forms of corporate funding and don’t mind Jimmy Wales’ face taking nearly the entire above the fold region of the page for 6 weeks every year. And why people toil away for free for an organization that takes foundation grant money that would otherwise go to other charities but wouldn’t contribute to an organization that was financially self-sustaining.