<story><title>Donate few bucks to Wikipedia (We&apos;re all using it on a daily basis, aren&apos;t we?)</title><url>http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/en/US&amp;utm_source=&amp;utm_medium=&amp;utm_campaign=&amp;referrer=</url><text></text></story><parent_chain><item><author>lwhi</author><text>Commercial pressures present conflicts of interest.  No form of media can claim to be truly impartial if advertising is displayed in amongst content.&lt;p&gt;One of the defining features of Wikipedia is absence of advertising - introduce adverts and the brand will lose a great deal of its power.</text></item><item><author>corin_</author><text>Here&apos;s my question: what&apos;s wrong with advertising?&lt;p&gt;If users don&apos;t mind adverts on commercial sites that offer free content, why would they mind it on a not-for-profit site?&lt;p&gt;Don&apos;t get me wrong, I&apos;m all for donating to charities in general (and do, regularly), I&apos;m all for donating to Wikipedia (and have done more than once), and I&apos;m all for websites that allow people who donate to disable adverts. But despite having donated to Wikipedia, I&apos;d have no problem with seeing adverts on every page (as long as they&apos;re reasonably subtle, and don&apos;t consist solely of the cheapest of the cheap adverts, such as &quot;omg you won an ipod lol!!&quot;). In fact, I think I&apos;d prefer seeing normal adverts than the constant reminder that they want donations.&lt;p&gt;&quot;No ads. No agenda. No strings attached.&quot;&lt;p&gt;Why does being a &quot;community website&quot; mean they shouldn&apos;t use advertising revenue to support their growth?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mseebach</author><text>In theory, yes. In practice, no. A single big donor, or a network of donors, might threaten to withdraw support unless some change is made, in exactly the same way a commercial entity might do it (which is very in a very subtle way, typically no smoking guns).&lt;p&gt;But probably the best shield against pressure: Wikipedia is a property of such a high quality that no single advertiser will ever have larger value than the mass of high quality competitors standing in line to take his place.</text></comment>
<story><title>Donate few bucks to Wikipedia (We&apos;re all using it on a daily basis, aren&apos;t we?)</title><url>http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/en/US&amp;utm_source=&amp;utm_medium=&amp;utm_campaign=&amp;referrer=</url><text></text></story><parent_chain><item><author>lwhi</author><text>Commercial pressures present conflicts of interest.  No form of media can claim to be truly impartial if advertising is displayed in amongst content.&lt;p&gt;One of the defining features of Wikipedia is absence of advertising - introduce adverts and the brand will lose a great deal of its power.</text></item><item><author>corin_</author><text>Here&apos;s my question: what&apos;s wrong with advertising?&lt;p&gt;If users don&apos;t mind adverts on commercial sites that offer free content, why would they mind it on a not-for-profit site?&lt;p&gt;Don&apos;t get me wrong, I&apos;m all for donating to charities in general (and do, regularly), I&apos;m all for donating to Wikipedia (and have done more than once), and I&apos;m all for websites that allow people who donate to disable adverts. But despite having donated to Wikipedia, I&apos;d have no problem with seeing adverts on every page (as long as they&apos;re reasonably subtle, and don&apos;t consist solely of the cheapest of the cheap adverts, such as &quot;omg you won an ipod lol!!&quot;). In fact, I think I&apos;d prefer seeing normal adverts than the constant reminder that they want donations.&lt;p&gt;&quot;No ads. No agenda. No strings attached.&quot;&lt;p&gt;Why does being a &quot;community website&quot; mean they shouldn&apos;t use advertising revenue to support their growth?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mootothemax</author><text>Surely that&apos;s a redundant concern? Wikipedia is already open to being edited; companies can and have been caught editing entries relevant to their interests.&lt;p&gt;Now, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and never will be in its current guise, i.e. with the anyone-can-edit philosophy. It&apos;s no bad thing, I love Wikipedia and can spend hours enjoying articles there.&lt;p&gt;Where I&apos;m going with this is that claiming conflict of interest or impartiality problems if advertising is to be introduced, well that just doesn&apos;t make sense - there are too many other factors that make Wikipedia unreliable.&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think it&apos;s a convenient excuse for an otherwise noble cause: advertising is ugly and intrusive, and in a perfect world it wouldn&apos;t be required.</text></comment>