Comments on: The blunt truth about the future of Wikipedia http://www.webaddict.co.za/2010/03/31/the-blunt-truth-about-the-future-of-wikipedia/ Web Apps, Design, Development & Innovation in Cape Town Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Gregory Kohshttp://www.webaddict.co.za/2010/03/31/the-blunt-truth-about-the-future-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-59374 Gregory Kohs Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:22:00 +0000 http://www.webaddict.co.za/?p=3089#comment-59374 First, Jimmy Wales is not "founder of Wikipedia". That's a lie that he perpetuates in order to boost his daily speaker's fee. Dr. Larry Sanger is more the founder of Wikipedia than Wales is (Sanger brought the idea of an open wiki architecture to the moribund Nupedia encyclopedia project that Wales created; Sanger named it "Wikipedia"; Sanger invited its first editors; and Sanger fashioned many of the lasting guidelines and policies). But, when you bring this fact to Jimmy's attention, he -- literally -- erases it away:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=282581543Honestly, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need more money -- it needs a course in ethical accountability. The Foundation spends only 31 cents of every revenue dollar on the program services that the mission statement lays out as its objective.Wales doesn't care if Wikipedia does or does not have advertising, because he won't see any of that money personally. He cares about siphoning traffic and labor from Wikipedia to his "completely separate" for-profit, Wikia, Inc. You have to laugh at that "completely separate" line, because Jimbo himself cooked that up, even when the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation was 60% comprised of Wikia, Inc. employees!The whole thing is a big scam, advertising or no advertising. First, Jimmy Wales is not “founder of Wikipedia”. That’s a lie that he perpetuates in order to boost his daily speaker’s fee. Dr. Larry Sanger is more the founder of Wikipedia than Wales is (Sanger brought the idea of an open wiki architecture to the moribund Nupedia encyclopedia project that Wales created; Sanger named it “Wikipedia”; Sanger invited its first editors; and Sanger fashioned many of the lasting guidelines and policies). But, when you bring this fact to Jimmy’s attention, he — literally — erases it away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=282581543

Honestly, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t need more money — it needs a course in ethical accountability. The Foundation spends only 31 cents of every revenue dollar on the program services that the mission statement lays out as its objective.

Wales doesn’t care if Wikipedia does or does not have advertising, because he won’t see any of that money personally. He cares about siphoning traffic and labor from Wikipedia to his “completely separate” for-profit, Wikia, Inc. You have to laugh at that “completely separate” line, because Jimbo himself cooked that up, even when the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation was 60% comprised of Wikia, Inc. employees!

The whole thing is a big scam, advertising or no advertising.

]]> By: darylhbhttp://www.webaddict.co.za/2010/03/31/the-blunt-truth-about-the-future-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-59372 darylhb Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:49:00 +0000 http://www.webaddict.co.za/?p=3089#comment-59372 This is a great post and brings something to mind that I've never thought of before.Perhaps one way for Wikipedia to maintain the idealistic high ground could be to introduce display ads to their site - but only those that advertise other non-profit organisations?What if those ads had calls-to-action that induce people to donate? Then Wikipedia could arrange with the advertisers to take a pre-determined cut of the donations generated by that ad. A bit like an affiliates program, but keeping it in the NGO family. This is a great post and brings something to mind that I’ve never thought of before.

Perhaps one way for Wikipedia to maintain the idealistic high ground could be to introduce display ads to their site – but only those that advertise other non-profit organisations?

What if those ads had calls-to-action that induce people to donate?
Then Wikipedia could arrange with the advertisers to take a pre-determined cut of the donations generated by that ad. A bit like an affiliates program, but keeping it in the NGO family.

]]>