Just me, or the the Wikipedia the NPR of the internet? Since it doesn't have a monetization strategy at all, it constantly has to look for everyone to support it. Not saying this is a bad thing, but their fund drives often remind me of each other.
That being said, there's got to be some good way for the wikipedia to make a few $ but also stay neutral in regard to their content and keep their content open.
Totally agreed. Either that or they need to someone constantly apply for grants from places. Do something. There's got to be a better way than e-begging.
Why don't they find a way to monetize it and stop begging for donations? Even a non-profit needs money to survive. I can live with non-obtrusive ads if that ensures Wikipedia's survival. It might even be less obtrusive than the huge banner at the top right now asking for donations.
Absolutely. Wikipedia can dictate the ads, how subtle they must be, text vs image, and they have a fantastic ability to target. So the whole universe gives them this business model they could nail, and they refuse.
Well, okay. I'd rather click on ads than give money every year. In fact, the plaintive wailing bugs me more than any real ad so I'm motivated to not donate.
I wonder how much they would be making from Google Ads? They're generally targeted at the content for the page, the reader is obviously already interested in the subject, seems like a win-win to me.
7 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 30.2 ms ] threadThat being said, there's got to be some good way for the wikipedia to make a few $ but also stay neutral in regard to their content and keep their content open.
Well, okay. I'd rather click on ads than give money every year. In fact, the plaintive wailing bugs me more than any real ad so I'm motivated to not donate.