What to do With Wikipedia (or, There’s Nothing Wrong With Profit)

February 11th, 2007

Wikipedia has three months to live. Or maybe it doesn’t.

The debate around the situation reinforces my belief that those who have an altruistic view of the internet - viewing it as a deity charged with fixing the world through a series of tubes - incorrectly associate profit with evil.

Here’s the (simple) thing: they’re wrong. And here’s what Wikipedia should do.

Wikipedia needs to transition into a social enterprise and embrace profit.

Many incorrectly associate greed with profit. Contrary to Gecko’s belief, greed isn’t good. But profit is.

Profit means not having to worry about fund raising. Profit means growth prospects and sustainability. Profit means a lot of things. And bad isn’t one of them.

No, Wikipedia should not start operating as a real business. As an organization founded, built, and sustained on principles set outside of business values, Wikipedia needs to embrace profit in such a way that it can further grow and develop those principles.

Imagine the possibilities for Wikipedia to further their vision of the world if they placed a single leaderboard ad on the site, generating $100 Million / year for the organization.

Not only would reorganizing as a social enterprise and embracing profit help Wikimedia obtain their goals, but they’d be able to have a larger vision for social change - such as “make all information freely available and open”.

Like Jason said - Wikipedia should embrace consensus and open up the decision. I bet they’d not only be surprised by the result but also the possibilities.

Viewing 16 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Affiliation ?
    Buy bibliography (books, music ...etc) ... with an opt-in pop-up ?
    If bibliography is well done enough you've got a book for everything.

    That's all I came up over the last two days.

    Or maybe I'll pay 1$ for every user that register on U.[lik] from wikipedia if they right an article (freely of course) that describes the service. I've been banned because my alexa ranking was too small (when many Recommendation Systems described in the collaborative filetring page were a lot smaller and for some as "good" in term of "reduce-usability" as ours).

    And I'm sure, scrutiny will be huge on these "clients" or on "bibliography" if we go that way.


    A lot of comas ";-)"
    Because, even if, as you, I want sustainability ... I don't want to be catalogue as "profit greedy geek" (he, you can tag my profile on U.[lik] : http://wwww.u-lik.com/leafar )
    • ^
    • v
    Leafer is spot on "it doesn't feel right" is far from a real answer. You raise many of the reasons why Wikipedia needs sustainable funding - not many donate and government/public funds change with priorities (and those change every 4 years).

    As well, the counter argument to the supposedly smelly ads on PBS is that taking grant money - regardless of how insignificant in size - changes the organization's course.

    I agree that ads may not be the right way to monetize Wikipedia, I'd love to see some creative alternatives presented, but I do not think that profit should be written off simply because it doesn't feel right.

    I'll vote for sustainability that doesn't feel right well before I'll support a feel-good demise.
    • ^
    • v
    Affiliation ? Buy bibliography (books, music ...etc) ... with an opt-in pop-up ? If bibliography is well done enough you've got a book for everything. That's all I came up over the last two days. Or maybe I'll pay 1$ for every user that register on U.[lik] from wikipedia if they right an article (freely of course) that describes the service. I've been banned because my alexa ranking was too small (when many Recommendation Systems described in the collaborative filetring page were a lot smaller and for some as "good" in term of "reduce-usability" as ours). And I'm sure, scrutiny will be huge on these "clients" or on "bibliography" if we go that way. A lot of comas ";-)" Because, even if, as you, I want sustainability ... I don't want to be catalogue as "profit greedy geek" (he, you can tag my profile on U.[lik] : <a href="http://wwww.u-lik.com/leafar ">http://wwww.u-lik.com/leafar )
    • ^
    • v
    Leafer is spot on "it doesn't feel right" is far from a real answer. You raise many of the reasons why Wikipedia needs sustainable funding - not many donate and government/public funds change with priorities (and those change every 4 years). As well, the counter argument to the supposedly smelly ads on PBS is that taking grant money - regardless of how insignificant in size - changes the organization's course. I agree that ads may not be the right way to monetize Wikipedia, I'd love to see some creative alternatives presented, but I do not think that profit should be written off simply because it doesn't feel right. I'll vote for sustainability that doesn't feel right well before I'll support a feel-good demise.
    • ^
    • v
    Yong If I may ... It doesn't feel right is not a real answer. you can put convinctions in the balance. There are no Hippies, just beliefs.
    I did not donate to wikipedia... but i'll offer my eyes.
    You should listen to Jason calacanis Last podcast (#11).
    Nearly all the debate on mentization for wikipedia started there. And I've been participating since the beginning.
    I am open for discussion.
    • ^
    • v
    Yong If I may ... It doesn't feel right is not a real answer. you can put convinctions in the balance. There are no Hippies, just beliefs. I did not donate to wikipedia... but i'll offer my eyes. You should listen to Jason calacanis Last podcast (#11). Nearly all the debate on mentization for wikipedia started there. And I've been participating since the beginning. I am open for discussion.
    • ^
    • v
    I for one applaud Wales and the Foundation's fastidious stance on resisting the temptation of advertising.

    Profits and operational costs aside, there are certain qualitative aspects that no one is addressing... in a nutshell, having ads on the site just wouldn't *feel* right.

    Before you lambast me as a hippie, go watch PBS.

    What the heck is up with those ads? They smell. Badly. But instead of trying to solve the real problem, a lack of public/govt funds, they sought the easier solution to generating operating revenue.

    I believe there are more creative solutions to overcoming the challenges that Wikipedia faces.

    In addition, I wonder how many people crying over this debate have actually donated themselves?
    • ^
    • v
    I for one applaud Wales and the Foundation's fastidious stance on resisting the temptation of advertising. Profits and operational costs aside, there are certain qualitative aspects that no one is addressing... in a nutshell, having ads on the site just wouldn't *feel* right. Before you lambast me as a hippie, go watch PBS. What the heck is up with those ads? They smell. Badly. But instead of trying to solve the real problem, a lack of public/govt funds, they sought the easier solution to generating operating revenue. I believe there are more creative solutions to overcoming the challenges that Wikipedia faces. In addition, I wonder how many people crying over this debate have actually donated themselves?
    • ^
    • v
    Wikipedia could certainly be a nonprofit and generate $100,000,000 a year... they would just have to give the money away, which I think could be a good thing.

    This, however, would be an extremely complicated matter. How would the money be allocated? Who gets to make the final decision?

    I certainly wouldn't want to see Wikipedia turn into a for profit venture because it was written by hundreds of thousands of people who got no compensation for their work other than the satisfaction of knowing it was going to help educate people. I don't think a company should profit of those people's good will.

    But as a social venture as you mentioned above, yes... it could be a really good thing.
    • ^
    • v
    Leafar... I agree that the answer is not straightforward. The one thing that is straight forward to me though is that profit does not equate to bad.

    You're right that before Wikipedia embraces profit they should have clear and manageable goals set. But that's the exciting opportunity for them - with the type of money they could generate the goals could be wonderfully lofty.

    By the way - great take on greed is good as it pertains to knowledge. I'm going to incorporate it into a post at some point :)
    • ^
    • v
    Wikipedia could certainly be a nonprofit and generate $100,000,000 a year... they would just have to give the money away, which I think could be a good thing. This, however, would be an extremely complicated matter. How would the money be allocated? Who gets to make the final decision? I certainly wouldn't want to see Wikipedia turn into a for profit venture because it was written by hundreds of thousands of people who got no compensation for their work other than the satisfaction of knowing it was going to help educate people. I don't think a company should profit of those people's good will. But as a social venture as you mentioned above, yes... it could be a really good thing.
    • ^
    • v
    Leafar... I agree that the answer is not straightforward. The one thing that is straight forward to me though is that profit does not equate to bad. You're right that before Wikipedia embraces profit they should have clear and manageable goals set. But that's the exciting opportunity for them - with the type of money they could generate the goals could be wonderfully lofty. By the way - great take on greed is good as it pertains to knowledge. I'm going to incorporate it into a post at some point :)
    • ^
    • v
    I was in the discussion with Jason and I think his conclusion was very good i.e an opt-in system. My main problem is more how they would spend the money !
    i've spent some times with regional leaders of wikimedia outside the US and they all talk about the inside fights ... so imagine if they had 100 millions to spend.
    Greed is good if you apply it to knowledge ... profit is more complexe has it gives power.
    I am still thninking over this but the answer is not stright forward.
    Wikipedia should make money as mozila but they need clear (i.e managed) goals before harvesting dollars.
    • ^
    • v
    I was in the discussion with Jason and I think his conclusion was very good i.e an opt-in system. My main problem is more how they would spend the money ! i've spent some times with regional leaders of wikimedia outside the US and they all talk about the inside fights ... so imagine if they had 100 millions to spend. Greed is good if you apply it to knowledge ... profit is more complexe has it gives power. I am still thninking over this but the answer is not stright forward. Wikipedia should make money as mozila but they need clear (i.e managed) goals before harvesting dollars.
    • ^
    • v
    Ken, thanks for subtly reminding me that I contradicted a thought that I've been loudly drumming for the past few months (and was a mantra of mine in '06).

    In this case though, with respect to consensus vs. leadership I'm torn - part of Wikimedia's mandate centres on key words "collaborative" and "open".

    There's also a difference with consumer reports taking advertising and Wikipedia placing a leaderboard on the site. Wikipedia's ads could be completely 3rd party managed and determined at auction whereas consumer reports would be charged with operating the sales department in a similar manner as other magazines (sales office, direct contact, ...).

    In the case of Wikipedia I'm not 100 % pro advertising, but I am 100 % pro profit generating. There are a number of ways they could generate profits - advertising being a single one - and like many decisions, the pros/cons of each alternative should be weighed.

    Thanks for the link to the song - I hadn't heard it before. It's worth pointing out that Neil has learned to embrace profit. His decision to ignore potential advertising dollars, while maybe altruistic, could be thought of as a simple profit-driven decision:

    Would accepting advertising money generate more profit than the number of fans who would be alienated; or, would shunning that profit from ads only strengthen his fan base (and therefore his main profit generating engine for years to come)?
    • ^
    • v
    Ken, thanks for subtly reminding me that I contradicted a thought that I've been loudly drumming for the past few months (and was a <a href="http://disruptivethoughts.com/2006/12/22/mantras-...rel="nofollow">mantra of mine in '06). In this case though, with respect to consensus vs. leadership I'm torn - part of Wikimedia's mandate centres on key words "collaborative" and "open". There's also a difference with consumer reports taking advertising and Wikipedia placing a leaderboard on the site. Wikipedia's ads could be completely 3rd party managed and determined at auction whereas consumer reports would be charged with operating the sales department in a similar manner as other magazines (sales office, direct contact, ...). In the case of Wikipedia I'm not 100 % pro advertising, but I am 100 % pro profit generating. There are a number of ways they could generate profits - advertising being a single one - and like many decisions, the pros/cons of each alternative should be weighed. Thanks for the link to the song - I hadn't heard it before. It's worth pointing out that Neil has learned to embrace profit. His decision to ignore potential advertising dollars, while maybe altruistic, could be thought of as a simple profit-driven decision: Would accepting advertising money generate more profit than the number of fans who would be alienated; or, would shunning that profit from ads only strengthen his fan base (and therefore his main profit generating engine for years to come)?
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

What's this?

You are currently reading What to do With Wikipedia (or, There’s Nothing Wrong With Profit) at Disruptive Thoughts.

meta