Comments on: What to do With Wikipedia (or, There’s Nothing Wrong With Profit) http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/ Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:17:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: leafar http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17644 leafar Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:51:08 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17644 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 ) 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 )

]]> By: Fraser http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17640 Fraser Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:13:37 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17640 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. 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.

]]> By: leafar http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100965 leafar Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:51:08 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100965 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://w<a href="http://www.u-lik.com/leafar " rel="nofollow">www.u-lik.com/leafar </a>">http://w<a href="http://www.u-lik.com/leafar " rel="nofollow">www.u-lik.com/leafar </a>) 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] : www.u-lik.com/leafar “>http://wwww.u-lik.com/leafar )

]]> By: Fraser http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100964 Fraser Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:13:37 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100964 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. 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.

]]> By: leafar http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17404 leafar Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:11:09 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17404 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. 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.

]]> By: leafar http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100963 leafar Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:11:09 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100963 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. 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.

]]> By: Yong Bakos http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17398 Yong Bakos Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:33:48 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-17398 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? 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?

]]> By: Yong Bakos http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100962 Yong Bakos Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:33:48 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100962 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? 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?

]]> By: Jeremy David http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16753 Jeremy David Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:51:02 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16753 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. 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.

]]> By: Fraser http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16752 Fraser Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:24:58 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16752 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 :) 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 :)

]]> By: Wikipedia is going under? No way! · Building Social Net Worth http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16750 Wikipedia is going under? No way! · Building Social Net Worth Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:58:00 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16750 [...] is talk around the blogosphere that Wikipedia is running out of money. Honestly, if this were to happen, it would require some [...] […] is talk around the blogosphere that Wikipedia is running out of money. Honestly, if this were to happen, it would require some […]

]]> By: Jeremy David http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100961 Jeremy David Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:51:02 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100961 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. 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.

]]> By: Fraser http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100960 Fraser Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:24:58 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100960 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 :) 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 :)

]]> By: leafar http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16730 leafar Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:37:36 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-16730 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. 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.

]]> By: leafar http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100959 leafar Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:37:36 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/02/11/what-to-do-with-wikipedia-or-theres-nothing-wrong-with-profit/#comment-100959 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. 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.

]]>