I’m torn on this issue, so I’ll play devil’s advocate. While it’s quite frustrating to see the “social traditionalists” knee jerk react to words like “profit”, in the case of Wikipedia, opening the advertisement can-of-worms might raise the issue of who is your master. Even when the influece isn’t direct and explicit, you have to wonder for example if the Wikipedia management would feel they should edit some of the negative AOL entry comments because of their funding of the project? As an example, the Consumer Reports group in the US never wants to have their objectivity questioned, so they refuse outside advertising, and even purchase their test products at retail locations. When I read a review in a traditional magazine, I have to put on the BS filter, especially when right next to the glowing report is a two page spread from said company. Neil Young wrote a song in ‘88 that expressed his frustration with artists of the day who were pitching products; “Ain’t singin’ for Pepsi Ain’t singin’ for Coke I don’t sing for nobody Makes me look like a joke This note’s for you. Ain’t singin’ for Miller Don’t sing for Bud I won’t sing for politicians Ain’t singin’ for Spuds This note’s for you.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUIR1W_1Hw Neil left a lot of money on the table, but at the end of the day, he still owned his soul.  Good leadership isn’t always about consensus. It may be arrogant, but “the masses” are often wrong, and the “right decision” is often unpopular (just ask my daughters!) See you in a few days mon!

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 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)?

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)?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.