Wikipedia has been a free website since its creation, but founder Jimmy Wales, along with concerned Wikipedia writers, have been placing banner ads (linked to personal appeals for how important Wikipedia is and why it should remain ad-free) in hopes of raising donations for the site's maintenance and support. I found a blog that makes a good point; don't try to guilt trip the users of Wikipedia into donating solely to save the site from advertising. Advertising is not always a malicious burden on websites, and if that is the only way to keep Wikipedia going, then so be it. Wikipedia provides a free service, as of now, but it may soon have to compromise with an advertising supported layout.
Jimmy Wales and other writers on banner ads may be an ironic use of spreading their pleas for donations, but it is also the only method they have outside of e-mailing members. The future of Wikipedia, ad-free or not, ultimately rests on the shoulders of Jimmy Wales; but the unsettling nature of this campaign have most likely not driven an overwhelming amount of donations. So it goes for Wikipedia. It will have to adopt ads or rely on the generosity of users to help keep the gears moving.
As desperate as it sounds to release an "urgent appeal" to wikipedia users, it isn't unheard of. The founders of other sites have done this before. But this is definitely a last resort.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia knows that asking for donations isn't going to work. When people are asked to give donations in person they will, because the don't want to look bad. But Jimmy Wales won't know if you don't donate. I didn't donate to Wikipedia, and Wales isn't sitting in house thinking "that Stephanie Breslof didn't donate, what a bitch."
But it isn't completely unreasonable to ask. I think the best example to use here is YouTube. YouTube didn't ask for donations before they made the switch to advertising. It's pretty unanimous among YouTube's users that the advertising is annoying. And people complain that they didn't ask (I have actually heard the argument that YouTube should have asked first before switching to an advertising model). But would YOU shell out $20 or more to YouTube just to get rid of the advertising? Maybe you would, but the fact is most users won't. At least this way, Wikipedia can get the little money it will from asking for donations, and then go forward with advertising. At least, I personally think that's what will happen.