Comments on: Out of the Blue: Wikipedia Runs Banner Ads?! http://techindustrynews.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/out-of-the-blue-wikipedia-runs-banner-ads/ Technology, Widgetry, Gadgetry and Controversy Online and Off Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:53:13 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Melanie St. Clair http://techindustrynews.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/out-of-the-blue-wikipedia-runs-banner-ads/#comment-360 Melanie St. Clair Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:46:31 +0000 http://techindustrynews.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/out-of-the-blue-wikipedia-runs-banner-ads/#comment-360 This prominent placement is the only way for the Wikimedia Foundation (a charity that does not and can not try to make a profit, as you describe) to remind people "hey, this is a darn valuable resource, and we haven't scattered ads about, how about you thank us for that?" This prominent placement is the only way for the Wikimedia Foundation (a charity that does not and can not try to make a profit, as you describe) to remind people “hey, this is a darn valuable resource, and we haven’t scattered ads about, how about you thank us for that?”

]]> By: Nihiltres http://techindustrynews.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/out-of-the-blue-wikipedia-runs-banner-ads/#comment-359 Nihiltres Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:17:58 +0000 http://techindustrynews.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/out-of-the-blue-wikipedia-runs-banner-ads/#comment-359 Where are you getting the idea that this is "profiting" the Wikimedia Foundation? If you think about it, you might realize that this is how Wikipedia, and indeed all of the Wikimedia sites, keep running. It is incredible that a top 10 website runs on such a (relatively) meagre budget (indeed, we can always use more servers to handle the massive load), and you can even see a breakdown of the budget, which shows that ~60% of the budget is devoted purely to the technical means of running the site. "Will active Wikipedia editors really stand for their hard work toward public knowledge being subverted beneath a self-serving banner ad?" Yes, I support this, not because it is an advertisement, but because it is how the site will keep running, how IT will keep SUPPORTING OUR hard work. It's not as though we're running external ads, and users can minimize the banner or (through CSS) hide it entirely. Where are you getting the idea that this is “profiting” the Wikimedia Foundation? If you think about it, you might realize that this is how Wikipedia, and indeed all of the Wikimedia sites, keep running. It is incredible that a top 10 website runs on such a (relatively) meagre budget (indeed, we can always use more servers to handle the massive load), and you can even see a breakdown of the budget, which shows that ~60% of the budget is devoted purely to the technical means of running the site.

“Will active Wikipedia editors really stand for their hard work toward public knowledge being subverted beneath a self-serving banner ad?” Yes, I support this, not because it is an advertisement, but because it is how the site will keep running, how IT will keep SUPPORTING OUR hard work. It’s not as though we’re running external ads, and users can minimize the banner or (through CSS) hide it entirely.

]]>