Posted February 12, 2007 11:33 am by with 26 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

Jason “I love SEO” Calacanis brings to light, news that Wikipedia has only enough funds to last 3-4 months. He believes that a few hard-core Wikipedians are being stubborn, by not considering advertising on the site.

I find it really ironic that a certain percentage (and I’m not gonna give percentages anymore) of the Wikipedia core team feel that they should decide for the entire Wikipedia audience the advertising policy….What happen to consensus people…80% of people would opt to see an advertisement and the vocal minority that controls Wikipedia with an iron fist/IRC channel will block it.

Thoughts? Would you be happy to have Wikipedia continue, even if it meant ignoring tolerating some ads? Would you even miss Wikipedia if it went away?

  • In light of wikipedia’s push towards nofollow, and the fact that content on wikipedia can be stolen from other places, I would say good riddance. As a graduating college senior I have learned to not rely on wikipedia for reliable information. often gives accurate responses anyway.

  • I’d say, after they nofollowed all the external links, Good Riddance to (now) Bad Rubbish!

  • As someone who consistently finds my original content and photographs on Wikipedia, I wouldn’t miss it in the slightest. Personally i think the ‘net would be a better place if all those who generated content for Wikipedia would do so for themselves. More independent retailers, less Wal-mart.

  • agerhart

    Good riddance

  • Flawed as it is, I think Wikipedia serves a useful purpose and I agree with Jason C. on this one (even though he’s dead wrong about SEO).

  • As one of the greatest sources of misinformation and biased propaganda on the Internet, Wikipedia should be shut down immediately.

    Please, God, let it die quickly and irrevocably. We don’t need their nonsense.

  • I would miss it greatly, so would my kids.
    FWIW, my teen kids and their friends use Wikipedia above all other reference sites. I asked them what they thought about and they would not hear of it!
    They would not give a rip if it offered advertising.
    Why don’t they anyway, they need to grow up I think.

  • I would miss it. I guess I have been fortunate that the information I
    get from it is reliable and properly attributed when obtained from
    some{one,where} else.

  • Although there are times that it may be inaccurate, it is still a better reference then some sources, and I use it frequently.

    It would be missed.

    They should put up a few ads and then use that money to support editors.

  • but if it shuts down then were will the Napoleon wannabes go? My favorite was the comment in one of the discussion pages about how Wikipedia isn’t about truth only the truth that can be “liberated” from other sources.

  • I say let it, and its nofollow links die quickly!

  • Wikipedia is super convenient, but it offers no merit on how accurate any given article may be. This is why every graduate and post-graduate reference requirement that I have seen, explicitly prohibits using it as a reference.

    The other thing that I hate, is that no credit is given when it is very often due.

    Putting the nofollow blunder aside, I have seen authors write amazing, completely objective and accurate articles on wikipedia, only to have them cannabalized by meta editors and competing persons in that field.

    The whole system is massively flawed, and in hopes of preventing another dmoz like failure, I would love to see it go down.

  • Of course, if they closed doors, I’d have to think of a new “nofollow” campaign. 😉

  • It’s ignorant to think that another site wouldn’t take it’s place as an information portal.

    I love the idea of Wikipedia from a CGM standpoint, but they are foolish not to take advantage of all of the eyeballs that they receive. Many “trusted” websites make millions from advertising dollars. And Wikipedia would not be selling out if they joined suit.

    Banner ads are very different from Text Link Ads or Pay Per Post.

    BUT, no, I wouldn’t miss it.

  • Wikipedia over Well, now I’ve heard everything. I wonder how much difference there actually is between the two sites.

    And what will happen to the Wikiclones if Ickipedia goes down?

  • no follow aside I won’t miss it, and I never used it. There are so many other places to get real info. I say close it down.

  • is much more detailed and better presented however I was forwarding views of teens in my realm. Honors type kids who tell me Wikipedia is the site of choice for quick reference. It’s not just my kids and their friends, I get the sense from them it’s universal among high schoolers. Only Wikipedia would know this by their demo’s.

  • Pingback: Headlines of Note for February 12, 2007()

  • Well if Google would just shut off the traffic to the wiki I bet a lot of their money problems would go away.

  • All the content is licensed under GDFL, and the mediawiki software is open source.

    So what’s to miss? If anybody likes it that much, just launch your own ad supported version… It works for!

  • It should go away. It is undeniably one of the most biased, inaccurate informational sites on the Web. They are a bunch of pedantic, ivory tower, navel gazing “people” who do not particularly care about the growth of the Internet or the user experience. There are better sites such as Answers and Questia which offer reliable information that can be verified.

  • Rob

    Sure, on most days Calcanis comes off as an arrogant jackass.

    But he’s spot on about Wiki. It is flawed, but it does serve a purpose. I would miss it, if nothing more because it has become the Cliff Claven of the Internet. 🙂

  • Wow. I really thought a lot more people would comment in favor of Wikipedia’s chosen path. I guess they probably pissed off a lot of people with their nofollow action.

  • I would miss wikipedia for sure. It is informative and great for looking up people and their backgrounds in a quick and easy format. My kids use it a lot too.

  • Femke

    Good riddance to it!! So much of my site’s content has been stolen by wikipedia users I’ve almost given up on web publishing. Years and years of work lost to copy-and-paste experts! My site’s ranking has plumetted as a result — why bother with it when most of its been transferred to wiki. I tried policing it for a while, but doing that devours so much time. Its both exhausting and demoralizing.
    I think Wikipedia is the death knell of many small information sites, as their content is gradually assimilated into the megalith. Not to mention a huge discouragement for those thinking of establishing a new website.

  • A-E-I-Owned-You

    Wiki is inaccurate and considered a joke. Any idiot can say whatever they want about something and its posted as fact. Some of the info may be valid, but who knows?