« Older Entry

Newer Entry »

Monday, February 12th, 2007 by Andy Beal

26

Wikipedia on Life Support; Would You Miss It?

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?

Want more marketing news & views? Follow Marketing Pilgrim's Andy Beal on Twitter!

Similar Stories in: Social | Forward:

Share this post

Share on TwitterStumble This!Bookmark on DeliciousShare on FriendFeedDigg This!Share on Facebook

 

 

Similar posts you may like...

26 comments on “Wikipedia on Life Support; Would You Miss It?”

  1. Jason Schramm Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 11:45 am

    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. Ask.com often gives accurate responses anyway.

  2. SEOrefugee Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 11:46 am

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

  3. Paul Clerkin Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    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.

  4. agerhart Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Good riddance

  5. Todd Mintz Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    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).

  6. Michael Martinez Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    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.

  7. Mike Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    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 Answers.com 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.

  8. CPCcurmudgeon Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    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.

  9. Jarrod Hunt Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    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.

  10. jmnlman Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    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.

  11. Matt Siltala Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

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

  12. Jestep Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    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.

  13. Andy Beal Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

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

  14. Jeremy Swiller Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    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.

  15. Michael Martinez Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Wikipedia over answers.com. 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?

  16. 97th Floor Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    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.

  17. Mike Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Answers.com 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.

  18. Headlines of Note for February 12, 2007 Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    [...] Is Wikipedia really 3 – 4 months away from going under?  Doubtful.   And if it did, Marketing Pilgrim wonders if you'd miss it?  Lisa Barone wishes it would go under. I seriously, seriously doubt Wikipedia will shut down any time soon.  Someone will either give them more money or buy their servers or something.  I'd have mixed feelings about a Wikipedia shut down.  On one hand I'd love to see something else show up in the search engine results.  But on the other hand I'd miss Wikipedia as an acronym definer.   Search Love Triangle [Truncated title] (Search Engine Land) [...]

  19. graywolf Says:

    February 12th, 2007 at 9:41 pm

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

  20. paul lomax Says:

    February 13th, 2007 at 2:22 am

    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 answers.com!

  21. Mateosquared Says:

    February 13th, 2007 at 8:43 am

    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.

  22. Rob Says:

    February 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am

    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. :)

  23. Andy Beal Says:

    February 13th, 2007 at 10:21 am

    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.

  24. jennifer jones Says:

    February 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    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.

  25. Femke Says:

    April 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    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.

  26. A-E-I-Owned-You Says:

    May 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    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?