Agreed if they are selling the ads directly.
They could throw Google AdWords up there and have the ads algorithmically placed.
They won't make as much money but they wouldn't have to beg.
They could throw Google AdWords up there and have the ads algorithmically placed.
They won't make as much money but they wouldn't have to beg.
To generate revenue from ads is to "sell" a piece of themselves. Equate it somewhat to raising money from investors. They now have much more revenue, but at the cost of some of the control of their company. Ads certainly don't take away control in the sense investors do, but depending on the revenue from ads in any way is an extremely slippery slope.
That way there's no temptation to try to derive a profit from it, and at worst you end up with ads on Wikipedia for a couple of months out of the year (kind of like you get now).
I think their fixed fundraising period is a better way to do things. Although I'd really like to see them build up an endowment and live off that.
FWIW I find the current begging really offputting and irritating. More so than small relevant text adverts would be.
Online news sites run ads without worrying about impartiality etc. I don't see why wikipedia worries so much about it.