Google has to host Wikipedia

Uncle Entity

Wed May 30 19:01:33 -0700 2007

manage

The linked article is completly spectulative in nature. The only actual fact used to back up their theory is:

Wikipedia needs resources and Google wants to offer it... but the deal languished 'till 2005 and is not closed (May, 2007), more than 3 years after the first official meeting.

So Google offers some servers and unlimited bandwidth with no strings attached to Wikipedia and this is supposed to be some sort of indication that they are trying to take over Wikipedia?

I think the true story is Wikipedia's 'expenses soon to reach 3.3 millions USD per year and revenues of 1.6 millions USD in 2006'.

Yet another company who hasn't figured out that giving away your product isn't the best business model and some privacy nuts are concerned about Google spying on them and using that information to try to sell them something they might actually want.

Just turn off cookies and use proxies if you don't want Google to read your thoughts and sell them to the highest bidder. Or you could have adsense resolve to localhost. Or a hundred other things which would be more productive than making unfounded accusations about Google's future plans based on the content of their databases.

Google has to host Wikipedia

Nat Makarevitch

Thu May 31 00:47:33 -0700 2007

manage

Speculative: yep, it's about a possible strategy. Those speculations are based upon hard facts I did not wrote that Google want or will "take over Wikipedia" (please quote me doing it, for me to clarify), I'm only trying to show how they can benefit from it. Isn't offering a gift (hosting WP) and simultaneously earning from it clever? Turn off cookies: as written in the article this is not convenient, in fact Mediawiki needs login cookies therefore one cannot use it without them. Automagical ads screening out is not my point (I use AdSense, as immediately and clearly visible right away on this very article!) and may one day forbid the visitor to fully access to some sites. "unfounded accusations" isn't adequate because I don't accuse.

Google has to host Wikipedia

Roy Schestowitz

Thu May 31 15:14:10 -0700 2007

manage

Wow. That was one heck of a confusing item (at least in my out-of-date feed reader). Please indicate that it's speculative.

Google has to host Wikipedia

Nat Makarevitch

Thu May 31 16:22:40 -0700 2007

manage

Done, thanks

I'd turn on ads

bill_mcgonigle

Thu May 31 14:24:42 -0700 2007

manage

If the Wikipedia foundation would make money by me having ads on the pages I look at I'd be willing to turn that on on my account. Why not give me the option?

I'd turn on ads

Nat Makarevitch

Thu May 31 15:11:34 -0700 2007

manage

I agree with that, however many wikipedians just don't want any advertising.

I'd turn on ads

bill_mcgonigle

Thu May 31 15:16:34 -0700 2007

manage

Do you know if they've asked the question as, "We shouldn't have ads":

1. Ever
2. For Me
3. By Default?

I'm not sure I was clear of my meaning in my last post. I'd turn them on for myself, but not expect everybody to do so.

I'd turn on ads

Nat Makarevitch

Thu May 31 16:21:53 -0700 2007

manage

Your post was clear, sorry for my poor answer. As far as I know your question was not asked. Many wikipedians don't want any advertising, in my opinion because they try to be 'pure', to be 'more royalists than the King'. One has to know that J. Wales stated (on multiple occasions, but this one is clear) that he personnaly don't want any advertising on WP but may change his mind upon perceiving a major advantage in it. For a young idealist it often translates into "no ads!"

J. Wales now realistically wants to let the community decide upon this matter. I'm convinced that, right now, no one can decide upon any hot topic because there is no central Wikipedia government (the Foundation is seen as a patron).

On WP many proposals on WP are quickly turned rejected, as a matter of policy/principles, without any further explanation (see, for example, this). Unable to find the reasons why this sort of proposal is always rejected, I concluded that wikipedians like WP the way it is and are therefore turning down any proposal which implies some non-neglectable modification, without even considering the induced gain, risk or work.

I'd turn on ads, too. And let them off in the default new account setup ('preferences').

I'd turn on ads

bill_mcgonigle

Thu May 31 17:23:13 -0700 2007

manage

Thanks for the info - glad to hear you're involved in the process. My involvement is limited to fixing a few articles I might know a little bit about.

If you get a chance to raise the 'off by default' option, that would be swell.

I'd turn on ads

Uncle Entity

Thu May 31 18:37:40 -0700 2007

manage

On WP many proposals on WP are quickly turned rejected, as a matter of policy/principles, without any further explanation

This proposal should be posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals). Also check this guy´s idea. -- Subramanian talk 04:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, rejected without further explanation.

So the users want WP to be ad free but WP doesn't have enough income from donations to keep WP running. WP has no one really in charge to make the decision to either have ads or not so the decision is left up to the users who don't want ads. Google comes along and offers to host WP for free and is rejected based on who knows what reason.

It seems pretty simple to me, pick one of the following.

1. Wikipedia closes because it can't pay its bills
2. Users donate enough to keep Wikipedia running ad free
3. Wikipedia becomes an ad and donation supported service
4. Someone else pays the bills to keep Wikipedia running

Don't worry, after they go bankrupt someone will buy up the domain name and park it with lots of ads. Then the 'purists' can go cry about how unfair the world is and how the big pig capitalists forced Wikipedia out of business.