In einem Englisch, das verbesserungswürdig ist, habe ich bei Aaron Klein erläutert, wieso ich eine Wikipedia mit Werbeanzeigen nicht besonders gut fände:

I’m not saying every kind of ad would mean corruption. First of all I’d still use the site even if they would decide to run ads tomorrow.

The question to me has a lot to do with the foundations of the Wikipedia. First of all the Wikimedia is a non profit organization. Running an ad would be in conflict with that concept. Also the Wikipedia has certain positions on user privacy, most (if not all) algorithmically ads work with ip-, geo-tracking and lots of other methods to get someone’s online footprint.

But the main reason is that the foundation of Wikipedia was a collaborative community: the whole idea of the project was enabling everyone to take part in creating this encyclopedia. We all can add, edit and discuss every article. Donating to keep the site going is just another part of this approach.

And it’s not like Wikipedia is getting bankrupt. Last year they raised $16M in about two months. This time they’re almost at their goal, too. (Fundraiser Statistics: http://wikimediafoundation.org…) It’s working to well to call it fragile.

At the end of the day it’s a very personal standpoint: I wouldn’t like to see ads in the Encyclopædia Britannica. And I don’t like to see ads on Wikipedia. Would I avoid the site if there were any? No.

(again, my English, and it’s late..)