Why Are Ads So Hated?
Ash sent me a link to his theoretical valuation of Wikipedia and I forwarded it to Jason who then wrote this post suggesting that Wikipedia run one leaderboard per page and give all the money it generates to charity. — I run ads on this blog so I can give the money to charity.
Context & Ripple Effects
This is an intra-blogger debate rather than a broad news story — the syndicated pickup is Jason Calacanis's own weblog, headlined 'Wikipedia leaves $100M on the table' — but it lands on a live nerve. Ash's theoretical valuation of Wikipedia got forwarded to Calacanis, who turned it into a public plea for one leaderboard ad per page with all proceeds routed to charity, and Fred Wilson adds his own weight by noting he already runs ads on this blog and gives the money away.
The proposal collides with Wikipedia's 2005-2006 record: the Nature investigation finding science entries near-Britannica accuracy sits alongside confirmed hoax and vandalism problems, including a Congressional staff editing scandal that forced an investigation of House IP addresses in January 2006. Monetizing volunteer-written pages while their reliability is contested is why the ad question reads as a trust referendum, not just a business case.
First-order effects
- Calacanis's public appeal puts direct pressure on Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation to explain why they will leave what he sizes at $100M on the table rather than run a single unit per page for charity.
- Wilson's endorsement matters because he is an advertising practitioner — running ads on A VC and donating the proceeds — giving the proposal credibility with the blogger class that both funds and scrutinizes Web 2.0 economics.
Second-order effects
- If the Wikimedia Foundation holds the ad-free line, it must lean harder on donation appeals to fund its infrastructure, making fundraising effectiveness the substitute battleground for revenue.
- If any large volunteer-content platform adopts the charity-routing model, other user-generated sites inherit a template that lowers the political cost of introducing ads into previously ad-free communities — the objection shifts from 'ads' to 'who gets the money.'
Third-order effects
- The episode crystallizes the structural question of who captures value from unpaid contributors: a durable path is emerging where platforms commercialize user-created content but neutralize backlash by directing proceeds to causes the community endorses.
- With accuracy and vandalism problems documented since 2005, monetization decisions for reference-style sites are becoming inseparable from editorial governance — the funding model chosen shapes who audits the content and how much the community trusts it.
The trend: User-generated content platforms are moving toward monetization models that route ad revenue to charity or community-endorsed causes as a way to convert volunteer labor into sustainable funding without breaking community trust.