was just browsing thru wikipedia and then it struck me "How much would wikipedia be making if they had adsense ads??!!" $$$ so what u think wikipedia is "worth" from an adsense publisher point of view?
I've thought of the same thing, but this would change what Wikipedia is, so I don't see this happening. It would probably be worth a high $XX XXX check a month.
i was thinking wikipedia got so many free articles for FREE what if make an encyclopedia where users are financialy rewarded for writing quality articles?
The best way would be to try to get article writers to write unique articles for you and put their adsense id on the page and having some sort of 50:50 ratio display method. Unfortunately, very few people will write articles for a brand new site with no traffic.
Strike 'quality' and you've got it Seriously, what Joseph and mdvaldosta said is right, and it's exactly why a chunk of people like Google - no adverts (besides the external links). However, I think for the small site owner, who wants to bring new authors to their site, there may be an idea here ... The site owner loses nothing, gains quality content, and the author, if they're writing quality content, potentially brings in a couple bucks a month. Of course, they may just write crap, hoping that someone will click on an ad for relevant content ... ~Jk
Whether you click on them or not, whether they're in the way or not, whether they're ugly or not, ads are usually accepted as a necessity, but sites without ads are usually more likeable and therefore successful. So Wikipedia would prob not be so popular if it had ads from the beginning. My 2 cents.
"from the beginning". So once a service has gained popularity, adding ads (as long as they aren't too obtrusive), would only stall future growth? Way too abstract. How about: If Wikipedia were to add ads, would people leave it just because of that? Or could they tolerate one ad unit on each page (maybe if they were at the bottom of the page)? My thoughts: it's already gotten a foot-hold that would be hard to lose. Heck, with all the talk about malicious changes, the Wikipedia is still oft-cited (although hopefully academic citing has decreased).
I think they code add some Google ads around their site, only if they do so responsibly, otherwise, people will start getting annoyed (maybe). But as long as the ads blend into the site, I don't think it should be a problem.
I think I'm moving it off topic (and if someone runs with this idea somewhere else, PM me please so I don't miss it ), but does that mean that sites should go ad-less until they have a core set of followers, and then introduce minor, non-obtrusive, ads? That sounds right ...
That sounds typical of other sites as well, a typical website development model. Start free and clean, carry on free but with ads...then maybe a subscription based site? Hard to believe...
What im thinking of is making a cross between Google base and wikipedia and article site (call it a content dump) where a revenue sharing system like here could be implemented also a rating system could keep spam to minimum, one thing about wikipedia is the fact anyone can delete/overwrite an article, would it make more sense if people could add their changes like replies to a thread?
Re your last question, no. The one big limitation of forums is that you have to read the entire thread. Great example: 1) Someone asks a question (which is better for Web development, Firefox or IE). 2) People give their opinions based on the choices. 3) Some wise guy points out an alternative answer, that may be better. 4) People give more opinions and change their previous opinions. 5) A conclusion is reached. Unless you read the entire thread, you miss out on all of this. If the thread is 20 pages long, only someone really interested is going to read everything from the thread. Now, imagine it's a wiki entry. It becomes one page, where, perhaps after a little editting, things follow like an article. Any off-topic responses are removed or put into a separate area. Now, it's true that people could fake results, but so long as you force people to login, you can see who's doing it (or even if they don't login, you can check the IP and just go back a step). Or, you allow everyone to make notes, but only let a select few individuals (based on a reputation system?) edit the viewable content. Forums, in my opinion, are more about socializing, while wikis are about a social group creating content for ... all? (Not really 'all', but for history. How many people really go through / have the time to go through, old posts in forums?)
what if you do slashdot style threads? where karma is given or taken away at the end of the day i dont care if they read it for 1hour or 1minute as long as %1 of people visit the ads most of my projects i usually do them to further my programming experiense, adsense is a sort of a bonus on top
I think the best article on an estimate of how much the site would make can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advertising_on_Wikipedia. Part way down the page under the heading "Estimate of Revenue from Text Advertising". Here is a quote