Wikipedia is an invaluable resource to the citizens of this planet. The free online encylcodia, which has been proven time and time again to be incredibly accurate, has literally enabled millions of people to learn about virtually everything.

The sum of human knowledge. Free of charge.

With millions of visitors viewing its pages every single day, Wikipedia gets a hefty bill to pay every year. This year: $6 million.

Instead of effectively monetizing its traffic to pay for this huge bill, however, Wikipedia instead chooses to beg it users to donate to keep the site up. A lot of people, namely many of the community’s own top editors, outright reject the idea of Wikipedia using its huge amount of traffic to generate revenue. That, in my very humble opinion, is not only preposterous but unconscionable and terribly idealistic. This also goes against everything Wikipedia believes in (other than the whole ‘advertisements = evil’ concept).

Unconscionable

Every year, Wikipedia sees an increase in traffic and as a result we can anticipate the bill will only get bigger and bigger every year. If it was $6 million this year, it will not be long before it becomes $10 million, $15 million, or more.

Back in 2005, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales did what he always does every year: write a “personal appeal from jimmy wales” explaining that Wikipedia needs your donations to make the world around us a better place. When asked why he and others work on Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, on his official blog, had this simple inspiring thing to say:

Reporters are always asking me why I’m doing this, why Wikipedians do this? I think you know why.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself. I’m doing this for the child in Africa who is going to use free textbooks and reference works produced by our community and find a solution to the crushing poverty that surrounds him. But for this child, a website on the Internet is not enough; we need to find ways to get our work to people in a form they can actually use.

He himself admits that there’s more to be done. There is more to do for that child in Africa who needs knowledge. However, while a website on the Internet is admittedly not enough, what if that website does have the power to change this child’s life? What if that website can properly use its resources to help this child?

But no. Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales adamantly refuses.

Terribly Idealistic

Before I even mention this point, let me start by saying that I am not bashing idealism. Notice the “terribly” description that I inserted before “Idealistic”. In many forms, Idealism is not a negative trait; on the contrary, many of the world’s most successful individuals can easily be described as natural idealists. Ideals are merely high ideas that lead many to do great accomplishments.

It’s a character trait that only when taken to true extremities becomes extremely negative extremely quickly. Like with Jimmy Wales

It’s ideal that Wikipedia doesn’t have ads. It’s ideal that Wikipedia isn’t commercialized. It’s terribly ideal that Wikipedia begs users for money every time it needs to keep the lights on.

The fact that it’s ideal, however, says nothing about its actual negative effect not just on Wikipedia itself, but rather sadly on the entire world.

A Solution

So, now what? Surely there must exist a clear middle preserving Wikipedia’s integrity and structure while not throwing away funds that could easily bring a positive change to the world.

First, Wikipedia needs to cover itself. Whether or not you want to help the world become a better world is your own decision…but quit asking me for money to keep your lights on and your servers humming if you can do that yourself. Forget making $100 million, you could have very easily generated the $6 million you needed this year to keep going. The world needs that six million dollars for other much more important things. There are countless organizations out there that are in dire need for donations; none have the luxury of sitting on a gold mine while asking for donations because they idealistically don’t want to generate revenue to cover their operating expenses. That money could be spent on a hundred better things and can be given to a million needier organizations. Don’t help out the world if you don’t want to but don’t impede others from doing the same thing.

Secondly, if you want to truly make the world a better place, as your own mission statement seems to claim, here’s what must happen. You need to help out that child in Africa. How? By first covering your own operating expenses so that the funds you seek can be better utilized. Secondly, let Wikipedia monetize their traffic. I can write another entire lengthy blog post giving you a hundred different ways to monetize that traffic without disrupting your integrity. Insert a search bar like Firefox. Put a non-graphical leaderboard up. Allow users to opt-in (or out) of ads. Jimmy Wales has long said that he’s not against advertisements but that they must come from the community. Well, I am part of this community. Many that share my view are part of this community. If others in this community don’t feel the need to help, then let us opt-in. Knowing the benefits I would be contributing, I would have no problem opting into a program that displays ads on Wikipedia pages I access and use.

You’re already helping out the world with what you’re doing; imagine what more you can do for your causes with at least $100,000,000 of non-profit charitable income every single year. Jason Calacanis, a prominent entrepreneur, has an excellent blog post showcasing many ways to monetize Wikipedia and explaining how media philanthropy can really change the world.

Mozilla is a great example of an organization that’s helping others and covering their own end. No one thinks Mozilla is hypocritical for generating their own stream of revenue to cover Firefox’s operating expenses. On the contrary, we all love Mozilla.

Wikipedia is another web service I adore. And that’s precisely why I am writing this and exactly why its terrible idealism hurts me so much. There’s so much more that Wikipedia could do with their present resources. In our volatile and needy world today, we very much need those trusted and adored services, like Wikipedia, to do the right thing and help out with their resources. Sadly, they’re doing currently doing the exact opposite. Instead of help, they’re effectively hindering others’ funds helping by selfishly (and idealistically) asking for funds they could quite easily come up with on their own.

Hopefully that changes in the near future.

---