I must say that this is a well-written article, regardless of the opinion, resumed (TL;DR) here:
- Requesting money to Wikipedia viewers is done so often it gets as annoying as an advertisement-packed Wikipedia would potentially be.
- If you have innovated previously (knocking down the traditional enciclopedias), you can do innovate regarding the way yourselves fund the Wikipedia foundation, instead of just implying that "the only way for us to avoid advertising is for us to loudly ask our users over and over again for donations." (author quote)
As pointed out, Wikipedia is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. I find interesting that they apparently only rely on users for the source of income.
On the other hand, if they go for the regular "Foundation" or "NGO" way of requesting money to institutions (which probably would include governments and big companies), this might have a negative impact on Wikipedia's neutrality, and I personally would prefer Wikipedia to stay as neutral as possible.
So it's not so easy to "innovate in funding"...
- Requesting money to Wikipedia viewers is done so often it gets as annoying as an advertisement-packed Wikipedia would potentially be.
- If you have innovated previously (knocking down the traditional enciclopedias), you can do innovate regarding the way yourselves fund the Wikipedia foundation, instead of just implying that "the only way for us to avoid advertising is for us to loudly ask our users over and over again for donations." (author quote)
As pointed out, Wikipedia is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. I find interesting that they apparently only rely on users for the source of income.
On the other hand, if they go for the regular "Foundation" or "NGO" way of requesting money to institutions (which probably would include governments and big companies), this might have a negative impact on Wikipedia's neutrality, and I personally would prefer Wikipedia to stay as neutral as possible.
So it's not so easy to "innovate in funding"...