If Wiki Foundation signs up for AdSense.

..How much will they take home?

[vibgyor79]

Just a theoritical question. Assuming, that Wikipedia signs puts 2 Adsense banners per page, what is your estimate of their monthly earnings?

How many page impressions do Wikipedia (all languages) websites get per day?

[vincevincevince]

I think they'd take home a heap of legal suits. Much of wikipedia, in particular images, depends upon them not being for-profit.

[jchampliaud]

It' possible for a non-profit to have profitable sources of income, the issue is what they do with the money.

[vincevincevince]

It's possible for a non-profit to have profitable sources of income, the issue is what they do with the money.

That's quite true - if they reinvested the money that would be fine. Although, in answer to the first post, I would imagine it would be at least 6 figures a month.

<edit>
Considering an alexa ranking of 31, 6 figures may be a bit low. Whether the traffic would drop in response to the ads is a more complex issue. They may also be smartpriced...
</edit>

[frox]

Well, but wouldn't the fact that a profit is made from those texts change the "fair use" of a good part of their texts?

[Ricky_G]

WOW! What a great idea!

I wish I owned wikipedia ;-)

[jchampliaud]

That's quite true - if they reinvested the money that would be fine. Although, in answer to the first post, I would imagine it would be at least 6 figures a month.

It sure would sure be a lot of money to reinvest!

Well, but wouldn't the fact that a profit is made from those texts change the "fair use" of a good part of their texts?

I would think so but I really don’t know the ins and outs of "fair use".

[Zygoot]

It depends on where they place the ads but I guess a seven figure a month should be possible.

[krod]

Lets put it this way: Would you want other people making money off of articles that you have written?

Wikipedia is written by its users, how many people would write pages if they started to display ads?

[Zygoot]

Lets put it this way: Would you want other people making money off of articles that you have written?

Wikipedia is written by its users, how many people would write pages if they started to display ads?

Or Wikpedia could start offering writers 50% of the advertising money.

[jchampliaud]

Lets put it this way: Would you want other people making money off of articles that you have written?

Most people here I’m guessing would not, but a lot of other people might not care. The ‘fame’ they receive might be enough. Or they could do as you suggest and split the income 50-50.

[europeforvisitors]

Lets put it this way: Would you want other people making money off of articles that you have written?

Sites that run member travelogues, user reviews, and "expert" advice don't pay for content. Some of those sites are owned by huge media corporations. For that matter, DMOZ is owned by AOL Time Warner, and its editors are unpaid volunteers.

[chance1376]

Lets put it this way: Would you want other people making money off of articles that you have written?

Wikipedia is written by its users, how many people would write pages if they started to display ads?

It wouldn't be any diffrent than posting on message board with adsense. Plus with the way a wiki works how many articles are strictly by one author. I am sure a number of articles are but lots of them have been edited and added to who knows how many times by various people.

But back to the orginal question, I don't know how much but I would love to get that check :)

[walkman]

not enough to pay for the lawyers. Much of their material is copied from EB (I searched both for something I was researching,) and all the contributions were based on them being non-profit. I have no idea how a switch would play legally, but I smell trouble. As far as re-investing, will it matter as long as you're making money?

[androidtech]

One of the games a non-profit organization can play is that even if they reinvest the money fully; they pay some of the officers a nice fat salary and give them other perks. So the corporation is non-profit, but some of the officers are making a profit.

[vibgyor79]

>>> Or Wikpedia could start offering writers 50% of the advertising money

suite101.com had such a model something like 5 years back. Of course, that was in pre adsense era - so most writers were earning in pennies.

[jomaxx]

That Encyclopedia Brittanica content is from the 1911 edition, which is in the public domain and can be used by anyone for any reason.

With respect to running ads, I doubt they would ever do that but it's possible. As for the suggestion they might pay authors for their contributions, I can't imagine that ever happening.

[jetteroheller]

2 weeks ago, as there was on the Wikipedia homepage a call for donations, I thought about it.

First checked with the preview tool, ad targeting is poor. There is to much noise over the content.

If with AdSense, I think they should only use a single AdLink unit 160x90. So only themes, but no direct advertising would appear.

Based on Alexa Data and my own revenues,
I would quess with a single AdLink,
$0.5 eCPM and 900 Million page impression per month
the income would be $450000,-- per month

[remove]

since it's been stated by the wikimedia founders that they'll never show ads on wikipedia. however one founder did recently note that someday people would question their decision not to.

article here:

[clickz.com...]

[jetteroheller]

Just in the news: German judge closed

[wikipedia.de...]

With one single AdLink, there would be no problem to engage the best lawyers to strike back.

[ndaru]

Or Wikpedia could start offering writers 50% of the advertising money.

I'm afraid much of the future content will be driven by the need of more Adsense-profitable topics.

[kaz]

since it's been stated by the wikimedia founders that they'll never show ads on wikipedia

From the article you posted ...

"We have never said there would absolutely never be ads on Wikipedia."

Hmmmm ...

[hyperkik]

Much of the Wikipedia's traffic would have little to no value for CPC ads. People who visit to edit, or who regularly monitor a handful of subjects, are more like forum regulars than people in "consumer mode". Adding ads may also have a significant negative impact on the willingness of people (and corporations) to make donations.

[jhood]

The Fair Use Doctrine has nothing whatever to do with whether a publisher is for-profit or not-for-profit.

There is no reason whatever that a not-for-profit enterprise could not publish ads; in fact, many do.
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit corporation, which doesn't stop it from publishing ads on some sections of ap.org.

It's not even necessary for an NPO to refrain from making money. The worst thing that happens if a not-for-profit shows a profit is that it is taxed on the profit. (There are more stringent requirements for charities and foundations -- 501(c)(3) entities).

[ogletree]

They rank for everything so they get tons of first time one time visitors.

[jomaxx]

The Fair Use Doctrine has nothing whatever to do with whether a publisher is for-profit or not-for-profit.

Not true. Whether the use is for profit or not is definitely one of the criteria to be considered when determining fair use. It's not the only item to be considered, but it's an important one.

[walkman]

>>> The Fair Use Doctrine has nothing whatever to do with whether a publisher is for-profit or not-for-profit.

hahahahaha

[ashii]

ALexa ranking can not be a parameter to acalculate some site income.Not many ppl use that toolbar anymore.

[incrediBILL]

Wiki would be in the Armored Car Club.

Based on other premium publishers I know that aren't even close to the traffic of Wiki my guesstimate would be a minimum of $5M/month and that's very conservative

[hyperkik]

I think some may be conflating the term "use" with "user". The fact that copyrighted material is used by a nonprofit company does not of itself mean that the use is either non-commercial or educational.