Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Isn't that irrelevant as they'd loose all their holier-than-you workforce that scrape content and rewrite it (sometimes at least).
Until Jimmy Wales says: 'Hey, we've got enough scraped and rewritten content (sometimes at least) now, let's start serious monetization of it!' ;)
I know, will never happen...
But more serious: I think Wikipedia's visitors are more in research mood than in buying mood.
So their earnings could be less than we would think/estimate.
So my estimation is based on the Alexa data from wikipedia and my site and 1% of my eCPM.
Only 1% because only 1 AdLink and visitors not in purchasing mode.
But more serious: I think Wikipedia's visitors are more in research mood than in buying mood
However, they would have to be poor performers at a CTR of less than 1% and an average EPC of 30c which leads me to an eCPM of $3.00
Quantcast are literally in the dark without directly measured traffic and speculate Wikipedia has a rank of 7 with US traffic of an estimated 74.3M a month.
This would give me an estimation of around $223,000 a month. Conservatively less than an earlier estimate.
If we can speculate the ratio of world traffic to US traffic, extrapolating from my real world experience, and ramping up CTR a bit and more than likely realistic EPC, I'd venture:
Around $1,000,000 a month would be easy.
Of course there could be mass desertions.
Can someone remind me why we are yet once again wasting time with idle speculation?
I know we are an easily distracted bunch...
wouldn't Google just love that
I think earning would be much more than you guys are estimating. If you say that Wiki is just for the research people then I think you are underestimating it.
For a little example if we are prescribed for a medicine we go to Wiki to see the chemical composition and side effects and just imagine how that particular page can be targeted to different kind of businesses.
It's vast man..real vast.
Based on a similar site where the users are doing stuff and not really interested in ads (and with a similar global mix of users). a 0.25% CTR and $0.25 CPM could be expected.
So that's 1.5 million US dollars a month for the English-language version, and I'd guess 10% of that for the rest of the languages combined.
As they're a non-profit, that could be used to send copies of Wikipedia on handheld devices to schools in third world countries. Could even be used to pay the contributors.
Putting a donation "ad" banner doesn't consider as advertisement?
Do all the NON Profit Organizations require to beg like this? and they can not make money using advertisement?
Wikipedia gets around 6 billion page views per month for the English language version, and nearly as many for all other languages combined (the figures are on their site).
I did not know this.
My estimation was based on my sites Alexa data compared to Wikipedia.org's Alexa data.
Based on this, my estimated pageviews for Alexa had been in the range 5 to 7 billion page views a month.
I calculated a very low CTR for a single AdLink, that's why I estimated $300.000 a month.
When I go Salzburg's zoo, I see at each ecnlosure a shield
"This animal is sponsored by company"
Why do the beg, when they could earn much more money?
BTW, on my site is also a link for donations.
Brings about $80 a year, when I would make a big banner like Wikipedia, I am sure I would get more donations per visitor than Wikipedia.
But this is nothing compared to the $36000 per year from Google AdSense.
I agree it wouldn't be much different than soliciting donations. As long as the revenue figures are public and are justified by the cost of running the site, then why not? If the $300K figure is even in the ballpark, then it seems like they wouldn't need to run very many ads.