That would be good, as I imagine that wikipedia is in survival mode these days, as less and less people visit their site directly Even so more people indirectly benefit from its content
That would be good, as I imagine that wikipedia is in survival mode these days, as less and less people visit their site directly Even so more people indirectly benefit from its content
It's not in survival mode, they have a pretty large endowment and low dev spend they'd like to increase. The number of edits per week has been roughly steady for years, and their revenue per year has been increasing steadily. Their hosting costs are hyper-optimized and tiny; they spend much more on programmers and lawyers.
Wikipedia is not supported by ads and site views.
The donation banner is an ad.
And a profit-maximizing one at that. They've got plenty of money but they need as much as possible, no different from a Zuck enterprise in that regard.
Pedantic without a point. A first-party ad for support of the platform is entirely a different category than running ads for other services, served from third-party ad companies.
And is their rake on that correlated with site views? I'd guess not so linearly like it is with ad impressions. It is a different business model.