Good idea / bad idea - purchase Wikipedia and sell subscriptions

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
FelixDeCat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,102
2,718
126
Wikipedia is a well known brand worldwide and has a large user base. Could a profit be made by purchasing it selling an annual subscription for $19.95 per year?

Assuming it would sell for no more than $5,000,000 and that at least 1,000,000 people sign up for the subscription service, you can see the profit here. By the next year, if more people sign up there could be even more income.

A portion of the site would still be available for free, but only the first 1000 characters of each page could be read without paying. That part of the site would have banner ads. The subscription side would mostly be ad free. Ads would be introduced on the pay side over time as people come to accept it instead of price increases.

You might have random lawsuits as some might claim copyright to images or text, but those can be removed with careful consideration. Subscribers can freely edit pages. Free users can edit but submissions will be reviewed.

All-in-all, I dont see any downside to this idea.

Do you?
 
SheHateMe

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
I used to Intern for Wikipedia. Its a free site for a reason. Wikipedia is a non-profit operation.

You want them to add subscriptions and Ads to the site...This idea would ruin them. This is what Wikipedia is vehemently opposed to. They've championed themselves as a free source of information where the Community comes together to provide the content for free. The end result is a World famous Encyclopedia on the web that can be used in multiple languages.

Besides, Wikipedia totally sustains itself off of donations from the community, some of you might think that asking for donations twice a year seems a bit pathetic, but you'd be surprised to know that there are thousands of donors who see value in Wikipedia and don't mind donating.
 
N

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Given that Wikipedia content is made under an "open-source" license wouldn't it be illegal to restrict viewing?

At the very least someone could fork the content and create wikipedia2

And how would you get new content?
 
amdhunter

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,332
249
106
Imagine reading the first 1000 characters of ATOT posts. Would you pay more to read more?
 
FelixDeCat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,102
2,718
126
SheHateMe said:
I used to Intern for Wikipedia. Its a free site for a reason. Wikipedia is a non-profit operation.

You want them to add subscriptions and Ads to the site...This idea would ruin them. This is what Wikipedia is vehemently opposed to. They've championed themselves as a free source of information where the Community comes together to provide the content for free. The end result is a World famous Encyclopedia on the web that can be used in multiple languages.

Besides, Wikipedia totally sustains itself off of donations from the community, some of you might think that asking for donations twice a year seems a bit pathetic, but you'd be surprised to know that there are thousands of donors who see value in Wikipedia and don't mind donating.
Click to expand...

Everyone says this in the beginning. But I think people would warm up to paying in the long run.
 
lxskllr

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,390
10,783
126
nehalem256 said:
Given that Wikipedia content is made under an "open-source" license wouldn't it be illegal to restrict viewing?
Click to expand...

Yes. They're CC-BY-SA. The information can't be restricted, which is the reason they exist.

Wikipedia isn't for sale. You're free to start your own online encyclopedia though. Wiki software is libre, so you're free to use it as you like.

Edit:
There's no reason you can't sell CC-BY-SA content, but you also can't restrict it. If you sold a paper book of Wikipedia content, that would be perfectly acceptable, but you also have to allow people to copy and distribute it.
 
Last edited:
FelixDeCat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,102
2,718
126
nehalem256 said:
Given that Wikipedia content is made under an "open-source" license wouldn't it be illegal to restrict viewing?

At the very least someone could fork the content and create wikipedia2

And how would you get new content?
Click to expand...

A donation would be made to PETA to soothe the concerns of open source types. Then we could monetize the entire site. :twisted:
 
mmntech

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
Because paywalls worked great for the newspapers.

Paywalls have always seemed to me like a last ditch effort for struggling websites. If you're asking someone to pay for something, the content will have to be significantly better than the free alternative. Not only is imposing a paywall on Wikipedia illegal, it defeats the purpose of its existence.
 
M

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,027
0
76
Bad, bad, BAD idea. It goes against the whole ethic of Wikipedia, and as a sometimes-contributor, I find it offensive that someone else is making money off my contributions without cutting me in, or even consulting me on the change.
 
S

Schfifty Five

Lifer
Oct 20, 2005
10,978
44
91
MeowKat said:
Wikipedia is a well known brand worldwide and has a large user base. Could a profit be made by purchasing it selling an annual subscription for $19.95 per year?

Assuming it would sell for no more than $5,000,000 and that at least 1,000,000 people sign up for the subscription service, you can see the profit here. By the next year, if more people sign up there could be even more income.

A portion of the site would still be available for free, but only the first 1000 characters of each page could be read without paying. That part of the site would have banner ads. The subscription side would mostly be ad free. Ads would be introduced on the pay side over time as people come to accept it instead of price increases.

You might have random lawsuits as some might claim copyright to images or text, but those can be removed with careful consideration. Subscribers can freely edit pages. Free users can edit but submissions will be reviewed.

All-in-all, I dont see any downside to this idea.

Do you?
Click to expand...

Let's say it does sell for $5M. Just b/c 1M people sign up at $20/person, you still have to determine how much it costs to keep the site running, etc. You might not even make a profit at $20/person.
 
CZroe

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
MeowKat said:
Wikipedia is a well known brand worldwide and has a large user base. Could a profit be made by purchasing it selling an annual subscription for $19.95 per year?

Assuming it would sell for no more than $5,000,000 and that at least 1,000,000 people sign up for the subscription service, you can see the profit here. By the next year, if more people sign up there could be even more income.

A portion of the site would still be available for free, but only the first 1000 characters of each page could be read without paying. That part of the site would have banner ads. The subscription side would mostly be ad free. Ads would be introduced on the pay side over time as people come to accept it instead of price increases.

You might have random lawsuits as some might claim copyright to images or text, but those can be removed with careful consideration. Subscribers can freely edit pages. Free users can edit but submissions will be reviewed.

All-in-all, I dont see any downside to this idea.

Do you?
Click to expand...

How can you edit a page you can't read? Seems like an idea-killing loophole right there. Also, Wikipedia editors also need to be reviewed. As it is, they review themselves by donating their time. In a paid service, I would expect paid reviewer. Some would donate their time and money, but most give either/or while you are demanding BOTH. Charging your customers to do your job for you is not a sound business plan.
 
Last edited:
Dirigible

Dirigible

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2006
5,961
32
91
This is a great idea! You should do it, MeowKat. You'll totally be rich.

Stop reading here, MeowKat. Go out, buy Wikipedia, and get rich. Don't delay!







Ok, so the wiki folks will take his money and the existing content for the new free Wikipedia. Same Wikipedia we know and love, with more cash. Yay!
 
S

sciencewhiz

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2000
5,886
8
81
Wikipedia has net assets of $25 million, and despite their constant pleas for money, in 2011 they raised $10 million more then their expenses.
 
OverVolt

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
The community provided content would die off. So the idea would eventually fail. No one is going to volunteer information if they know someone else profits on it, unless they too get a cut of the profit. And so there is your problem. Hiring tons of people on various subjects to write a simple 1-2 page entry.
 
Dirigible

Dirigible

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2006
5,961
32
91
OverVolt said:
The community provided content would die off. So the idea would eventually fail. No one is going to volunteer information if they know someone else profits on it, unless they too get a cut of the profit. And so there is your problem. Hiring tons of people on various subjects to write a simple 1-2 page entry.
Click to expand...

Facebook says you're wrong v
 
rudeguy

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
MeowKat said:
Wikipedia is a well known brand worldwide and has a large user base. Could a profit be made by purchasing it selling an annual subscription for $19.95 per year?

Assuming it would sell for no more than $5,000,000 and that at least 1,000,000 people sign up for the subscription service, you can see the profit here. By the next year, if more people sign up there could be even more income.

A portion of the site would still be available for free, but only the first 1000 characters of each page could be read without paying. That part of the site would have banner ads. The subscription side would mostly be ad free. Ads would be introduced on the pay side over time as people come to accept it instead of price increases.

You might have random lawsuits as some might claim copyright to images or text, but those can be removed with careful consideration. Subscribers can freely edit pages. Free users can edit but submissions will be reviewed.

All-in-all, I dont see any downside to this idea.

Do you?
Click to expand...


Wiki is made by people editing
If people can't see, they can't edit
the product dies
you killed Wiki you bastard!
 
B

bearxor

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2001
6,605
3
81
Wikipedia is the sixth most visited site on the internet.

Sell a banner ad and place it in ONLY the front welcome page. You'd probably find a fairly decent list of companies willing to pay $1m a month or so for that much exposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom