YM Ethicistist: Dope On The Table

I read Jason Calacanis and Fred Wilson because I am intrigued about the mechanisms of online business and I respect their thoughts on it, but that doesn't mean I always share their vision of fueling the Internet economy. There have been suggestions (from outside sources, of course) that Wikipedia should accept advertising to fund philanthropic causes: here and here.

Wrong road, people. Please obey the "do not enter" sign. I'm an ad-free blogger so my stance should come as no surprise but it's a personal choice. I claim no higher moral ground. It just feels more comfortable and natural this way. I dunno, some people have dollar signs in their DNA, I have jelly-filled doughnuts. But I take issue when I read a comment like this from "Tomo":

Grin and bear it or start your own news site or blog site or whatever site that doesn't sell advertising.

Well, some of us have and isn't that what Jimmy Wales did with Wikipedia in the first place? This particular conversation wasn't jump-started by people asking to remove ads from a site, it was the opposite. Grin and bear it as you say, or you are certainly welcome to start your own version of an ad-based Wikipedia-clone.

Look, the fact remains that some of us are opposed to blatant, reckless consumerism when possible AND we know it's ultimately a losing fight, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. Sure, there are probably lots of examples where I am a hypocrite and I could be contributing in more meaningful ways, but that's life, we all possess varying degrees of inner conflict. No doubt I enjoy the fruits of a free market as much as the next person who is born within arm's reach of it, though I am also aware of what it does to those less fortunate under a tree without shade.

Personally, I believe the embracing and encouragement of advertising in many of these cases has a more negative impact than the charity dollars it produces. One is systemic and inflicts the wound, the other seeks to cover it up with a band-aid.