· 41 comments · Save ·
Announcements Mar 31, 2026 at 7:37 PM

After all this while, Wikipedia still remains ad-less

Posted by cosmos_1980

I saw a post about Bobby Fischer on my Instagram (if I correctly recall) feed. I felt like reading a bit about him and so I went to Wikipedia to read about him. (I know that he was a great chess player. I just wanted to learn more about him. Yeah.) Later, I felt like knowing who the current top chess players of our world were. So, I went to that page where the list of the highest ranked chess players in the world was there for us to read. And, while browsing that, it struck me that all this while, all these years Wikipedia has been ad-less, yet it functions very efficiently. I thought that it is quite a big deal and that I should share this thought with everyone. We don't celebrate Wikipedia on the net as often as it should be celebrated. It is a great source of knowledge for all of us. I have an understanding that some people believe that anyone can write on Wikipedia and therefore it's not all that credible. I'd like to remind everyone that (1) Wikipedians don't work on salaries. Most of them work on their own purely for the sake of spreading knowledge and light in the world. And, (2) no one can just write anything on Wikipedia. It goes through numerous checks. I don't work there. I just use Wikipedia and I know many people use Wikipedia. I was thinking about how it is so great and still doesn't have any ads and I believe that that just makes it much much more cooler.
🚩 Report this post

41 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
dmcgrath60 Mar 31, 2026 +56
Honestly I donate to them every year when that little banner pops up. It's like one of the few places online that isn't trying to sell you something and I respect the hell out of that.
56
cosmos_1980 Mar 31, 2026 +1
I mean ads these days are sometimes irritating. The videos of the ads are rude and disrespectful at times. Sometimes, they place ads at places where you incidentally click on them or touch them and open them, which is also irritating. And, sometimes the ads are just too many in numbers. Wikipedia could have kept one ad or two ads maybe. And, they could have kept simple ads, since they are text-based, and still managed to have pleased the users. But, no. They never have any ads. Clean. Like a dream world from your favourite TV cartoons (I like to think of Noddy) or your favourite folk tales. Just you and the knowledge.
1
CBWeather Mar 31, 2026 +14
No you can't have any ads. If you start accepting ads for Wikipedia then you have to decide on whose ads are ethically acceptable. Should ads for Nestle or Coca Cola be shown on Wikipedia? Both of those are pretty terrible companies. If you saw an ad for Coca Cola would you trust the article on that company, would you wonder if editors were downgrading the PepsiCo articles? It's just easier and more trustworthy to have no ads, even unobtrusive ones.
14
MikoSkyns Mar 31, 2026 +2
And then there's the added issue of the advertisers trying to influence what information the website hosts and even attempt to censor them. F*** that.
2
Cyraga Mar 31, 2026 +1
If you like there being no ads I hope you donate to them sometimes 
1
CBWeather Apr 1, 2026 +2
Yes and constantly editing.
2
InterSuperfi9 Apr 1, 2026 +1
I think of it as a small tax for all the late night rabbit holes I fall into.
1
FlyingSteamGoat Mar 31, 2026 +56
I show my appreciation for Wikipedia by contributing a small amount of money on a regular basis. They're really really grateful. EDIT: And for those who do not know, tomorrow's "Did you know..." will contain some of the most entertaining True Facts, with documentation.
56
cosmos_1980 Mar 31, 2026 +6
Really really grateful is an understatement but I get your sentiment. Haha. I'm feeling all overwhelmed too. Reading some of your comments has made me remember and recollect all those important times in my life when Wikipedia was there to help me or enlighten me.
6
Wabi_Sabi_Love Mar 31, 2026 +6
I just donated for the very first time. I’ve been using it for a quarter century! About damn time I gave something!
6
vingeran Mar 31, 2026 +2
Yeah exactly, me too. I have been donating to Wikipedia consistently. Those are the ones who deserve our money, not these other blood sucking subscription companies.
2
cajunjoel Mar 31, 2026 +1
On April 1, I hope it will be good!
1
Mackheath1 Mar 31, 2026 +15
And in my country (USA) our libraries are free, too! And you can often take classes, check out binoculars or telescopes, and so on. Also, we have more libraries in the US than there are McDonalds & Starbucks combined *in the world.* I just wanted to plug that, too. Please keep Wikipedia/Wikiwant and Libraries free - vote, donate, volunteer, whatever. Ack - almost forgot about public radio <3
15
fizzlefist Mar 31, 2026 +2
Censorship is anti-freedom. Stopping the free exchange of knowledge is anti-liberty. 10,000% we need to keep these things alive.
2
No-Decision1581 Mar 31, 2026 +8
Great site. Just 2 days ago I learnt about the zone of avoidance, I'd never heard of it, and spent an hour clicking through various links in the article. Fascinating
8
jbp216 Mar 31, 2026 +7
i always donate. its also a testament to how easy a mostly text and static image website is to host
7
JohnnyCanuckist Mar 31, 2026 +1
I give $2/month and always get my money's worth
1
Mervel18 Mar 31, 2026 +4
honestly wikipedia might be the last good thing on the internet. i donate like 3 euros every year and feel like im doing my part for humanity
4
user41510 Mar 31, 2026 +3
So, do you donate $3 (or more) every year like some of us do?
3
cosmos_1980 Mar 31, 2026 +7
I'm not in a financial position to donate. I don't donate regularly right now. I once donated, around 3 years back, 79 rupees, which is like 1 US dollar. I (or we) owe them a lot. This is quite an emotionally overwhelming post, frankly. Wikipedia has helped us all a lot. When I was young and fragile and wanted to learn about the truth about the universe around me, Wikipedia was there for me. The philosophy articles were simply excellently written. They were written so perfectly. I'm getting all emotional (after writing this post and after reading some of your comments) thinking about how it's been there for us all always.
7
Glindanorth Mar 31, 2026 +2
I'm by no means a wealthy person, but every year I make a donation to Wikipedia so the work can continue. It's a resource I use often and truly appreciate.
2
1998CPG Mar 31, 2026 +2
If you really wanna celebrate wikipedia and show real substantial appreciation, donate to them, they need it to keep going
2
thehappyhobo Mar 31, 2026 +2
That era of the internet was so optimistic in outlook. Wikipedia is probably the only thing that worked out. Everything has gone on to become part of the attention-advertising complex with devastating effects.
2
cornonthekopp Mar 31, 2026 +2
I seriously think that wikipedia is the best thing from the 21st century so far.
2
tgwombat Mar 31, 2026 +2
Wikipedia and the Internet Archive are the only two sites that matter to me enough to donate monthly. They really exemplify what the internet can be.
2
Wrong-Cheetah-7061 Mar 31, 2026 +2
omg you're right. never thought about it!
2
No-Stick8191 Mar 31, 2026 +2
Yep. I always donate when I get the request.
2
toad__warrior Mar 31, 2026 +2
Donate $5/month. It adds up. About the price of a drink. Wikipedia is one of the few, if not only, content site with no ads.
2
gligster71 Mar 31, 2026 +2
I give them $5 a month. You should too.
2
Tom_Art_UFO Mar 31, 2026 +2
Wikipedia is the last good website.
2
chuckaholic Apr 1, 2026 +2
I read a while back that Wikimedia has enough money to fund Wikipedia for a decade, at least. I just looked at their financials before I wrote this comment and it seems like, on paper, they only have about 3 years of operating costs on hand, but who knows.. Point being, a lot of people believe in the project and donate. And I, also, really appreciate that it exists.
2
Rrrkos Mar 31, 2026 +6
It's even more impressive that it's one organisation that hasn't (yet) been torn apart by the polarised opinion and rabidly opposed intolerant ideologies that increasingly divide us. Not to mention 'alternative facts', belief bubbles, 'religious' tribalism and resurgent nationalism.
6
CBWeather Apr 1, 2026 +1
Attempts are made to influence certain pages. But there are pages, like the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which work hard to oppose biases. It also relies on editors to recognise their own biases when editing. Example. I'm very anti-PETA and wouldn't edit any related article.
1
[deleted] Mar 31, 2026 +3
[removed]
3
cosmos_1980 Mar 31, 2026 +3
Wikipedia has played an important role in all our lives. Sometimes, it plays a small role - Maybe, you want to finish your homework. Sometimes, it plays a very big role - Maybe, you wanna read about life and existence. And, all the knowledge about the things that you want to read is written on Wikipedia in such a nicely explained manner. It's like understanding the subject from the basics and with the blue links we can go anywhere and keep knowing more.
3
The-Great-Mullein Mar 31, 2026 +1
They take donations. I have made small donations for years. That is how they remain ad free.
1
all_time_high Mar 31, 2026 +1
Wikimedia has a large endowment. $144 million at the end of 30 June 224. Unclear what it currently is. By all means keep donating to a worthy cause. Wikipedia is one of the most powerful and impactful sources of free information in the world. Keep in mind there may be some worthy causes you care about which are in a tougher financial position. If your $20 or $50 can help another organization to stay afloat or to keep something/someone alive, you may perceive a greater impact by donating there. The Wikimedia endowment will use your donation for great purposes, but some of it is simply to “grow” more money.
1
cajunjoel Mar 31, 2026 +1
Wikipedia's $144 million is enough cash to keep it running for about 18 months. They totally rely on a continuous stream of donations because it turns out that hosting the most popular site on the internet is expensive.
1
meramec785 Apr 1, 2026 +1
Eh, they could sell one banner ad through google and fund everything without asking for any help. I know it’s a slippery slope but it would be worth it.
1
standardtissue Apr 1, 2026 +1
To be fair, I have donated more money to the wiki foundation then I have ever paid in actual cash to Google, YouTube, or many other websites that I use constantly. As a non-profit and with more of an academic interest than anything else I think people are more open to donating to them, and I believe they also get philanthropic donations, grants etc. They also have a ton of volunteers. Were they a commercial concern I doubt any of that would happen and they would have to find other ways to monetize and pay people, ie ads.
1
drakieboi Apr 1, 2026 +1
I run a small business and Wikipedia has basically become my unpaid research department - I probably owe them thousands in labor hours at this point. The fact that they've stayed ad-free while every other corner of the internet turned into a c***** is genuinely the most underrated business decision ever made.
1
← Back to Board