At the beginning of 2011 Wikipedia published (thank you letter) the results of its annual public fundraising (16 million US$). Unlike other internet service rendering - entities raising funds from public or private organizations via equity issue, Wikipedia raised funds from DONATIONS from the public. The only return the public received was the continued function of Wikipedia without commercials, or other forms of commercialization.
This may not seem innovative. Many non for profit organizations, operating for public benefit raise funds from donations (e.g. Rotary Bat-Hefer) at Gala events, active fund raising from donations, second hand sales raffles or even a direct approach for donations (anti cancer and similar).
However, a closer examination will revel some differences. The other organizations mentioned above and their donations are normally raised on a local or maximum national level per event, by active if not personal and evident physical approach. Furthermore they are targeted towards a specific local target community with specific interest. Wikipedia approached the entire world, raised its funds entirely on the web without physical approach, and allowed the whole world to join in. This is global fund raising on the net.
While so far we compared Wikipedia to non-for profit local organizations, another approach would be to compare it to other web-based service providers. As such Wikipedia could collect some payment for its services. True, as it also feeds on the input of its users the business model would need to take it into account. Potentially giving credit for writing as well as charging for getting information from it, even creating a scaled model based on the uploaded content extent and quality. Another possibility would have been to get funding by allowing commercials on its pages. This option would have allowed Wikipedia to generate real income that is not based on the good will of the public, rather it is based on the usage of the service. This would have made the founders of Wikipedia rich – see what is happening to successful social networks owners.
Social networks also use content provided by the users, the connections made by the users' sub-groups and classifications. The networks provide a public service, but unlike Wikipedia it comes with a price tag – the commercials, and other commercialization sections (e.g. paid games). This commercial activity gave the networks their market value and allowed its owners/operators to get rich.
Do we see an ethical dilemma between the two models of operation? It would seem that there should not be any problem by giving a free service to the public, and fund the infrastructure and operation by commercials (this has been going on in commercial TV for years). Do we consider a non-for –profit organization raising funds by donations from the public as more ethical than an organization not charging for the service but getting funded by commercials?
Is our response based on the vast economic value of the social networks? The power they exert over our live? Do we fear that just by being business oriented and representing vast capital and power that they may be open to abuse?
Are non-for-profit public donation fund raising organizations more moral? Can we be more trusting regarding their intentions?
We live in a capitalist world, driven by economic considerations, feeling confident that the "market forces" can assure proper service, long term quality. Do we not feel that there is a contradiction between that trust and questioning the morality of profit oriented bodies while feeling confident regarding the morals of non-for-profit organizations?
As mentioned in the opening to this blog the purpose here is to raise questions – answering them is another matter entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment