Regular visitors of Wikipedia have become so familiar with the standard fundraising banner at the top of the page that they've practically become blind to it, but Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has mixed things up by replacing it recently with a personal plea for donations. Wales' appeal has triggered renewed discussion about the site and its ability to sustain itself without advertising, while many remain skeptical about the severity of the situation.

In his letter to Wikipedia readers, Wales notes that the Wikimedia Foundation has a relatively small staff (23 members) and that all of its content is free. He says that donations help the organization cover the increasing cost of bandwidth and help improve the site's software.

"Like a national park or a school, we don't believe advertising should have a place in Wikipedia. We want to keep it free and strong, but we need the support of thousands of people like you," reads the letter.



Wikipedia visitors are presented with this banner when visiting the site Wikipedia visitors are presented with this banner when visiting the site

Wales' appeal has been compared to a PBS pledge drive—annoying at best, unnecessary at worst. Critics have long suggested that Wikipedia simply give up harassing its members with endless donation requests and turn to the ad-based revenue model that supports many other sites that offer free content to users, but Wikipedia has so far been adamantly against this option.

Not that an ad model would somehow automatically solve Wikipedia's funding issues. Companies like YouTube have had serious trouble trying to monetize user-generated content through advertising, and it's not hard to see why; what big-time brand wants to take a chance on appearing above unvetted and potentially libelous entries that could, at any moment, have key words replaced by terms for genitalia?

Former Wikimedia employee Danny Wool publicly criticized Wikipedia's constant donation drive on his blog last month by saying the organization is incredibly bloated and inefficient. He points out that Wikipedia once accepted numerous tiny donations (á la the Obama campaign—every little bit counts) but now has a suggested minimum of $30.

"As for Administrative expenses, should a charity that lives on $6 million be paying bloated salaries to the ED and her office, i.e., 8 percent of the budget?" Wool wrote. "Is that what people should be donating to support? Please donate to Wikipedia, so that [executive director] Sue Gardner can be among the elite few whom Obama admits he will raise their taxes? No wonder the WMF doesn't want the small donations any more."

Additionally, Wikipedia's own volunteer administrators and editors have had a strong negative reaction to the donation banners. Some have argued that they do all the work for free already, so what's with the increasing operating expenses—$6 million this year, up from $3.5 million last year? Others try to find ways to hide the Wales appeal from appearing on the site at all. Wales, on the other hand, feels that the accusations of bloat are a bit much.

"We are an astoundingly effective charity with a tiny budget," Wales told Ars. "The idea that our budget is 'bloated' is ludicrous - we run the 4th most popular website in the world for $6 million a year."

On top of it all, some critics are still jaded over incidents that surfaced earlier this year in relation to Wikipedia and Jimmy wales. Former Novell scientist and Wikipedia donor Jeff Merkey issued a statement earlier this year essentially accusing Wales of extortion—he claims Wales offered him "special protection" for his Wikipedia entry "in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects."

This is, of course, not the first or only accusation against Wales related to his editing and protecting of various people's entries in exchange for certain favors—just do a Google search for "rachel marsden" + "jimmy wales" to get enough gossip to fuel the National Enquirer for months.

(Keep in mind that Merkey has a reputation of his own as well. Jimmy Wales denies any wrongdoing in all of these supposed incidents.)

Still, the site is a unique worldwide phenomenon, and turning it into yet another place for advertisers to hawk their wares would certainly alter the feel of the wild but noncommercial encyclopedia.