Should Wikipedia show adverts?

Let's make the question simpler: Should Wikipedia show adverts in order to raise $80 million a year for African schools?*

Follow up question: if you answered "no" to the question above, does your mother know you hate starving African orphans?

* ... and to help Jimmy Wales stay relaxed while he travels, including but not limited to providing him with professional massage treatment and expensive wine with lavish dinner?

Is this a cynical but nonetheless clichéd attack on Wales, or are you really taking a poll here?

You apparently did not follow the link, Sherlock.

Perhaps I should have added that the poll was designed and paid for by Jimbo. You might have to scroll up on the link to see that.

It was precisely because I had already seen the poll that I made that comment. Seems to me a fairly exact group of statistics have already been complied in answer of your question. However, if you are proposing Wales somehow... altered... the results of the poll for his own gain. Well. That *is* an interesting topic...

There's altering, then there's 'altering'.

The answer you get depends on the question you ask.

Maybe I take for granted a higher level of awareness of misuse of statistics and poll results than actually exists.

This poll was what is typically called a "push poll," which is designed to give a desired result that can then be used to mislead. In this case, a poll result has been created in which 74% of the people in the poll responded favorably to the idea of ads on Wikipedia.

Now keep your eyes open for Jimbo casually dropping this meme. Meanwhile, you can just scroll down to the next section of the link to see how the Wikipedia community actually feels about including ads.

38% of the one poll's respondents were children. Two percent were over the age of 35.

Fail.

I strongly support ads for Wikipedia.

Very, very much can be done with the money from those ads, even if a part of the money goes towards buying Jimbo's private jet.