Wikipedia gets 300 million page views per day and could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars if it sold ads. But it doesn't -- it survives on donations. The company hired an executive director nine months ago, and is looking for ways to raise revenue, which is tough because it's a not-for-profit that depends to a huge degree on volunteer labor.

The Los Angeles Times:

[Executive Director Sue] Gardner has hired a staff lawyer, an accountant, and a head of business development. She has created a travel policy, reimbursement policy, and code of conduct for employees and instituted criminal background checks for potential hires (Wikimedia got unwanted publicity after a technology site revealed in December that the foundation's chief operating officer until July had been convicted of theft, drunk driving, and fleeing a car accident before being hired.)

Now comes the hard part: money. ...

"The most difficult issue for a nonprofit is always how to raise money in ways which are consistent with the mission," Gardner said, "and don't distract too much from the mission-related work."

Wikipedia has huge, unclaimed revenue potential. Wikipedia entries come up as the first, second, or third result on a vast number of Google searches. In the attention economy, that's the equivalent of being Saudi Arabia, sitting on top of the world's biggest oil wells.

And yet, by tapping that wealth, Wikipedia runs the risk of poisoning the well. Wikipedia depends on volunteer labor, and by generating money, Wikipedia runs the risk of making those volunteers feel like chumps.

The Times article notes that recent money-making proposals include a game show, which, Gardner said, "would be problematic, because game shows are competitive and Wikipedia is collaborative." Wikipedia isn't competitive? That'll be news to anyone who's ever been in a Wikipedia edit war.

By the way, I stole the great headline at the top of this post from the Times.

What do you think? How can Wikipedia make money without alienating its volunteers?