Apparently the app lays down ads on Wikipedia's content unless you cough up $3 or $5.
That sounds questionable at best to me.
That sounds questionable at best to me.
Including advertisements in a research resource lends itself to all sorts of moral problems, and quite frankly completely obliterates and chance of increased usefulness of the redesign.
This company is arguably improving the experience of viewing that content, and, as a consumer, as long as they're upfront about the ads/cost when I purchase the app (I haven't checked if they are yet), then the ball's in my court to decide whether it's worth the ads and/or the $3/$5 price tag. I can always use a free app or just go to my browser if I don't want to pay.
Or are you finding the fact that they're charging for a product that's built on top of a free service inherently questionable? I definitely vibe with that sentiment at times, but in this case, I can't see a problem with it, especially if it meets Wikipedia's restrictions/standards.
Or is there something else that you find questionable?
They don't mention the ads explicitly on the app page, but the app (with ads) is free, and you can see a list of top in-app purchases which clearly list "Remove Ads" alongside the associated price.