I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Ad-supported sites have an implicit agreement: view these ads, and you can get access to the content. I feel that disabling the ads violates that agreement. Further, I'm worried about what would happen if everyone blocked the ads. These sites need to make money, and if they don't, the content goes away.
Sites like Wikepedia are donation based, and run as non-profits.
Heres an analogy that most hackers can identify with-- the local coffee shop. The agreement there is implicit as well (and sometimes explicit): buy this coffee, and you can use the internet. Should you get free internet without buying the coffee?
Except coffee shops are for-profit. I'm not concerned Wikipedia will disappear. I am concerned that the NY Times online will disappear, because it needs to sustain a profit.
(For the record, I actually worry if my coffee purchase really does offset my resource usage when I stay for 3-4 hours in my local coffee shop on weekends.)
WiFi or no WiFi, beverage or no beverage, a coffee house lets you hang out until the manager decides to throw you out. Likewise, NYTimes.com can revamp its site such that nonsubscribers are limited to 1 hour at the site with 24 hours in between, like HN's noprocrast.
