[Foundation-l] Advertisements?

[Todd Allen]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  Please define "financial trouble". Given that the dollar is taking a nose
>  dive and given that this is affecting the value of the cash reserves as they
>  exist, we can talk of trouble. Given that the budget for 2008 is not
>  covered, we can talk of trouble. Given that there are many things that we
>  want developed but do not get either finished or started, we can talk of
>  trouble. Given that there are several content projects that we want to give
>  a bigger profile but do not have the means to make this happen, we can talk
>  of trouble. When you think that sacking staff or not taking up the
>  opportunities that exist is "the usual shoestring" then I consider that
>  trouble.
>
>  Please define "our core principles". There are people vehemently against
>  advertisements and there are many people cowered into silence. What has
>  always been said and this is a good thing is that if it is not necessary to
>  have advertisements, we will not. Equating no advertisements with core
>  principles is ludicrous; it means that others may make money from our effort
>  and we do not make the money we need for the activities we have planned, the
>  costs that we incur...
>
>  Please define "our" in "our values". Please understand that I do not want
>  advertisements either however, this *has *to be weighed as one issue with
>  the other issues. When advertisements are considered the single most
>  important issue and all other issues are considered of less relevance, then
>  I absolutely cannot consider it a value that is ours. Read what the WMF aims
>  to do, read what Wikipedia aims to do. We are about bringing knowledge to
>  the people of this world. That is our aim, our values can only be the ones
>  that make this possible.
>  Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>  On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:39 AM, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>  > Ah, here the big question comes up :) What should be determining our
>  > choice
>  > for ads or not... Just a few options:
>  >
>  > 1) Financial trouble
>  > 2) Our core principles
>  > 3) Our values
>  > 4) Because the community favors it over donations
>  > 5) Because the visitors favor it over donations
>  >
>  > Of course there are many more, but my stake here is actually that *first*
>  > we
>  > should discuss 1), 2) and 3), probably too 4) and then we go to 5). If
>  > there
>  > are financial trouble, there is little choice, and we'll *have* to,
>  > whether
>  > we like or not. If there are no trouble, but the usual shoestring, then we
>  > should see what our core principles and values have to say about it.
>  > Finally, I think that in this case, the opinion of the community is at
>  > least
>  > as important as the opinion of the visitors.
>  >
>  > I think both opinions will be measured in the UNU research? And as there
>  > seem to be no threatening financial problems right now, 2) and 3) are left
>  > in the open :)
>  >
>  > BR, Lodewijk
>  >
>  > 2008/3/18, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>  > >
>  > > On 17/03/2008, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>  > > > Brian wrote:
>  > > >  > Asking if advertisements should be shown on Wikipedia on a website
>  > > that is
>  > > >  > currently showing them an advertisement is obviously not a good
>  > > design
>  > > >  > methodology :)
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > Yes, and facebook users are not representative of the people we care
>  > > >  about (i.e. everyone) in some other important ways too... they tend
>  > to
>  > > >  be college kids in the US.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > It might be worth paying for a professional polling company to do a
>  > > proper survey - I'm not sure what those kind of things cost, but I'm
>  > > sure the information would be very enlightening.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > _______________________________________________
>  > > foundation-l mailing list
>  > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  > >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

And a lack of ads is a core component which makes this possible. NPOV
is a core principle which makes our mission possible and worthwhile.
NPOV and ads are fundamentally incompatible. "Buy this!" cannot
possibly be NPOV.

Skilled volunteer contributors are also necessary for the continuation
of the project, and many of those will simply refuse to work for a
commercial project. Number me among those who would walk out the door
and never look back if ads were added in any but the most dire
circumstances. By dire circumstances, I mean a choice between "Run ads
today or shut down the servers tomorrow", and removing them -as soon-
as financial stability is reached again. I don't mean just not
covering the budget. Trim fat from the budget first.

You speak as though ads are not fundamentally incompatible with our
mission (providing accurate, neutral information for free reuse and
distribution to the world). They are. If they turn out to be the
lesser of evils at one point (total failure or temporary ads), I'd
grudgingly accept the ads temporarily, provided a fixed threshold is
set for when they will be removed, but we're a long way from that
point.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.