[Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

[Fred Bauder]

> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>> I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in
>>> to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules).
>>> I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though.
>>
>> I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very
>> few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people
>> that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on
>> the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money.
>
> Oh, sorry, I just realized how incredibly confusing I phrased that.
> What I meant by "people can opt-in" was that the advertisers could
> opt-in to allowing their ads to appear on Wikipedia, so that
> unsuspecting advertisers didn't wind up having their products
> displayed on an illustrated article about [[tit torture]].
>

Yes, that's how Google works, like a machine gun spraying all over the
place, missing 1,000 times for every one time it hits. Google, however is
a straw man for the purpose of this conversation. Totally unacceptable,
except on an ad page linked to articles about them and their services.

Fred