[WikiEN-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia

[Jimmy Wales]

I am speaking here only in a "Devil's Advocate" capacity since I oppose 
putting ads in Wikipedia.  I just think our continued refusal to run ads 
should be on the best possible arguments.

Oldak Quill wrote:
> Even if the ad service (and advertising companies) are treated with
> independence (ignoring threats by those companies to pull out
> advertising money for treating a subject in a particular way), how do
> you think reader impressions will change?

First I think it safe to say that companies would not make such threats. 
  I have been working with internet advertising for many years and 
particularly for the kinds of ads we are talking about (text ads from 
google adsense), I have never heard one word from an advertiser about 
anything.  Even for largest display style ads, I have not seen that kind 
of disrespect for a publisher.  It just really is not the major issue 
most people think it is.

Having said that, the issue of public perception is absolutely vital, 
and you do make a perfectly good point.

This is one reason to have the advertising be only in the search results 
page... to maintain that firewall between content and advertising.

> Internet advertising is already too imposing and the popularity of
> anti-advertising tools reflect this. Just because the status quo is to
> be intrusive with advertising, doesn't mean we should follow suit. The
> availibility of these tools creates a disparity between those with the
> technical know-how to remove ads from their browsing, and those who
> don't.

We could institute a very very simple one-click opt-out.  "Click to turn 
off ads".  You click it, and there you go, ads are gone.  Cookie set for 
10 years.

--Jimbo