Steve Bennett wrote:
Let's say McDonald's pays us $500,000 to put an ad on [[Fast food]]. Is that compliant with [[WP:NPOV]]?
Yes.
I think it probably isn't, but there we are. :)
What happens if McDonald's will pay us $500,000 to put an ad on [[Fast food]], but only if we nix the 'Nutritional value' section?
Then we say, "See [[WP:NPOV]]". Or perhaps "we" nix that section and someone else puts it back. This is a bit of a strange argument that has been made a few times. WP is WP. I don't think anyone is proposing changing its core principles simply because we start taking ads. And again, I don't see how placing ads on WP is compromising any of WP's principles in any way.
It isn't per se, but it does raise the possibility (particularly if ads are linked in to a 'frozen', 'stable' version of the encyclopaedia).
The argument in favour of ads appears to be 'if we don't use them, we're throwing away a big potential revenue stream'. How long before the idea of allowing advertisers 'final approval' of articles on which their ads appear appears on the basis that 'by not doing it, we're throwing away a big potential revenue stream'?
I'm not especially in favour of ads, but let's at least be sensible in discussing the possibility. :)
I appreciate that my example is (intentionally) extreme, but I think it's something we would do well to consider.
You might argue that this is someting of a logical fallacy (see, for instance, [[Slippery slope]]), but I am very concerned about the idea of opening up the principles of the project to anything other than 'making an encyclopaedia'. 'Making an encyclopaedia while keeping our advertisers happy' isn't in the mission statement as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers,
N.