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.
--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW:
http://nick.frejol.org/