On 1/1/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
Then there is the cost of marketing Wikipedia ads . .
. which
leads to a group of people with a vested interest in monitoring
article content (for example, adding pressure to remove or
rewrite articles about sexuality so that Wikipedia isn't
blocked by potential eyeballs).
This is I think the only serious criticism in your list (the others
can be mitigated without too much difficulty, I think, with the
exception of the "older Internet" which I'm not sure is intended to be
a convincing argument and the "community" one which seems rather
dependent on the type of advertising path chosen). It would be of the
utmost imperative that any potential advertiser know that their
advertisement would be displayed on all pages -- good and bad,
long-termed and short-lived, featured articles and vandalisms --
unless there were some way to disable that which I'm not seeing. Of
course they would be without liability but nevertheless I think the
idea would probably cull out quite a lot of advertisers, given the
extremes of content which exist around here.
FF