On 10/03/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You're assuming that there is some connection
between editorial control of
articles and the allocation of advertising. There isn't. Take Google ads,
for instance. Even a very conservative use of Google Ads would make
Wikipedia more than enoug to sustain its finances, and would involve zero
risk of an apparent endorsement from Wikimedia in my opinion. We wouldn't be
determining which ads go where, what they say, etc. We're not talking about
interleaving sponsored results in searches, or allowing paid endorsements of
specific articles. There is a wide gulf, and this is a complex issue.
Simplistic approaches and attitudes to this problem, which bears on the
future of this endeavor, should be avoided.
And in a hypothetical situation where we're dependent on Google ads to
stay alive. Google could threaten to withdraw the teet if we don't
make-more-friendly one/all the articles relating to Google and their
products.
Also, Google's AdSense product is always targetted advertising. You
read an article about running shoes and, from the context of the
article, Google would serve up ads for Nike, Addidas, &c.
I don't think it is a simplistic approach to want to avoid
commericalising Wikipedia and threatening our neutrality in this way.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)