On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
jossi fresco wrote:
In regard to today's article on the Los Angeles Times about Wikipedia and funding, I am sure that this has been discussed in the past, but it is not about time we look into this dispassionately?
Would it really be the "end of Wikipedia" to have a "Sponsored links" section as a subsection of the "External links" section on articles in which two or three Google ad words could be placed?
While I continue to oppose advertising in Wikipedia, I do very much agree with Jossi that having a dispassionate discussion is a good idea. I always have to say this part lest a news headline result: I am saying exactly the same things in this email that I have been saying for years.
A less intrusive concept than Jossi's, even, would be to have "Sponsored links" off to the right hand side *only on the search results page*.
(Notice that I am personally opposed to this at this time, but that I think it is a bad thing that we continue to make this decision with absolutely no data or discussion about how much it would bring in, what we could realistically accomplish for our charitable goals with the money, what our readers would think, what we as a community would think, etc.)
An interesting idea put forward by a Wikisourcian is:
If the Wikimedia Foundation ever runs short of cash, I suggest adding unobtrusive text-based advertisements to Wikisource, much like Uncyclopedia. There is no danger of violating the neutral-point-of-view policy because [Wikisource has] none, and links to buy still-copyrighted books by the same author could actually be useful to readers.
< http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot >
-- John