Has anyone in a position to do so (i.e., a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation) contacted Google to negotiate making Wikipedia an "author" for Google's Knol service? This seems like a natural thing to consider - we have a lot of good content, and could take a reduced ad rate from them. On the other hand, they presumably need good content.
- Carl
2008/7/25 Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm:
Has anyone in a position to do so (i.e., a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation) contacted Google to negotiate making Wikipedia an "author" for Google's Knol service? This seems like a natural thing to consider - we have a lot of good content, and could take a reduced ad rate from them. On the other hand, they presumably need good content.
- Carl
Given the average length of a wikipedia history unlikely to be practical.
2008/7/25 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/7/25 Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm:
Has anyone in a position to do so (i.e., a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation) contacted Google to negotiate making Wikipedia an "author" for Google's Knol service? This seems like a natural thing to consider - we have a lot of good content, and could take a reduced ad rate from them. On the other hand, they presumably need good content.
- Carl
Given the average length of a wikipedia history unlikely to be practical.
-- geni
No! Its simple, Knols aren't allowed to be neutral! They have to be opinion pieces, apparently ;) That and the revenue sharing related impossibilities.
Peter
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Has anyone in a position to do so (i.e., a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation) contacted Google to negotiate making Wikipedia an "author" for Google's Knol service? This seems like a natural thing to consider - we have a lot of good content, and could take a reduced ad rate from them. On the other hand, they presumably need good content.
I'm sure if we wanted to set up our own Wikipedia mirror with ads, we could do it without Google's help.
-- Tim Starling
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 03:25:36PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
I'm sure if we wanted to set up our own Wikipedia mirror with ads, we could do it without Google's help.
Sure - but then we would be the ones serving the ads, which is a sensitive point.
We could trivially run a Wikipedia mirror with Google serving the ads without any other help...
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 03:25:36PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
I'm sure if we wanted to set up our own Wikipedia mirror with ads, we could do it without Google's help.
Sure - but then we would be the ones serving the ads, which is a sensitive point.
We could trivially run a Wikipedia mirror with Google serving the ads without any other help...
"We" being the WMF. It's not "trivial" for anyone else in the world to run a Wikipedia mirror.
2008/7/25 Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 03:25:36PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
I'm sure if we wanted to set up our own Wikipedia mirror with ads, we could do it without Google's help.
Sure - but then we would be the ones serving the ads, which is a sensitive point.
It strikes me that the people most likely to get vocally upset about us having ads are also the ones less willing to draw distinctions like this...