Ads detract from the objectivity. Also, it could lead to a pain with the IRS.
----- Original Message ---- From: Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 5:34:26 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia
On 10/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Having said that, the issue of public perception is absolutely vital, and you do make a perfectly good point.
How many outsiders seriously think Wikipedia is of better quality because it doesn't have ads like every other site?
Going by the popularity of ad blocking adons for fire fox a fair number
If everybody who wants to can have an ad blocker what's the problem with carrying ads?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On 11/03/2008, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Ads detract from the objectivity. Also, it could lead to a pain with the IRS.
If you don't read the ad (we're talking about google-style ads here, I imagine) it cannot have any effect on objectivity.
I don't know about the tax situation, but there's no reason in principle why Wikimedia (or a successor organisation) should remain subject to not-for-profit rules. Google is a corporation but the IRS doesn't seem to have killed it yet. Transition to commercial status might be a bit weird, but it's doable because the content is all under the GFDL.