An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_on_Wikipedia
-- Michael Becker
Michael-
An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should be easy enough.
Regards,
Erik
[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar phrases like "Once Duke Nukem Forever is released" "Once fusion power becomes feasible" "Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".
At 02:05 AM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
phrases like "Once Duke Nukem Forever is released" "Once fusion power becomes feasible" "Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".
You forgot:
"Once Lucasarts releases a Star Wars PC game that isn't crap"
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
I am not trying to debate weather or not advertising is right, I am just trying to suggest what I think would be a good way to implement advertising in the wikipedia if it ever comes to that.
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5.05 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Regarding Advertising on Wikipedia
Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should be easy enough.
Regards,
Erik
[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar phrases like "Once Duke Nukem Forever is released" "Once fusion power becomes feasible" "Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years". _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, I think it would be ok to have advertizers sponsor pages. Here is an expansion on the idea. The ad is in small text and simply says:this page sponsored by [[Toyota]]. with a link to their *wikipedia* article. If one doesn't exist, they can write one, but it still must be NPOV. This type of low-impact advertizing often has (ironically) the biggest effect because people aren't as annoyed. A wikipedian could also sponsor the page with a link to their userpage. More than one person or company could sponsor a page. The homepage couldn't be sponsored. Each sponsor request would be screened to prevent linking [[Toyota|Toyota, the beat car company in the world]]. I would cost, say, $1 for 100 impressions, to encourage low-budget advertizers and users to sponsor things. I don't think this would lower our academic credibility at all. --LittleDan
Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: Michael-
An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should be easy enough.
Regards,
Erik
[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar phrases like "Once Duke Nukem Forever is released" "Once fusion power becomes feasible" "Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
oh, I forgot, the advertizers also would only get the pages they chose, not all relivant pages. (or, for $5 for wikipedia, someone at wikipedia can find them by hand).
Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:No, I think it would be ok to have advertizers sponsor pages. Here is an expansion on the idea. The ad is in small text and simply says:this page sponsored by [[Toyota]]. with a link to their *wikipedia* article. If one doesn't exist, they can write one, but it still must be NPOV. This type of low-impact advertizing often has (ironically) the biggest effect because people aren't as annoyed. A wikipedian could also sponsor the page with a link to their userpage. More than one person or company could sponsor a page. The homepage couldn't be sponsored. Each sponsor request would be screened to prevent linking [[Toyota|Toyota, the beat car company in the world]]. I would cost, say, $1 for 100 impressions, to encourage low-budget advertizers and users to sponsor things. I don't think this would lower our academic credibility at all. --LittleDan
Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: Michael-
An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should be easy enough.
Regards,
Erik
[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar phrases like "Once Duke Nukem Forever is released" "Once fusion power becomes ! feasible" "Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
LittleDan wrote:
No, I think it would be ok to have advertizers sponsor pages. Here is an expansion on the idea. The ad is in small text and simply says:this page sponsored by [[Toyota]]. with a link to their *wikipedia* article. If one doesn't exist, they can write one, but it still must be NPOV. This type of low-impact advertizing often has (ironically) the biggest effect because people aren't as annoyed. A wikipedian could also sponsor the page with a link to their userpage. More than one person or company could sponsor a page. The homepage couldn't be sponsored. Each sponsor request would be screened to prevent linking [[Toyota|Toyota, the beat car company in the world]]. I would cost, say, $1 for 100 impressions, to encourage low-budget advertizers and users to sponsor things. I don't think this would lower our academic credibility at all.
You know, I wouldn't mind such an advertising system. But I'd still oppose instituting one.
The reason is that I don't trust such things not to expand, especially when we'd get paid for expansion directly in cash. For Americans, I can think of no better warning than the growth of advertising of public radio and television. What used to be "The following program is sponsored in part by General Motors, this station, and viewers like you." has become professionally produced 15-second spots with full colour and moving pictures. Still *less* advertising that on commercial TV, but otherwise not *different*.
-- Toby
Once again, I must assert, I am not looking to debate weather or not advertising (i.e. consumerism) is something the wikipedia wants to be associated with (or it's users). I was just suggesting ways of implementing advertising if need be. There is no need to argue about weather or not we should have advertisements, b/c when it comes down to it, it really isn't our decision. However, I think we can help control the way such advertising is implemented, by coming up with the best solution for the wikipedia. This too is in the end out of our control, but I still think it is worth while to talk about.
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Toby Bartels Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4.06 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Regarding Advertising on Wikipedia
I wrote in small part:
For Americans, I can think of no better warning than the growth of advertising of public radio and television.
^^ on
-- Toby _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MBecker wrote in part:
There is no need to argue about weather or not we should have advertisements, b/c when it comes down to it, it really isn't our decision.
I can't figure out why you think this. Do you mean that Jimmy might impose it on us against our wishes? Or that we'll be forced to do it in order to survive financially? Both of these scenarios seem rather unlikely to me (but perhaps you have some other reason in mind).
I think that Ec is right that we should budget first.
-- Toby
I brought this subject up in most part because of this: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_on_Wikipedia which is linked to from User:Jimbo Wales. This gave me the impression that it was something he was considering in the back of his mind all the time. Reading it also gave me the impression that we may get to the point where we have to implement ad's. Now, on weather or not Jimbo will be the deciding factor, you will have to ask him weather or not he will let the community choose on closing the wikipedia vs. ad's.
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Toby Bartels Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3.50 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Regarding Advertising on Wikipedia
MBecker wrote in part:
There is no need to argue about weather or not we should have advertisements, b/c when it comes down to
it, it really isn't our decision.
I can't figure out why you think this. Do you mean that Jimmy might impose it on us against our wishes? Or that we'll be forced to do it in order to survive financially? Both of these scenarios seem rather unlikely to me (but perhaps you have some other reason in mind).
I think that Ec is right that we should budget first.
-- Toby _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Michael Becker wrote:
I brought this subject up in most part because of this: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_on_Wikipedia which is linked to from User:Jimbo Wales. This gave me the impression that it was something he was considering in the back of his mind all the time.
I interpreted that page as very old, only historical.
Reading it also gave me the impression that we may get to the point where we have to implement ad's. Now, on weather or not Jimbo will be the deciding factor, you will have to ask him weather or not he will let the community choose on closing the wikipedia vs. ad's.
In any case, Jimmy has just posted that he doubts that ads will ever be right.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
I interpreted that page as very old, only historical.
*Very* historical. I'm now of the opinion that advertising is not likely to ever be a viable or sensible revenue source for wikipedia.
One frame of reference -- at the time that was written, I was paying $100k a year for ongoing expenses (programming, editor-in-chiefing, etc.) for Nupedia. Wikipedia has no similar expenses.
Bandwidth and hardware are cheap, and so we have no particular need of money for what we're doing right now.
--Jimbo
Toby Bartels wrote:
You know, I wouldn't mind such an advertising system. But I'd still oppose instituting one.
The reason is that I don't trust such things not to expand, especially when we'd get paid for expansion directly in cash. For Americans, I can think of no better warning than the growth of advertising of public radio and television. What used to be "The following program is sponsored in part by General Motors, this station, and viewers like you." has become professionally produced 15-second spots with full colour and moving pictures. Still *less* advertising that on commercial TV, but otherwise not *different*.
Sigh!! Non-profit projects can easily become addicted to advertising. The more they receive, the more they feel that they need. It might come across that we need one more server, or that we need to pay someone to admisnister the finances, or whatever ... If the need for these goodies becomes strong enough we end up even more at the mercy of advertisers.
Assuming that the foundation ever does get established, sound financial management by the entire community will be worth a lot more than advertising revenue. If, at that point, the members can't secure an adequate funding plan without commercialization, then maybe the commitment isn't there and the project shouldn't exist anymore.
Ec
Michael Becker wrote:
An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
sounds like the thin edge of the wedge to me.
For anything like this to be considered seriously we would first need a responsible discussion of Wikipedia finances, and the development of a business plan.
All ( :-) !) our present sources of funding are opposed to advertising. Co-incidentally, I happen to agree with that position, so I'm not about to complain against my own interests.
Ec
Why does everyone oppose advertizing? I it's descrete enough, it's not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Michael Becker wrote:
An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
sounds like the thin edge of the wedge to me.
For anything like this to be considered seriously we would first need a responsible discussion of Wikipedia finances, and the development of a business plan.
All ( :-) !) our present sources of funding are opposed to advertising. Co-incidentally, I happen to agree with that position, so I'm not about to complain against my own interests.
Ec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Je Dimanĉo 01 Junio 2003 11:14, Daniel Ehrenberg skribis:
Why does everyone oppose advertizing? I it's descrete enough, it's not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.
See, Dan, there *is* no such advertising. If it were sufficiently discreet, unobtrusive, and non-credibility-lowering to not send half our contributors away in disgust, advertisers wouldn't be willing to pay because no one would be able to see it.
You may not remember as it was before your time, but a year or so ago all but one or two of the Spanish Wikipedia contributors revolted and left to build the Enciclopedia Libre because Jimbo was _considering_ putting small, tasteful, textual ad banners on the English Wikipedia only, which anyone would be able to disable by logging in and setting their preferences to "no ads".
So we're a little touchy on the subject. :)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
At 11:14 AM 6/1/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
Why does everyone oppose advertizing? I it's descrete enough, it's not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.
Because it is intrusive and it would lower our credibility.
There are tons of ads on dictionary.com, but people still use that a lot. Some time, we may have to decide between canceling the project, and inserting ads. If it comes to that, I don't mind ads, especially if they are easily disabled through preferences. If anyone has any moral objections, please explain them. While I hate ads as much as the next guy, they serve a purpose. If we can design an ad system that is as unobtrusive as possible, I would say we have done the best we can.
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Vicki Rosenzweig Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2.37 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FW: Regarding Advertising on Wikipedia
At 11:14 AM 6/1/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
Why does everyone oppose advertizing? I it's descrete enough, it's not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.
Because it is intrusive and it would lower our credibility.
At 14:51 01/06/2003 -0400, Michael Becker wrote:
There are tons of ads on dictionary.com, but people still use that a lot. Some time, we may have to decide between canceling the project, and inserting ads. If it comes to that, I don't mind ads, especially if they are easily disabled through preferences. If anyone has any moral objections, please explain them.
It's not a moral objection, but I don't think our credibility would be helped by having an advert for, say, the new Blur album flashing away on [[Britpop]]. Imagine an ad for the new season at La Scala mid-way through Britannica's article on opera. Aside from the fact that adverts are bloody annoying, we're meant to be neutral, you know.
Anyway, this isn't really an issue for us mortals, but for Jimbo (who, after all, is the guy who pays for all this), and if I remember correctly he's said he has no intentions to add advertising at this stage. Hopefully, when the non-profit is set up we'll all be able to make donations to keep the Wikipedia running in a way that will make adverts unnecessary.
LP (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Barnett Newman]]
--- Michael Becker wikipedia@jumpingjackweb.com wrote:
Some time, we may have to decide between canceling the project, and inserting ads.
I don't think so. When the Spaniards decided to fork, they found a university hosting them for free in no time. Wikipedia itself has a standing offer to be hosted for free by ibiblio. Lots of institutions like to through money at projects like ours.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com
Why does everyone oppose advertising? If it's descrete enough, it's not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.
I do not oppose advertising on Wikipedia (or on a fork). It is hard to imagine an article which would not lead gracefully to a short, non-obtrusive ad at the bottom of a page, if nothing else for a book about the subject of the article. It is, however, a "slippery slope" and anyone knows that once a camel gets its nose in the tent the rest of the camel is not far behind.
It is hard to sell advertising in any event. People who do sell advertising find it very hard indeed if they have only a no-intrusive option to offer. WalMart is not likely to be happy with anything less than saturation pop-ups.
Non-profit status and extensive advertising produce an emotional if not a legal disconnect.
Fred
I've read a lot in this mailing list about Wikipedia eventually needing to find a source of revenue, but I'm a little hazy on exactly what the cost of maintaining Wikipedia & the related sites actually is. Jimbo, can you offer an idea of what this costs your company? How has this been trending over, say, the last 6 to 12 months? (Is the cost steady growing, growing arthimatically, staying the same?)
Once we have an idea what the cost of Wikipedia actually is, then we can start talking intelligently about how to raise the money. For example, if it costs $500.-- a month to run Wikipedia, & we have 50 people willing to pay a subscription to keep it afloat, then the most effective plan would be donations thru Paypal. If it's, say $2000.-- a month, & we only have 30 people willing to pay a subscription, then obviously we need to looks for alternative source of revenue.
Frankly, I don't think advertising would be a cost-effective source of revenue. Ignore for the moment the general dislike of advertising by the Wikipedia regulars: to get any sort of steady income from advertising, we would need to HIRE someone & PAY THEM MONEY to get advertising. (That is, unless Jimbo has a long line of folks pounding on his door, wanting to buy ad space on Wikipedia.) And any decent salesperson will eventually want things like health insurance, benefits, maybe an expense account to wine & dine potential advertisers, support staff who will also want stuff . . .
If I have to wonder about Wikipedia staying afloat, I would like some kind of guesstimate about when Jimbo is going to have to give up his hobby. Are we talking (1) within a year; (2) sometime between 2 & 5 years; or (3) someday? An answer from Jimbo about what Wikipedia is costing him, & whether its bound to get to a point sometime where he has to stop helping us would then let us know whether just how serious we have to be when we talk about needing other sources of revenue.
Geoff