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?
-- Jossi
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, jossi fresco jossif@gmail.com wrote:
In regard to today's article on the Los Angeles Times about Wikipedia and funding
Article: http://tinyurl.com/28jzy7
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wikipedia10mar10,0,7404443.story "It isn't sunstainable."
If you buy that premise, you're forced to buy the rest of the argument. If you don't, you're not.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, jossi fresco jossif@gmail.com 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?
-- Jossi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/03/2008, jossi fresco jossif@gmail.com 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?
It would be the end of our commercial and content independence. We could not claim to treat subjects without bias (with neutrality) if we're accepting $$$ to promote companies on relevant articles.
Even if the ad service (and advertising companies) are treated with independence (ignoring threats by those companies to pull out advertising money for treating a subject in a particular way), how do you think reader impressions will change?
Internet advertising is already too imposing and the popularity of anti-advertising tools reflect this. Just because the status quo is to be intrusive with advertising, doesn't mean we should follow suit. The availibility of these tools creates a disparity between those with the technical know-how to remove ads from their browsing, and those who don't.
You're assuming that there is some connection between editorial control of articles and the allocation of advertising. There isn't. Take Google ads, for instance. Even a very conservative use of Google Ads would make Wikipedia more than enoug to sustain its finances, and would involve zero risk of an apparent endorsement from Wikimedia in my opinion. We wouldn't be determining which ads go where, what they say, etc. We're not talking about interleaving sponsored results in searches, or allowing paid endorsements of specific articles. There is a wide gulf, and this is a complex issue. Simplistic approaches and attitudes to this problem, which bears on the future of this endeavor, should be avoided.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
It would be the end of our commercial and content independence. We could not claim to treat subjects without bias (with neutrality) if we're accepting $$$ to promote companies on relevant articles.
Even if the ad service (and advertising companies) are treated with independence (ignoring threats by those companies to pull out advertising money for treating a subject in a particular way), how do you think reader impressions will change?
Internet advertising is already too imposing and the popularity of anti-advertising tools reflect this. Just because the status quo is to be intrusive with advertising, doesn't mean we should follow suit. The availibility of these tools creates a disparity between those with the technical know-how to remove ads from their browsing, and those who don't.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@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.
I am speaking here only in a "Devil's Advocate" capacity since I oppose putting ads in Wikipedia. I just think our continued refusal to run ads should be on the best possible arguments.
Oldak Quill wrote:
Even if the ad service (and advertising companies) are treated with independence (ignoring threats by those companies to pull out advertising money for treating a subject in a particular way), how do you think reader impressions will change?
First I think it safe to say that companies would not make such threats. I have been working with internet advertising for many years and particularly for the kinds of ads we are talking about (text ads from google adsense), I have never heard one word from an advertiser about anything. Even for largest display style ads, I have not seen that kind of disrespect for a publisher. It just really is not the major issue most people think it is.
Having said that, the issue of public perception is absolutely vital, and you do make a perfectly good point.
This is one reason to have the advertising be only in the search results page... to maintain that firewall between content and advertising.
Internet advertising is already too imposing and the popularity of anti-advertising tools reflect this. Just because the status quo is to be intrusive with advertising, doesn't mean we should follow suit. The availibility of these tools creates a disparity between those with the technical know-how to remove ads from their browsing, and those who don't.
We could institute a very very simple one-click opt-out. "Click to turn off ads". You click it, and there you go, ads are gone. Cookie set for 10 years.
--Jimbo
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?
I hope the idea of a dispassionate discussion can allow me to suggest that the influential editors within wikipedia have a certain viewpoint which is not representative of the actual readership who don't get involved in this issues. The net has come as far as it has because of advertising, not because of fundraising drives. That is a fact, not an NPOV opinion.
Peter
A survey on Special:Search asking readers various questions about their thoughts, feelings and opinions regarding putting adverts on that page could help to clarify this issue. It would need to be carefully designed and well controlled, but it can be done in an unbiased and statistically sound manner. With hundreds of millions of page views a month, we could afford to do iterations of the survey until all parties are satisfied that it is fair, and then discuss the results.
We would also need to anonymously survey active Wikipedia editors separately. Their opinions matter enormously.
Folks seem generally agreeable to an objective, dispassionate analysis. A data driven approach is the best way.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:08 PM, 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.
the influential editors within wikipedia have a certain viewpoint
which is not representative of the actual readership who don't get involved in this issues.
Peter
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
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?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:08:24 +1000, 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?
I hope the idea of a dispassionate discussion can allow me to suggest that the influential editors within wikipedia have a certain viewpoint which is not representative of the actual readership who don't get involved in this issues. The net has come as far as it has because of advertising, not because of fundraising drives. That is a fact, not an NPOV opinion.
It is certainly why the net is full of crap. I think we aim to do better.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:08:24 +1000, 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?
I hope the idea of a dispassionate discussion can allow me to suggest that the influential editors within wikipedia have a certain viewpoint which is not representative of the actual readership who don't get involved in this issues. The net has come as far as it has because of advertising, not because of fundraising drives. That is a fact, not an NPOV opinion.
It is certainly why the net is full of crap. I think we aim to do better.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I absolutely agree. I think it's a great example to have a highly successful site with no damned advertising. Granted, I don't see many ads through the blocker anyway, but it's nice to know that there's one place where the damn billboards -aren't there-, not just where I (or my computer) knows not to look at them. The Internet (and the world) needs a lot less advertising, not more. If Wikipedia starts ads, I quit. And I know I'm not the only one.
On 11/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I absolutely agree. I think it's a great example to have a highly successful site with no damned advertising. Granted, I don't see many ads through the blocker anyway, but it's nice to know that there's one place where the damn billboards -aren't there-, not just where I (or my computer) knows not to look at them. The Internet (and the world) needs a lot less advertising, not more. If Wikipedia starts ads, I quit. And I know I'm not the only one.
It does *wonders* for our public relations being the top-10 site which isn't plastered with ads. Wikipedia gets a LOT of slack for that - highly imperfect, but a non-profit volunteer project that continues to try hard. I fervently hope we can afford to continue this way.
- d.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:20 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It does *wonders* for our public relations being the top-10 site which isn't plastered with ads. Wikipedia gets a LOT of slack for that - highly imperfect, but a non-profit volunteer project that continues to try hard. I fervently hope we can afford to continue this way.
Agreed, there are a lot of costs I think the Foundation could cut before having to do something so drastic. Not that I think they *should* be cut if we have the money, which right now I think we do. But if we can't run the servers, I don't think we should be funding Wikimania at all, much less in exotic locations.
Judson Dunn wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:20 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It does *wonders* for our public relations being the top-10 site which isn't plastered with ads. Wikipedia gets a LOT of slack for that - highly imperfect, but a non-profit volunteer project that continues to try hard. I fervently hope we can afford to continue this way.
Agreed, there are a lot of costs I think the Foundation could cut before having to do something so drastic. Not that I think they *should* be cut if we have the money, which right now I think we do. But if we can't run the servers, I don't think we should be funding Wikimania at all, much less in exotic locations.
The location of Wikimania can't help but be exotic to the vast majority of Wikipedians. Even if it's limited top only Europe and North America one of those will be exotic to the other as well as to residents of all the other continents.
Ec
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The location of Wikimania can't help but be exotic to the vast majority of Wikipedians. Even if it's limited top only Europe and North America one of those will be exotic to the other as well as to residents of all the other continents.
Yes, that word choice was poor. :) I'm glad to see from Mark below also that not much money is spent on it. I personally wouldn't hate to see ads, but I think they would be a PR mistake.
On 3/11/08, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
But if we can't run the servers, I don't think we should be funding Wikimania at all, much less in exotic locations.
My impression is that Wikimania is pretty well self-funding: part of the bid process is coming up with sponsors to cover the expense of running it.
Mark Wagner wrote:
My impression is that Wikimania is pretty well self-funding: part of the bid process is coming up with sponsors to cover the expense of running it.
I assume the sponsors end up covering most of the expenses, but the Foundation's planned spending distribution [1] does budget $150,000 for Wikimania. That's a modest 3% of the total budget, but Wikimania sponsorship apparently isn't so overwhelming as to cover everything.
-Mark
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
On 11/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It does *wonders* for our public relations being the top-10 site which isn't plastered with ads. Wikipedia gets a LOT of slack for that - highly imperfect, but a non-profit volunteer project that continues to try hard. I fervently hope we can afford to continue this way.
I think it depends on the type. I happened to visit a certain Wikipedia userpage. the other day, and there was an animated banner ad at the top.
Granted, it was a project-oriented one rather than a commercial one. But the fact that it was trying to influence me to join a WikiProject rather than buy a car (The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph) didn't make the ad less distracting.
On the other hand I'm now typing this email using a Google interface. There is a series of links to the right of the page, which I never look at. They never blink, never appear in garish colors. But presumably some people click on such links and there are people who are prepared to pay for those links in the expectation that this will happen.
So all the problems I'm told will come to Wikipedia with advertising are already there, at least on some pages, and yet there exist commercially run websites that carry advertising that does not intrude upon the reading experience.
Advertising should be cautiously considered, I think, as a way of providing Wikipedia with a viable economic model.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, jossi fresco jossif@gmail.com 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?
If this happens at all (and I pray it never does) it should not be in the article content itself; it should be in the sidebar or somewhere that doesn't require us to add the section to articles and require mirrors and forks to clean up after us.
I note that carrying ads would mean we would be profiting from cases of copyright infringement, libel, defamation etc. on our site, which might be detrimental to our ability to easily wriggle out of lawsuits.
-Matt
Also, the foundation's tax status would be impacted.
Anyway, there was enough outcry over the "Virgin" logo in the fundraising banner in the 2006/2007 fundraiser. I don't think advertising be acceptable to a large portion of our community.
-Aude
On 3/10/08, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I note that carrying ads would mean we would be profiting from cases of copyright infringement, libel, defamation etc. on our site, which might be detrimental to our ability to easily wriggle out of lawsuits.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
Also, the foundation's tax status would be impacted.
Probably not - nonprofit refers to not having stockholders or owners who benefit from the business. It does not mean that we can't be in business in some sense... The Red Cross does not offer training materials, classes, and such for free. The National Geographic Society runs ads in their "National Geographic" magazine, and the Smithsonian runs ads in their magazines as well. Museums charge admissions and have gift shops, etc, as well as taking donations.
Our rationale for avoiding ads (conflict of interest with NPOV) doesn't derive from IRS or other charitable nonprofit organization rules, unless there's something lurking in the rules I'm not aware of.
Also, the foundation's tax status would be impacted.
-----Original Message----- From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia
Also, the foundation's tax status would be impacted.
---------
I don't think this is accurate. The Girl Scouts are a non-profit and yet they *sell* cookies. Non-profits can sell goods, including ads. Will Johnson
The IRS considers advertising to be "unrelated business income", with tax imposed on ad revenue. For non-profits, there is also a limit on how much UBI can be out of total annual, receipts/income (I think 15-20%).
As for National Geographic, they have for-profit subsidaries for their television/video/web production and other areas. For their magazine, they make $100 million from advertising (UBI), but $171 million from subscriptions/memberships and other related income sources. I think they have been scrutinized by the IRS for their UBI, but have managed to retain their status.
Exceptions to what non-profits can sell include donated items (e.g. thrift shops, used books, ...) and items related to our mission (e.g. mugs and shirts with Wikimedia logo, but other mugs and shirts would be UBI).
As for Girl Scout cookies, they are sold entirely by volunteers, which is one factor in their favor. Also, the sales take place only once a year, which is a limit for selling items like this. Another restriction is that cookies cannot be sold online. Importantly, the kids also benefit from building character, teamwork, and the learning experience for the kids. These benefits can be argued as an important part of their mission. With a combination of these factors, I'm sure that's how they can maintain their non-profit status.
Recognizing sponsors is okay, such as the Virgin logo. But, again I think there are limits. This would be an area to explore, such as with future fundraisers.
Finally, there are limits to how much revenue we really do need for our mission. We are getting by okay on donations, but I would be okay with a logo in the fundraising banner. That's about it, for what I would want. Otherwise, no ads for me.
-Aude
On 3/10/08, wjhonson@aol.com wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia
Also, the foundation's tax status would be impacted.
I don't think this is accurate. The Girl Scouts are a non-profit and yet they *sell* cookies. Non-profits can sell goods, including ads. Will Johnson
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I note that carrying ads would mean we would be profiting from cases of copyright infringement, libel, defamation etc. on our site, which might be detrimental to our ability to easily wriggle out of lawsuits.
-Matt
I concur with Matt on this. Further, there would be a genuine impact on our NPOV philosophy. I use Gmail with Google ads for this list. It is often stunning what ads get pulled up when we are talking about content in a thread. There is one thread going on right now where the ads coming up are all about pseudosciences. Imagine having the evolution article linked to ads for scientific creationism. Not a pretty sight.
Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I use Gmail with Google ads for this list. It is often stunning what ads get pulled up when we are talking about content in a thread.
Right now there is a link to AdWords as well as a few AdWords optimization services. :)
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:51 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia
I note that carrying ads would mean we would be profiting from cases of copyright infringement, libel, defamation etc. on our site, which might be detrimental to our ability to easily wriggle out of lawsuits.
-Matt
-----------
We actively identify and remove cases of copyright infringement when we find them, or when we are notified. That should be enough.
The front-page copyright cases are those where, even after notification the infringer *did not* or *refused* to comply with a valid copyright-infringement c&d
Will Johnson
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.)
--Jimbo
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
I'm going to take a more unusual view about advertising here - Wikipedia is a reference site, people come here looking for information, and if we link over to relevant (and that's the important thing) adverts from each article, we're actually enhancing the service we offer for other users.
Going for targetted adverts - there's ways to "buffer" what appears alongside an article and the actual adverts by forming the adverts into, say, a popup window, with a link from the side of the article, or some form of Click to see Relevant Adverts type script and so on. Relevant Adverts are available to our readers, but they don't see them unless they want to see them. This, of course, is going to impact on the ability to earn money, but WMF isn't needing every last penny it can lay it's hands on, a modest income is best, it makes the Foundation look like it's interested in covering it's costs and not grabbing every last penny.
The other option is generic adverts, who's particularly bothered if they see an advert for a film, a CD, a mobile phone or a car when they're browsing some non related topic. There's not the same problems with conflict of interest when you're browsing an article on, say, Windows XP, and an advert for a BMW appears.
Just my thoughts though.
No adds. The entire NPOV policy revolves around not presenting any of our biases in our encyclopedic content. That's why users reveal their biases on userpages etc.; so we know what their opinions are, and we know what to be careful of when writing about. Ads, even Google Ads, are not neutral, and as noted above, a reliance on Google Ads would be disastrous when Google decides they want Microsoft to be defamed on the world's #1 online reference work.
Too many risks, not enough gain. When the Foundation is down on its knees and (literally) begging for donations, then we can look at it.
John Vandenberg wrote:
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.
I don't hink it's right to say that NPOV doesn't apply to Wikisource. It's more that Wikisource lacks significant situations where NPOV is a factor. The lack of policy reflects that. Pre-existing texts, the meat of Wikisource, say what they say. Theoretically NPOV could apply to Author pages, but even there we tend to limit ourselves to a few bare facts and lists of works. NPOV could apply to annotations, but few people have been interested in producing these.
Ec
On 10/03/2008, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
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.
On the theme of interesting approaches to the advertising question, a few people have written to OTRS about it - I rather liked one of them, and asked if I could pass it on:
"...a model where you only have enough advertising to cover costs, and that advertising for the day, week, year etc would cease once you had raised the required amount. Another idea would be to target ads based on IP addresses, so that those in wealthy countries (who can afford the extra bandwidth required for the ads) would pay for those in poor countries to use the encyclopedia." - Dylan [ticket 2008031110019056]
Either of these would be interesting adjuncts to a pure-advertising model.
On 10/03/2008, jossi fresco jossif@gmail.com 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?
I've never understood why Wikipedia Foundation chooses to do without the huge advertising revenue it could generate from the content. It could easily run a non-advertising website in parallel for the couple of hundred purists who want an ad-free content server. Sooner or later, the Foundation will bit the bullet and do what needs to be done, or it will simply go under.