For example, I assume it is not the case that
the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
It is a good question.
Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to add advertisements :-)
But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to introduce ads. Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
"Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical perspective.
I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to this.
Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is quite significantly below what we will need this year. And in front of such a situation, we probably have three paths (other paths exist, but require investments, additional human resources or will take too much time).
Path 1 is diet. As in "serious diet". Diet will mean that the websites which have been working very smoothly for the past 18 months or so, will not work so well. Sluggish, perhaps even down sometimes. A sluggish site will automatically lose audience, which will lighten the pressure. Diet will also mean losing some staff. I am not quite sure which one we can really afford losing right now.
Path 2 is business deals. Such as advertisements. If ads on articles is too controversial, perhaps a consensus position will be to put ads on the search pages.
Path 3 is relying on big donors. But big donors have a serious drawback, which is called "loss of independence". There is no mystery, when a donor give you 25% of your annual revenue, it is quite expected that they will try to influence you. Perhaps will it be light, or perhaps will it be much heavier. Perhaps big thank yous on the website, perhaps pushing so that the board accepts as its treasurer someone of big donnor staff, perhaps asking for exclusive use of our trademarks, perhaps asking that "annoying" board members be removed from the board, perhaps suggesting certain partnerships rather than others. Loss of independance would be a terrible thing to happen. Much more dangerous than advertisement actually, because it may not be reversible at all.
I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore. As for the good old regular transparency, I wish there was more willingness to provide it.
Ant
The problem is the slippery slope one. It is assumed that if there is advertising we would go whole hog. A limited program could raise enough money, but not overdo it. For example, the Foundation could accept advertising from selected non-profits and charities.
Fred