No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying that the Foundation is in grave financial danger. Obviously the use of what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives available on our own projects is not ideal. The ads themselves are also as ugly as hell, although I'm sure there's some A/B testing that shows that such monstrosities extract slightly more cash from the readers that will be used to justify that.
Cheers, Craig
On 3 December 2015 at 10:01, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia
Foundation
has not yet sunk to that yet.
[[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
ideas!
Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the
size)
of the ads so far this year.
You approve of WMF using stock photos?
-- John