David Gerard wrote:
On 31/12/06, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising or not? I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't. Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention or patronage." I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that definition. Whoopdedoo, who cares?
Apparently, you do.
I think it's clear that even if someone can mathematically prove that "sponsorship" is technically not identical to "advertising", it looks, walks and quacks enough like it to risk similar objectionableness.
Arguing the definition of the word "advertising" is missing the point of the objection.
That's not what I'm saying. There's a distinction between 1) whether the site notices constitute advertising and 2) whether the foundation should run advertisements.
My positions: 1) The site notices are not advertising because the donors do not control their representation. 2) I don't think the technical status of "advertisement" matters. All that matters is how much income the foundation receives versus how the action affects Wikipedia and other project's effectiveness and perception.
Just because I'm expressing an opinion on #1 doesn't mean I think #2 hinges on it.
David