On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen the banner and am not taking a position on it but some of your "objections to the objections" seem rather odd.
- You say "it's for users who are logged in, not all readers". I am
not going to take this to mean that you feel advertising McDonalds would be fine if it were a) only to logged in users and/or b) only displayed to some users. But it is possible to read it that way.
- You say "users actually get money out of it" and, again, I will not
take this as you saying that McDonalds could place ads on Wikipedia if they a) allowed users to click through activating a donation to Wikipedia and/or b) were given a small sum of money if they clicked on it... but, again, you rather leave yourself open to these interpretations.
So, if you'd like to fight for the right for the banner to appear, fine. But the way you're positioning yourself on the issue seems rather flakey.
I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms, while even those who object to this banner have not rationally presented any possible harm that could result.
For what it's worth, Beria Lima (as a meta administrator) switched the banner off unilaterally.
Nathan