Tim Starling wrote:
The
Answers.com deal, on the other hand, is just a
recipe for offence.
The benefit is unknown and will probably be small. The Board has agreed
to it in secret, apparently to repay favours such as the Wikimania
sponsorship. They've given a single organisation preferential treatment,
which brings their motives into question: are they doing this to help
Wikipedia or Answers.com?
"apparently to repay favours such as the Wikimania sponsorship" -
absolutely false.
"a single organization preferential treatment" - absolutely false.
I'm so shocked by these remarks, that I'm going to do something fairly
rare for me and ask for a public apology.
That's why I join the chorus of editors in asking
the Board to withdraw
from this deal. If we are going to have advertising, it needs to be done
with extreme sensitivity to the sensibilities of the community. Claiming
that it's not advertising most certainly doesn't help -- even if the
Board believes that line, the community certainly doesn't.
Then as a longstanding member of the community with a good reputation, I
ask for your help in explaining to them how it is *not* advertising. In
order to do that, you'll have to stop spinning wild accusations first
and ask some basic questions about the deal until you understand it.
--Jimbo