2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller <wegge(a)wegge.dk>dk>:
geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> writes:
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller
<wegge(a)wegge.dk>dk>:
> Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
> opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
> this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your
> assesment. And since you haven't mentioned it by now, I will not
> accept any delayed claims to the opposite.
This only works if you are seriously trying to
suggest that there
are people who feel that large banners add to the wikipedia
experience.
I think that the large majority who doesn't feel the need to whine
about them accepts them as a nescesary thing to fund WM.
Most people come to wikipedia to read articles.
Generally having
font-size: 33 banners between the top of the page and the article is
not a good way to facilitate this.
Having no banners and no servers to serve the artuicles are even
worse. Having payed the dangeld to get rid of them, I think most are
happy being acknowledged for the fact.
You miss the point. The banners are not fundraising any more (unless
you collapse them)
I don't agree on that point. Having extorted 6+
million $ out of the
readers with a Jesus headline, and then switching the thank you note
to leagal flyspeck, would send the wrong signal. If we NEED Joe Bloggs
meney, we'd better THANK him in the same way. Otherwise he may
OVERLOOK the plea next time it comes around.
Any evidence for those claims? And how about thanking him by not
degrading his wikipedia experience?
--
geni