Anthony wrote:
On 4/22/07, Florence Devouard
<Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Two comments
The first is that in my opinion, refusing ads is not simply an ethical
position. My problem with ads is that when they are "google ads" type,
they decreases if not negate the neutrality of an article. An example I
always use is the article on tires. If we put an ads of Michelin on the
tire article, then we can not claim it is neutral anymore (Michelin is
from my city).
Whether it is on a .org or a .com will not change that.
I might at best consider ads on the search pages, though not happily.
But ads on the articles themselves is really something I am not supporting.
If this is done, the .com site should be run independently. A
separate corporation, with a separate board, a separate set of books,
a separate staff, etc. The .com site would have no more power than
Answers.com to affect content.
Some sort of separation would almost certainly be legally necessary
anyway, because selling ads is a commercial activity not really related
to the charitable purpose of the Foundation, and so if any significant
amount of money came from it it'd be problematic. A for-profit and
tax-paying but wholly owned subsidiary could be set up to handle that,
much like the Mozilla Foundation, a charity, owns the Mozilla
Corporation, a for-profit company.
That's separate from whether it's a good idea, though. I would side
against it.
-Mark