What if the Foundation created a skin that users could opt into and tagged it with adsense? That would actually be a acceptable compromise.
----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:57:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia
As long as user Foo is the one collecting the ad revenue, and user Bar is using user Foo's script and user Bar is not engaging in click fraud I don't see the problem. Plus, there are lots of advertisers besides Google. I'm sure there is a completely legitimate way to do it.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
<snip>
However, if someone wants to set up such an opt-in scheme (e.g.,
importScript('User:Foo/show_me_adverts.js')) and then donate the money earned to the Foundation, I don't think you need anyone's permission.
If you are using a script to add ads to your own Wikipedia skin, and then clicking on those ads yourself, you would be violating the terms of service of systems like Google Adsense.
To avoid fraud, one of the underlying requirements of all online advertising systems is that the person or entity placing ads on a website must be different from the person clicking on the ads.
-Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
There is no acceptable compromise on advertising. As I dont need to make a living at this, I'd rather do my unpaid work for a truly free encyclopedia. Fortunately, there's Citizendium. True, they are currently much weaker financially that Wikipedia, but if Wikipedia become financed by adsense, then those able to contribute financially will naturally prefer a project that actually needs them.
As a librarian, I can say that the freedom from advertising is a major reason why an educational institution would tell people that there is some reason to trust wikipedia to be impartial, if not necessarily perfectly accurate.
As for other projects than enWP, I don't work on them. It will be a shame if they degenerate, but that's not my lookout in the same way as what i actually work for. If the foundation wants to depart from its principles with them, my only involvement with it need be to vote for trustees who feel as I do and will be ready to reverse such a decision.
I don't think I'm unique about feeling this way.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
What if the Foundation created a skin that users could opt into and tagged it with adsense? That would actually be a acceptable compromise.
----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:57:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia
As long as user Foo is the one collecting the ad revenue, and user Bar is using user Foo's script and user Bar is not engaging in click fraud I don't see the problem. Plus, there are lots of advertisers besides Google. I'm sure there is a completely legitimate way to do it.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
<snip>
However, if someone wants to set up such an opt-in scheme (e.g.,
importScript('User:Foo/show_me_adverts.js')) and then donate the money earned to the Foundation, I don't think you need anyone's permission.
If you are using a script to add ads to your own Wikipedia skin, and then clicking on those ads yourself, you would be violating the terms of service of systems like Google Adsense.
To avoid fraud, one of the underlying requirements of all online advertising systems is that the person or entity placing ads on a website must be different from the person clicking on the ads.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:47 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
There is no acceptable compromise on advertising. [...]
As a librarian, I can say that the freedom from advertising is a major
reason why an educational institution would tell people that there is some reason to trust wikipedia to be impartial, if not necessarily perfectly accurate. [...]
Your impassioned reply to my dispassionate discussion of adverts is stripped of the context of my original e-mail on the subject. As I said earlier I am against displaying them. I would not like to be construed as Mr. Ad Guy, just the guy who was willing to discuss them with a cool head, thanks.
That aside, I'd like to see an example of an educational institution that recommends their students visit Wikipedia because it is an impartial source of information. A handful would really demonstrate the point.
Cheers, Brian
Sorry about that-- , I was not just replying to you but to all of those who had spoken in favor of resorting to advertising. I agree that you were trying to find a way which would be a little harmful as possible. I apologize if I sounded otherwise.
We dont recommend WP just because its free from advertisements, but freedom from advertising is certainly one of the reasons we use it listing and recommending sources, and one of the positive features of WP--along with the negative ones, one of which I mentioned. .
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:47 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
There is no acceptable compromise on advertising. [...]
As a librarian, I can say that the freedom from advertising is a major
reason why an educational institution would tell people that there is some reason to trust wikipedia to be impartial, if not necessarily perfectly accurate. [...]
Your impassioned reply to my dispassionate discussion of adverts is stripped of the context of my original e-mail on the subject. As I said earlier I am against displaying them. I would not like to be construed as Mr. Ad Guy, just the guy who was willing to discuss them with a cool head, thanks.
That aside, I'd like to see an example of an educational institution that recommends their students visit Wikipedia because it is an impartial source of information. A handful would really demonstrate the point.
Cheers, Brian
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org