On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 09:55 PM, Delirium wrote:
Just an idea to see what people's views on it
would be: I know many
people are opposed to ads on Wikipedia, but would those of you opposed
to ads in general be more receptive to sponsored bandwidth and/or
hardware? For example, a box somewhere that says "bandwidth kindly
donated by [donating company]". Yeah, it's an ad of sorts, but it's a
little more neutral and matter-of-fact than most ads: it's simply
informing people that the bandwidth of the site they're viewing is
being provided free of charge by someone. More like the "powered by
Apache" logos at the bottom of some sites than like a typical ad, I
think.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I've been reading the list for a few days and I've been hanging out in
the irc channel for a while (handles: seanchil, flamingantichimp). I
don't know if this makes my opinion worth more or less, but I feel
strongly about this, so I want to let my opinion be known. I'm sorry
if I'm making enemies here but I hold no grudge against anyone on this
issue, no matter the opinion.
I think a lot of people support this project, at least partly, because
of the ideals it contains. It's something free, done by the community,
upheld by the community and knowledge-driven. I think the server
trouble and fundraising emphasizes the second point: upheld by the
community.
An Ad-free status gives the authors and wikipedia more power. Maybe
nothing would change within the first week, maybe not within the first
month, maybe not within in the first year, but is that what this
project is about? We need to be planning for the future, just like we
are in the purchase of the new equipment. I don't know if the
wikipedia will be around when I'm 40 but this is a project that is
growing and growing, so who knows?
How might selling ads remove power from authors? Let's say ford
decided to purchase an ad on the wikipedia. Now they may have vested
interest in making their ford entry more opinionated. Does anyone
remember the nasty issue of tires and Ford Explorers a few years back
(also; correct me where my facts are wrong, but keep in mind this is
just a random example)? When an article is created about that recall,
maybe Ford will ask the article to be removed. Of course, we can say
now that we will promise tell them to buzz off and remove their ads if
they persisted, and I'm sure we probably would. Still, we might become
depended upon the income, and, honestly, what is one article in
comparison to
a few thousand a month in revenue?
Here's another example: on ESPN there was a show called "Playmakers".
"Playmakers" was design to show the 'real' side of football, it made
some very obvious allusions to the NFL and drew both praise from T.V.
critics and sports fans as well as criticism from the NFL. The show's
ratings were more then high enough to warrant more seasons. But ESPN
(and more so, ESPN's parent company, ABC) has a contract with the NFL
to show games. It is being rumored that there won't be a second season
because the NFL doesn't want it.
I think the best point, though, in favor of not adopting
advertisements, is Why? If there comes a point in time in which we
need this money, and donations and the community can no longer uphold
us, then we resort to ads. No sooner.
Thanks for those who read it all; just my two cents.
~seanchilders
Shut down inhuman boot camps for kids:
http://www.petitiononline.com/130662/
(House: iMac DV 400mhz 384 MB (Mac OSX), Titanium Powerbook 800 MHZ
(Mac OS X), Titanium Powerbook 500MHZ (Mac OS 9), IBM PL 300 (Linux:
Redhat 9), Powermac 9500 (Debian), Powermac 6100 (Mac OS 8.5)