Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Wikipedia material is GFDL. Wikimedia Foundation can and should employ whatever fundraising methods it thinks are optimal. Anybody who doesn't like the methods still gets to use the product on their own fork. Free as in speech.
What if those ads contain bias toward strict intellectual property rights to the exclusion of such efforts as those behind the GFDL? If something is, by underlying assumption, opposed in principle to "free and open content", that might change the tenor of the issue in the minds of some people. Taking that recognition of the minefield of bias involved back to previously passed-over issues might then shed new light on the subject.
I'm not specifically arguing against AdCouncil ads on the site, mind you. I simply believe that the clear biases of AdCouncil ads shuld be recognized and viewed with attention to detail and concern, and all ramifications of allowing advertising bias should be considered before any such decisions are made.
This is not going to be an issue so long as donations of both money and hosting keep us running. So far this has been the case - it just looks like we will have to pay more attention to grants and hosting offers in the future than we have been.
In fact one of the most remarkable things about Wikipedia and her sister projects is the fact that they *fully* exist due to the good will and generosity of the people who use them and the people who just admire them.
But yes - the choice between Wikipedia with ads and no Wikipedia is a no-brainer for everybody except for the most ardent anti-capitalistic zealots. Making that choice, however, does not at all seem to be something we need worry about in the foreseeable future.
I agree, personally speaking, that the "no Wikipedia" option is to be avoided, and that having ads with no strings attached would be preferable (though I'd be more inclined to go with unobtrusive text-based Google ads, whose only biases are "They pay us money!").
This is certainly not a particularly useful quibble, for this discussion, but I feel it's worth mentioning: There are ardent pro-capitalistic "zealots" who would also oppose advertising on a project like Wikipedia, possibly to the point where the choice might be made to drop Wikipedia entirely. Capitalism, itself, isn't merely about making profit. It's about a complex, socially supported system of economics wherein money ("capital") is used as a convenient method of facilitating trade (and cooperation). In some respects, a donations-only project that produces freely available output is a perfect representation of capitalistic process: it proves that the value of a thing can ensure its survival without resorting to any confiscatory measures.
In any case, I'll let things get back to the on-topic now, I suppose.
-- Chad