Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 02:09:36PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
Maybe, maybe not - a site that wants to drive traffic will have an incentive to keep the pics out, and readers unaware of all this will just go to the site directly, blow off WP.
When did the aim of Wikipedia changed from producing free, neutral and high quality content to getting as much traffic as possible to certain website ?
I'm not sure what you're saying, but "free, neutral and high quality content" is kind of pointless if it has no actual readers. I don't know about other editors, but I'm not doing this to entertain myself (there are easier ways to do that with one's fingers, if you know what I mean. :-) ). In addition to being an efficient way of conveying information, images are well-known to be an important part of attracting and keeping readers.
We're already in competition with other online sources, and how well we're competing governs both readership and the number of editors we can attract. For instance, when I add stuff to WP, I'm always looking for opportunities to add material that is available nowhere else online (only in print previously, say), because that's something that makes WP a must-visit for information-seekers. Images are part of that competition too, and we should be reluctant to handicap ourselves in the race, particularly when no actual threats have materialized (has there been even one outside demand to remove an image?)
Stan