Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com writes:
Yawn - ideologues and zealots bore me.
I should have stopped working on WP articles much earlier (as soon as I discovered the ISBN links to the external booksellers). My mistake was to accept the page which lists external booksellers, a page which isn't editable by users.
Now, I've learned my lesson :)
On Jan 19, 2004, at 22:00, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
I should have stopped working on WP articles much earlier (as soon as I discovered the ISBN links to the external booksellers). My mistake was to accept the page which lists external booksellers, a page which isn't editable by users.
Er, that page *is* editable by users:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
Er, that page *is* editable by users:
Sorry, I checked this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Booksources - concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources you are right.
Anyway, I don't want to see the WP project called a "partner" or an "associate" of the said company.
On Jan 19, 2004, at 22:44, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
Er, that page *is* editable by users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources
Sorry, I checked this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Booksources - concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources you are right.
Special:Booksources when given an ISBN (that is, what you get when you click an ISBN link) takes Wikipedia:Book_sources and slips in the ISBN number.
Going to [[Special:Booksources]] raw hasn't got around to that because we forgot you could do that. :) That's a bug.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
Going to [[Special:Booksources]] raw hasn't got around to that because we forgot you could do that. :) That's a bug.
If you say it's a bug then that's the probably the truth. Let's see what will happen and where our way will cross again.
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
I should have stopped working on WP articles much earlier (as soon as I discovered the ISBN links to the external booksellers).
Yes, because the very act of selling books is sufficiently evil that you should disassociate yourself with anyone even remotely tainted by it. As soon as you discovered that Wikipedia actually links to people who engage in such nasty business, you should have denounced us and left immediately.
Is that really what you're saying?
Look, I appreciate that there are many very real concerns that can and should be raised here. But to storm off in response to a short term test designed to give us information is insulting to our intelligence.
As for me, I fully expect that the net result of the experiment will be to prove, once and for all, that Amazon links would provide us with very little revenue so that it's not worth discussing this any more.
That's what the test is designed to show. Your acting like it's some kind of crime against humanity is not helpful.
It occurs to me that the current state of affairs -- linking to Amazon, but doing so for free -- ought to be the *least* satisfactory to those who hate Amazon. They get the business, and they get to keep all the money. Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link, will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the status quo.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link, will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the status quo.
They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase their income - one way or the other.
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link, will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the status quo.
They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase their income - one way or the other.
It does - on average, because many "associates" will make exclusive or prominent links to Amazon. We don't.
Magnus
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:08:39AM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link, will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the status quo.
They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase their income - one way or the other.
It does - on average, because many "associates" will make exclusive or prominent links to Amazon. We don't.
I believe the most important thing is to note: Karl does not want to be convnced. Let's honour his beliefs and stop convincing him.
Then, it is obvious why anyone wants to have paid referrers: while you lose some percent of the sales, you gain new customers, which is more income.
Moreover it is obvious (at least for me) that if someone links to a seller and does not get paid then the above stands: the seller get new customers which is more income, but it does not have to pay anything for it, so the income is even larger.
Apart from not liking amazon (and I don't like 'em) it is better to get parts of their income from them than not. We should link as much as ISBN-capable sellers as possible since people would like to have those books, and that's what the sellers are for. And since we don't like the sellers at all we should get as much of their bloody money as possible. ;->
HHOK
grin
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link, will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the status quo.
They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase their income - one way or the other.
That's right. The offer the associates program in order to induce people to link to them. They would prefer, of course, that people link to them for free. For a site is going to link to them for free, they are surely worse of if that site links to them for money instead.
We certainly are bringing Amazon no *additional* benefit by linking to them with an associates code.
It seems to me that for Amazon haters, the following ranking makes the most sense...
1. Don't link to them at all. BEST
2. Link to them, but make them pay. 2nd BEST
3. Link to them for free. WORST by FAR
--Jimbo
Hello,
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It seems to me that for Amazon haters, the following ranking makes the most sense...
Don't link to them at all. BEST
Link to them, but make them pay. 2nd BEST
Link to them for free. WORST by FAR
4. Link to them, make them pay, add a link to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html and let the informed reader decide for himself. ???
see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Buchhandlungen
greetings, elian
Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de writes:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It seems to me that for Amazon haters, the following ranking makes the most sense...
- Don't link to them at all. BEST
- Link to them, but make them pay. 2nd BEST
- Link to them for free. WORST by FAR
No, "2." is the worst. This way not only people get the impression it's obiously okay to buy at A.'s (if WP links to them nothing can be wrong with A.), but also some readers will intentionally buy there believing that's a good way to support the WP project.
- Link to them, make them pay, add a link to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html and let the informed reader decide for himself. ???
Adding such a link could be a way out of the mess.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 06:16:47AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
It seems to me that for Amazon haters, the following ranking makes the most sense...
Don't link to them at all. BEST
Link to them, but make them pay. 2nd BEST
Link to them for free. WORST by FAR
Accepting money from someone isn't a neutral act. Money does stink and 2 is the worst one.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net writes:
Accepting money from someone isn't a neutral act.
Who gives a monkeys? The point of view of the Encyclopedia has to be neutral, everything else is negotiable. If we let amazon make editorial policy, thats stupid, otherwise lets try and show Jimbo some latitude as he throws increasingly large amounts of *his* *own* *money* at wikipedia (which you seem happy to accept).
Money does stink
Now who's being non-neutral. Does money spent on AIDS research stink? Does BOMIS spent on wikipedia servers stink too? Which stinks worse?
Idiocies like this make me embarassed to be a liberal.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:41:16PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net writes:
Accepting money from someone isn't a neutral act. Money does stink
Now who's being non-neutral. Does money spent on AIDS research stink? Does BOMIS spent on wikipedia servers stink too? Which stinks worse?
I'm not saying that all money stinks, I'm saying that I do not accept the radical "pecunia non olet" philosophy that accepting money no matter from what source is fine.
The funny thing is that Jimbo doesn't seem to accept it either, he just seems to have different idea of which sources are fine and which aren't, by thinking that Amazon is fine, while the governments aren't.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org