Hi
I decided to donate advertising space to various charities and open-source projects, and I recently contacted www.adcouncil.org about running public service advertisements on my website, http://www.wikinerds.org . So, I thought whether you would be interested to donate advertising space for their ads (or of any other similar agency - do you know any?) in Wikipedia. AdCouncil's campaigns include ads about the tsunami, smoking, education, discrimination, etc. Have you discussed about this possibility? I think it would benefit many people.
Some campaigns you may be interested in:
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com http://www.eff.org/br http://thankpoland.info/
I know in the past you were negative towards software patent banners, or even Firefox buttons, but I think you should reconsider. I am sure the majority of Wikipedians would support these campaigns.
By running public service ads you can remain totally non-commercial and help your readers get informed about various issues.
In addition, I am accepting banners and image buttons for linking to your own project, if you have started anything interesting about science or open-source software. So, if any Wikipedian wants to be linked from my site, just send me your site address and 88x31 button and I will consider it. Of course, Wikipedians who would like to promote science and the nerd community can link back to my site if they want using images from http://portal.wikinerds.org/banners
Allowing such public service ads is a lapse of NPOV policy.
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
We have already discussed adding a site notice of "Thank you Poland!", I can't see how this would be any different.
Mark
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:45:46 +0200, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
Hi
I decided to donate advertising space to various charities and open-source projects, and I recently contacted www.adcouncil.org about running public service advertisements on my website, http://www.wikinerds.org . So, I thought whether you would be interested to donate advertising space for their ads (or of any other similar agency - do you know any?) in Wikipedia. AdCouncil's campaigns include ads about the tsunami, smoking, education, discrimination, etc. Have you discussed about this possibility? I think it would benefit many people.
Some campaigns you may be interested in:
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com http://www.eff.org/br http://thankpoland.info/
I know in the past you were negative towards software patent banners, or even Firefox buttons, but I think you should reconsider. I am sure the majority of Wikipedians would support these campaigns.
By running public service ads you can remain totally non-commercial and help your readers get informed about various issues.
In addition, I am accepting banners and image buttons for linking to your own project, if you have started anything interesting about science or open-source software. So, if any Wikipedian wants to be linked from my site, just send me your site address and 88x31 button and I will consider it. Of course, Wikipedians who would like to promote science and the nerd community can link back to my site if they want using images from http://portal.wikinerds.org/banners
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
Allowing such public service ads is a lapse of NPOV policy.
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
We have already discussed adding a site notice of "Thank you Poland!", I can't see how this would be any different.
Mark
That was exactly my thought. AdCouncil advertisements are very, very biased in many cases, and even misrepresent facts to support an agenda from time to time. I'm not sure that's a good idea for Wikipedia.
-- Chad
On Friday 11 February 2005 05:05, Chad Perrin wrote:
That was exactly my thought. AdCouncil advertisements are very, very biased in many cases, and even misrepresent facts to support an agenda from time to time. I'm not sure that's a good idea for Wikipedia.
Personally I don't know much about AdCouncil, I found it just some days before, but I noticed some ads are very US-centric. However, as long as you can choose which campaigns to show, this isn't a problem.
If you know any facts about AdCouncil biases, please send me an e-mail, just to know.
NSK wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 05:05, Chad Perrin wrote:
Personally I don't know much about AdCouncil, I found it just some days before, but I noticed some ads are very US-centric. However, as long as you can choose which campaigns to show, this isn't a problem.
If you know any facts about AdCouncil biases, please send me an e-mail, just to know.
I wouldn't have a big problem with these ads as long as we link to a NPOV wikipedia article about them in the ads that also includes discussion of thier bias :) .
On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
This suggests that we are anti-smoking, pro-education, anti-discrimination, etc.
We are here to document stuff, not take a stand on it.
Mark
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:45:19 +0200, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org/
No offense, but I actually agree with node on this. The Foundation is and should remain neutral on all issues (to the best of its ability). Ads, and more importantly, choosing them, is a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened up.
--Slowking Man
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:43:57 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This suggests that we are anti-smoking, pro-education, anti-discrimination, etc.
We are here to document stuff, not take a stand on it.
Mark
NSK stated for the record:
On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
What makes you think we agree with anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination slogans? The only slogan we support is "Free the Encyclopedia!"
Not nessecarily even that.
We are a free encyclopedia, yes, but wouldn't it be POV to support such a slogan?
Mark
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:28:26 -0800, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
NSK stated for the record:
On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
What makes you think we agree with anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination slogans? The only slogan we support is "Free the Encyclopedia!"
-- Sean Barrett | There is no snooze button on sean@epoptic.com | a cat who wants breakfast. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Friday 11 February 2005 20:21, Mark Williamson wrote:
We are a free encyclopedia, yes, but wouldn't it be POV to support such a slogan?
Oh yes, it certainly would be POV: Users still need to pay for Internet connection costs to read Wikipedia! As long as you don't pay for your readers' connections you cannot claim to be a truly free encyclopedia.
NPOV extremism at its best! ;-)
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:53:55 +0200, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 20:21, Mark Williamson wrote:
We are a free encyclopedia, yes, but wouldn't it be POV to support such a slogan?
Oh yes, it certainly would be POV: Users still need to pay for Internet connection costs to read Wikipedia! As long as you don't pay for your readers' connections you cannot claim to be a truly free encyclopedia.
NPOV extremism at its best! ;-)
Or your misunderstanding of what is meant with 'free' at its best, it's free as in freedom not free as in price (though it just happens to be as a side-effect.).
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
NSK wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
Even in this "safe" group there could be difficulties. Surely, there must be some smokers in the membership. Others may have problems with the role of commercial enterprises in education. The gay marriage issue has two sides that look at discrimination in very different issues.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
NSK wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
Even in this "safe" group there could be difficulties. Surely, there must be some smokers in the membership. Others may have problems with the role of commercial enterprises in education. The gay marriage issue has two sides that look at discrimination in very different issues.
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.
--- 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.
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.
-- mav (just talking for himself - as always unless stated otherwise)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
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
Chad Perrin said:
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?
They're ads. By definition they don't reflect the views and opinions of Wikimedia Foundation. This should be taken into account during negotiation, but if the content isn't affected I don't think it's any concern of mine, particularly since I always block all ads.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Chad Perrin said:
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?
They're ads. By definition they don't reflect the views and opinions of Wikimedia Foundation. This should be taken into account during negotiation, but if the content isn't affected I don't think it's any concern of mine, particularly since I always block all ads.
Fair enough. The question, then, becomes one of whether the risk of perception of bias on the part of Wikipedia is a valid barrier to acceptance of advertising revenue.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin said:
Fair enough. The question, then, becomes one of whether the risk of perception of bias on the part of Wikipedia is a valid barrier to acceptance of advertising revenue.
Yes. I really think that's a decision the Foundation should take. If and when they come to it.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050214 09:16]:
Chad Perrin said:
Fair enough. The question, then, becomes one of whether the risk of perception of bias on the part of Wikipedia is a valid barrier to acceptance of advertising revenue.
Yes. I really think that's a decision the Foundation should take. If and when they come to it.
Advertising on wikipedia tends to be treated as one of the Worst Ideas Ever because when it was first even *mooted*, the Spanish wikipedia promptly forked. Producing the Enciclopedia Libre and taking a large chunk of the userbase with it. A truly pointless fork, because it's got pretty much the same goals.
So the question would be whether it would risk a similar effect.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Advertising on wikipedia tends to be treated as one of the Worst Ideas Ever because when it was first even *mooted*, the Spanish wikipedia promptly forked. Producing the Enciclopedia Libre and taking a large chunk of the userbase with it. A truly pointless fork, because it's got pretty much the same goals.
So the question would be whether it would risk a similar effect.
Interesting. I wasn't familiar with the details of that particular bit of Wikipedia history.
In that case, I'd say that AdCouncil ads on Wikipedia would be an EXCEEDINGLY BAD IDEA at this time.
-- Chad
David Gerard said:
Advertising on wikipedia tends to be treated as one of the Worst Ideas Ever because when it was first even *mooted*, the Spanish wikipedia promptly forked. Producing the Enciclopedia Libre and taking a large chunk of the userbase with it. A truly pointless fork, because it's got pretty much the same goals.
So the question would be whether it would risk a similar effect.
No. Next question. :)
That's very pompous of you, Daniel.
If I recall correctly, when a similar advertising debate occurred some time back, there was a major fork (monolingual) which now houses a substantial number of articles and users, and although that debate passed is still separate and competes for attention and visits with the corresponding Wikipedia.
To assume that forks will not attract any people is very naïve. We should always tread carefully, and try not to move into any territory that is liable to get many people up in arms and wanting to fork (ie, adding ads).
Mark
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:45:43 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com 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.
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.
-- mav (just talking for himself - as always unless stated otherwise)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's very pompous of you, Daniel.
Ah, starting off with an insult.
If I recall correctly, when a similar advertising debate occurred some time back, there was a major fork (monolingual) which now houses a substantial number of articles and users, and although that debate passed is still separate and competes for attention and visits with the corresponding Wikipedia.
I'm very aware of the Spanish Wikipedia fork - I was here when it happened and I led an unsuccessful attempt to remerge the projects some months later. That fork hampered the development of the Spanish Wikipedia for some time, but now the tide has turned and the Spanish Wikipedia is growing very fast with over 40,000 articles and Enciclopedia Libre is growing slowly with just over 27,000 articles.
This combined with the existence of other much less-successful wiki forks, gives us our only data on the subject. On top of that is the huge momentum behind the Wikipedia brand and the fact that it is very, very popular. This kind of popularity requires a lot of money to keep things running, thus making forks even less likely to be successful.
That said, we do need to make sure we keep people reasonably happy about the way things are run. Doing that will go a long way toward making forks less likely. But they will always be possible due to the terms of our license and the fact that we cannot possibly accommodate everybody's views on how things should be run.
To assume that forks will not attract any people is very na�ve. We should always tread carefully, and try not to move into any territory that is liable to get many people up in arms and wanting to fork (ie, adding ads).
See above and re-read my previous message. Especially note its overall message that there is no need for ads in the foreseeable future.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
This combined with the existence of other much less-successful wiki forks, gives us our only data on the subject. On top of that is the huge momentum behind the Wikipedia brand and the fact that it is very, very popular. This kind of popularity requires a lot of money to keep things running, thus making forks even less likely to be successful.
I think this is likely true as far as a broad encyclopedia goes, although I do think we need to develop some sort of review system at some point, because forks of reviewed/edited subsets of Wikipedia are still very much possible. For example, a group of [X field] academics inspired by Larry Sanger type sentiment might well fork the articles in that field and create a specialty-topic encyclopedia that would compete with us on that subject. (The branding would be about neutral---Wikipedia's bigger brand would probably be a wash with a group of academics' stronger credentials in that particular field.) We're already competing with a few of these that predate us; the online/gratis Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, is probably still a more well-regarded philosophy reference than Wikipedia.
(We do seem to have blown everyone away in mathematics though, thanks in large part to a handful of very good and very prolific Wikipedian mathematicians.)
-Mark
On Feb 14, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Delirium wrote:
(We do seem to have blown everyone away in mathematics though, thanks in large part to a handful of very good and very prolific Wikipedian mathematicians.)
-Mark
That and the meltdown of another similar math project.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
NSK wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that Wikipedia supports these groups.
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
Even in this "safe" group there could be difficulties. Surely, there must be some smokers in the membership. Others may have problems with the role of commercial enterprises in education. The gay marriage issue has two sides that look at discrimination in very different issues.
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.
This kind of "my way or the highway" attitude misses the point entirely. If these kinds of ads were shown as the necessary and best alternative they would no doubt have wide support. The issue is not about the Foundation's right to do what it pleases. It's about being sensitive to the opinions of a broad range of committed contributors. Your recognition of the right to free speech equates to telling people to go to the Speakers' Corner of Hyde Park where nobody will listen to them. People stay when their opinions are respected, and not ignored. Respecting an opinion does not imply that it must be adopted as policy.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
This kind of "my way or the highway" attitude
...is, I think, a sign that I didn't make my thoughts clear. I think it's the Foundation's job to consider this, not ours. But by "optimal" I mean just that. I don't mean "likely to net the greatest amount of money." The Foundation must weigh in the balance, amongst other things, its greatest asset: the editors. But there will always be some editors who will reject any advertising. Those people will still have access to their material.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
NSK wrote:
There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination ads, too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
Even in this "safe" group there could be difficulties. Surely, there must be some smokers in the membership. Others may have problems with the role of commercial enterprises in education. The gay marriage issue has two sides that look at discrimination in very different issues.
Still others might have problems with the role of government in education, or even simply the absence of commercial enterprises in education. Many issues are much stickier than most people realize.
-- Chad
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org