[Foundation-l] Answers.com stuff

[Poe, Marshall]

Danny wrote:

"We don't want ad sense or Google ads."

Gosh, I don't know why we wouldn't *try* such a program.  The benefits
seem huge, the pitfalls few, and if we don't like it we could just cut
it off after the trial period (we'd vote!).  A test would scale up
nicely: first you allow the ads on the front page,  then if that worked
alright some other pages, and if that looked good, you'd open up more.
Moreover, since we're big and have leverage, we could limit the *kinds*
of ads AdSense placed to those consistent with our goals (e.g., no porn,
no x, no y, no z--damned if I know). Another idea: we could use AdSense
in focused, time-limited "campaigns," like a pledge drive on NPR.  We
assess our needs, state a fund raising goal, tell AdSense to serve the
ads until the goal is reached.  After that, the ads come down until we
need more money. I imagine that just the prospect of long AdSense
"campaigns" would drive contributions from users.  "You tired of those
ads? We are too. So donate to Wikipedia and shorten the campaign." 

Best, MP


Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW 
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe at theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
daniwo59 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 5:53 PM
To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] Answers.com stuff

Well, since the list is being overrun by people's comments on the
Answers.com agreement, I may as well dive in with some thoughts of my
own. I think I am pretty qualified to speak-after all, I actually saw
the agreement, which is more than I can say for many of the people
commenting on it.

But first, I want to tell you a little story about my former place of
employment, a museum in Manhattan. Said Museum is now $17 million
dollars in debt. It has used up its emergency fund. It has been forced
to let people go (I was not let go, and was immediately replaced, but a
few of my colleagues, including many more qualified than me, were).

It's part of a problem faced by most not-for-profits today. Lots of
great ideas, and not enough money to go around. In fact, the little
donations ($10-$500), or in the case of museums, admissions are never
enough to cover basic operating costs.

We are now among the top 30 websites in the world. I believe that we are
the only one that is a not-for-profit (haven't checked it recently, but
it is a fairly safe assumption). How can we cover our operating costs?

Grants are one possibility, but there are plenty of people competing for
those same grants. Besides, grants have to be sexy. And they have to be
something we can really carry through with. And NO ONE will give us a
substantial sum to just do whatever we want with it. The CFO of my old
place of employment used to tell me that it was easy to find people to
pay for some crap sculpture that no one else liked, or for marble in the
elevators, but when it came to basic operating costs like a monthly
cleaning bill of $40,000-forget it.

Nor are we in the position to put up a plaque, have a cocktail
reception, and dedicate the "Stanley and Edith Rosenthal Server in honor
of their grandson Milton's bar mitzvah." Nor do we want to.

We don't want pop up ads on our site. We don't want ad sense or Google
ads, though I find it rather odd that one of the vocal opponents to the
Answers.com deal admits to running a mirror of Wikipedia with Google
ads. Along comes someone who wants to use our information, which we are
giving away for free, and to pay us for it in the name of fair play. 
Rather than asking for ads on every page, they simply suggested a modest
link on a single page, a tools page which most people don't go to. They
did this out of respect for our mission and our ideals.

How are people responding? Well, someone suggested that it would be
better to shut down Wikipedia for editing except for one hour a day. 
People are talking about drastically cutting the budget, though I can
only wonder if they can point to anything significant in the budget that
can be cut, or if they have even seen the budget at all. Of course,
everyone wants the site to run faster. I would just like someone to tell
us how we can do just that without getting significant funding. I would
like someone to explain to me how we can realize our goal of providing
every person in the world with an encyclopedia in a language that they
can understand without paying for it in some way.

Danny

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l