[Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

[David Strauss]

The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Michael Noda wrote:
>>> On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
>>>>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
>>>>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
>>>>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
>>>>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
>>>> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
>>>> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
>>>> write that up as a cost.
>>> The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
>>> [[opportunity cost]].
>> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
>> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.
> 
> If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
> Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
> more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
> introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.

Nowhere did I say the goal should be maximizing profit. Nowhere in the
concept of opportunity cost is the necessity to maximize profit.
Opportunity cost is merely a tool for considering the impact of
alternatives. Part of such consideration is that a cost is not
inherently different from unrealized income.

> Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
> Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
> I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
> the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
> rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
> been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
> minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
> etc.).

Such a fundamental change is part of the "cost" consideration for
running ads. Opportunity cost isn't about just money. In almost
everyone's opinion, the opportunity cost of running full-blown ads is
higher than the potential income they would generate.

>> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.
> 
> There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)

Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/a13c70e9/attachment-0001.pgp