[Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

[The Cunctator]

On 12/31/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
You should tag the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)
then. I didn't realize there was anything disputed.