[Foundation-l] A modest proposal: ads on wikipedia.com

Andre Engels andreengels at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 08:18:05 UTC 2007

2007/4/23, SJ Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>:

> > and I hate to say it, but my personal view is that  adwords would
> > likely be more useful and relevant to many readers than the external
> > links sections on many of enwiki's articles.
> I'm awfully sorry you feel this way, Greg.  I don't think this is anywhere
> near the truth, myself.  Even in those rare cases where your comment here
> is appropriate, the nice thing about external links sections is that they
> improve over time, eventually becoming brilliant; when you see an ad, you
> can remove it.

Well, I tested it, doing a 'Random page' several times, and checking
the first 10 that had external links. They were all checked in
intervals of three months

1. [[John Addey]]

October 2005: Three links, two advertizing, one non-advertizing but
irrelevant. Apparently added by someone who did not know how to link
January 2006, April 2006, July 2006, October 2006, January 2007: no change
now: Same links, but as proper external links.

Conclusion: Advertisement, not changing over time

2. [[Kay Hammond (American actress)]]

now: One link to IMDB

Conclusion: No advertisement, too young to talk about time difference

3. [[Goldeen]]

October 2006: 7 links. 6 seemed ok, the seventh one doesn't load
January 2007, now: no change

Conclusion: No advertisement but probably over-linked. Not changing over time.

4. [[Brewer's Blackbird]]

January 2004: No links
upto July 2005: No change
October 2005: One link, mildly advertising
January 2006: Link removed as 'linkspam'
upto October 2006: No change
January 2007: 3 non-advertising links
Now: No change

Conclusion: Managed without links quite long, but the ones that are
there now are fine. Advertising control has been done, although
probably only because the advertiser was overdoing it.

5. [[Darrick Martin]]

April 2006: Two links, not advertising (although commercial websites)
July 2006: No change
October 2006: One added link, not advertising (but overlap with existing links)
January 2007, now: No change

Conclusion: Ok

6. [[Wanderer (sailing dinghy)]]

January 2006: Two links, one of them advertisement
April, July, October 2006, July 2007: No change
Now: One added link, advertisement

Conclusion: Advertisement link stays on for a long time - so long that
apparently the only one who noticed that there was one was a
competitor who reacted by adding their own link as well.

7. [[Bommenede]]
October 2006: One link, non-advertisement
January 2007, now: No change

8. [[Dens (anatomy)]]
October 2006: 5 links, non-advertisement
January 2007, now: No change

9. [[Isihia]]
July 2006: 1 link, non-advertisement
October 2006, January 2007, now: No change

10. [[Cathedral and John Connon School]]
October 2005: 1 link, non-advertisement
January 2006: No change
April 2006: 2 more links, non-advertisement
July 2006: 1 more link, non-advertisement (but not very good link either)
October 2006, January 2007, now: No change

On the good side of things, there seem to be not very much
advertisement. Out of 31 links on these articles, 5 were

On the bad side of things, of the 5 advertisements only 1 got deleted.
I doubt whether they were ever actually checked on being
non-advertising and relevant. The one that did get deleted was the
least blatant advertising, but got deleted because the site was being
spammed. Apparently it is allowed to advertize on one or two Wikipedia
pages, but not to do it on 100.

Finally, none of these subjects seem to be among subjects likely to
get advertisements - only [[Wanderer (sailing dinghy)]] is about
something that can be sold.

Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels

More information about the foundation-l mailing list