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

[GerardM]

Hoi,
When a Encyclpaedia-libre kinda split is isolated to one or two projects, it
makes little difference. It might be akin to Citizendium .. They run the
danger of getting isolated in their own little world, their own little
language, their own ideology.

When people are loud, it does not mean that they have what it takes to start
a project of such a size and complexity. Also, having more projects working
on Free content is not a bad thing. If this is what it takes to move
forward, to explore avenues that would otherwise be closed .. I see more
advantages than disadvantages.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 4/23/07, Titoxd at Wikimedia < titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You do have to consider whether irritating a non-negligible portion of the
> content-writing community will help us accomplish our mission better,
> though. As I pointed out to Gmaxwell on IRC yesterday, yes, there may be
> only a few "loud" (for lack of a better word) users that completely oppose
> advertising, but if they distribute their message properly and play their
> cards right, you could be talking about an Enciclopedia Libre-type of
> split.
> Wikipedia's advantage, at least on the English Wikipedia, is that it is
> THE
> Wikipedia, and a fork claiming that they're the descendent of the NPOV
> policy or some other claim may come back to hurt us in the longer term.
> Titoxd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David
> Gerard
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:09 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A modest proposal: ads on wikipedia.com
>
> On 23/04/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, do we in fact need ads (or other income streams) to keep the sites
> > live or not? David seems to be suggesting we do. Others have suggested
> > we do not.
>
>
> I'm suggesting we might find it very useful indeed, rather than living
> hand-to-mouth as we do now.
>
> Of course, it might stimulate serious thought to securing other
> revenue streams, as it seems to be doing, to stave off such an
> unaesthetic idea.
>
>
> > Jean-Baptiste is right, that Wikimedia is a nice oasis. So is that a
> > first-world conceit that doesn't mean much, or if we were to introduce
> > ads might we not all lament it in five, 20 years when we see the
> > Foundation wasn't going to collapse, after all?
>
>
> Not just the possibility of failure, but the possibility of not doing
> nearly as well on our mission as we could. "To educate everyone with a
> broadband connection" is not entirely convincing.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>