[Foundation-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the chances of Google threatening to withdraw AdSense from
> Wikipedia
> on the basis of the content of an article are exceedingly slim, not least
> because it would be front page of every newspaper in the United States
> when
> it broke. Lets be serious about this, and raise realistic objections. Geni
> says we have a profile, we don't need a profile. Really? Everyone knows
> about Wikipedia, but how many people know about Wikimedia? How many know
> that it is operated by a non-profit foundation that is eternally short of
> money because it lives on individual donations? How many have heard any
> sort
> of encouragement to participate aside from a slogan here and there when
> they
> actually seek out a particular article?
>
> Most people familiar with the web are familiar with Google Ads, and I
> think
> the likelihood of an ad being interpreted as an actual endorsement from
> Wikimedia is probably slim. Even so, there are ways to limit the types of
> ads shown and where - a sidebar, in search results, a footer, etc. No one
> is
> advocating a mid-article big fat banner ad. Geni says its been considered,
> and the answer is no - and I'll repeat myself by telling you that it isn't
> a
> one off conversation where you can say "Look, a consensus of people in
> 2003
> decided it was a bad idea and now we don't ever have to think about it
> again". Sorry.
>
> I would ask that the Board specifically request that Sue prepare a report
> for submission in the next six months to a year that comprehensively
> treats
> the idea of advertising, including: Display options, vendors, placement,
> potential revenue, impact of  increased financial stability based on this
> revenue, impact on the community and the ability of revenue to subsidize
> efforts that will increase the size and draw of the community. Refusing to
> consider the option is childish, and any consideration should be done with
> an extensive impact report at hand.
>
> Nathan
>  <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>

What's unclear are the exact potential revenues and how it might be
implemented.

What's not unclear is that the community is dead-set against it (with a few
exceptions).

I personally am not convinced by the that we could not do it and
simultaneously retain both real and apparent independence.  However, I
believe that the community's consensus is that we would risk losing both of
those.

I do not believe that it's appropriate to try and short-circuit changing the
community's mind on this issue.  If the community cannot be convinced then
it should probably not be done.

Attempting to end-run the community in a community project approaches the
absurd.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com