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

[David Goodman]

Sorry about that-- , I was not just replying to you but to all of
those who had spoken in favor of resorting to advertising. I   agree
that you were trying to find a way which would be a little harmful as
possible. I apologize if I sounded otherwise.

We dont recommend WP just because its free from advertisements, but
freedom from advertising is certainly one of the reasons we use it
listing and recommending sources, and one of the positive features of
WP--along with the negative ones, one of which I mentioned. .

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:47 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>  > There is no acceptable compromise on advertising.
>  > [...]
>  >
>
> As a librarian, I can say that the freedom from advertising is a major
>  > reason why an educational institution would tell people that there is
>  > some reason to trust wikipedia to be impartial, if not necessarily
>  > perfectly accurate.
>  > [...]
>  >
>
>  Your impassioned reply to my dispassionate discussion of adverts is stripped
>  of the context of my original e-mail on the subject. As I said earlier I am
>  against displaying them. I would not like to be construed as Mr. Ad Guy,
>  just the guy who was willing to discuss them with a cool head, thanks.
>
>  That aside, I'd like to see an example of an educational institution that
>  recommends their students visit Wikipedia because it is an impartial source
>  of information. A handful would really demonstrate the point.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG