[Foundation-l] Advertisements?

[Nathan]

To answer White Cat: an encyclopedia that efficiently and effectively
accomplishes its mission - not simply maintenance of the status quo.

The ultimate goal is not "longterm web hosting of a web based encyclopedia"
its "distribute the sum of human knowledge, free, to all people." Its a big
vision, and its apparent that the big vision is not shared by all who
contribute - many construe only the narrow responsibility of keeping the
lights on. There is far more that can and should be done, and Wikimedia is
in a unique position to go much, much further towards accomplishing such a
broad goal than we are now. A hundred Wikimedia Academies, conferences at
universities around the world to involve content experts in specific fields,
the fast and responsive development of new features, etc. There are many,
many other worthy ideas that deserve consideration and attention from those
who can provide serious support. If we wanted to have that capacity, we
could have it.

The single most important aspect of the revenue impact from advertising
would be the preservation of Wikimedia and its projects for the duration -
right now, each year is a question that we rely on individual donors to
answer. Its just not necessary - when we have the tools to guarantee
Wikimedia survives and pursues its missions for decades to come, why do we
let it hang on the precipice year after year instead?

I honestly do not understand the point of view that any ads in articlespace
whatsoever immediately compromises all of our content. I don't even see
evidence to reflect the notion that all of our contributors will immediately
fork. I think the prospect of a severe fork of the English Wikipedia is
rather slim, to tell you the truth, and any fork would immediately become
obscure and useless for most purposes. What is the difficulty with
distinguishing between "content" and "stuff alongside content"? All of our
readers do this effortlessly throughout their day - in fact, a significant
portion of them probably think there already are ads somewhere on Wikipedia.
The reactionary opposition to advertising in any form needs to stop - it is
uninformed, because no comprehensive investigation of what is involved and
what the community thinks has ever been performed. It claims the authority
of a majority where no evidence of such majority exists. At least permit the
Board and staff to look into the possibility without demanding a preemptive
statement that advertising is evil. Something that hurts no one, does not
negatively impact our actual content or our community and ensures the
survival and expansion of Wikimedia is not evil on its face.

Nathan


On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com>
wrote:

> What kind of an encyclopedia advertises Toyoto on an article on Ford or
> vice
> versa?
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/googles-thin-skinned-lawyers/index.html
> >
> > From Google Ads terms of service:
> >
> > "5. Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or
> > encourage any third party to:
> > …
> > (xi) engage in any action or practice that reflects poorly on Google
> > or otherwise disparages or devalues Google's reputation or goodwill."
> >
> > So much for NPOV.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>