[Foundation-l] Advertisements?

[Todd Allen]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm saying that the Foundation needs a source of revenue to ensure its
>  longterm survival,
>  and your suggestion is that folks use blogs to raise advertising dollars and
>  that the
>  WMF set up an "opt-in" advertising scheme? For what purpose? It would be
>  barely
>  supplemental to the current fundraising drive. How many people would opt in?
>  A few
>  hundred? What would advertising on low profile blogs in the name of
>  Wikimedia bring in?
>  Some small number of thousands? You, Plourde and Todd Allen, are against
>  advertising
>  and your opinion is known. Your suggestions are not viable alternatives, and
>  your
>  claim to know that the community will fork (which is not the end of the
>  world) is supported
>  seemingly by a hunch.
>
>  Nathan
>
>
>
>  On 3/19/08, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  > Hash: SHA1
>  >
>  >
>  > Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>  > > How many times does this have to be pounded home? If you put ads in
>  > > WP or any other project, there would be a fork. Look at the Spanish
>  > > WP if you don't believe me. However why don't we look at a opt in
>  > > adsense skin?
>  >
>  >
>  > So?  That's their right.  I don't foresee a fork being nearly as
>  > successful, because they'll be struggling just to get together hosting
>  > costs while WMF is able to use their millions in new ad revenue to make
>  > everything a lot better.  Imagine all the improvements that could be
>  > made to MediaWiki with a lot more paid staff ('What You See Is What You
>  > Get' editing would just be the beginning).
>  >
>  >
>  > - --
>  > Ben "Cyde Weys" McIlwain    ( http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/ )
>  > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
>  >
>  > iD8DBQFH4cQovCEYTv+mBWcRAq6+AJ9WSabBQn0UjuEqcFBRuGHRfU6ALQCbBmD4
>  > n7UPVI4LFpUKBn4rifZaRA8=
>  > =xaga
>  > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > 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
>

I don't believe strong negative reaction to such proposals in the past
is "a hunch", it's been a reality. If it's not now, as with anything,
consensus does certainly still rule the day. But regardless, I will
not stick around for an ad-laden Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope I am
not the only one who would oppose this well-intentioned but misguided
proposal. There are very few things I would leave the project for (let
alone even consider a fork), but that is one of them.

As to opposition, I've also thus far seen opposition from David Gerard
and Durova, and they've been around the block a time or two as well.
You might also find the following instructive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User_Noads-alt&limit=500&from=0

We don't -need- megabucks, alluring as it is. Wikimedia has done just
fine with "small numbers of thousands" (and no onsite ads) for years.
Is the situation really so dire as to risk upsetting that?

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.