[Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

[Anthony]

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
>>
>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
>
> That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility
> between Google's policies and the site. If we fell victim to the same
> policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with
> (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their
> adverts on our sites and would relax their policies).

I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in
to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules).
I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though.

Alternatively, Wikipedia could put ads only on stable revisions which
contain SFG content.  Which I suppose could be argued to put some
pressure on Wikipedians to make articles SFG.  But then, *any* manner
of fundraising is going to be affected by these sorts of things.
Surely there are people who wouldn't donate to Wikipedia if they knew
about the [[tit torture]] article, but would (or do) donate if/because
they don't.