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

[Fred Bauder]

> 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.
>

Well, assuming people are going to engage in tit torture, surely they
would need reliable equipment: screws, nails, sanitizers (for the screws,
pins, needles), electrical shockers, etc. Lot of money to be made right
there... Maybe we could get an ad from Flip for video cameras... Then
there is videos, and ads for online performances, amateur and
professional. I'll bet we could sell about 5k in ads every year on tit
torture alone.

Although, deleting it would probably make more sense.

Fred