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

[Fred Bauder]

> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very
> few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people
> that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on
> the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money.

No, no, no. We sell ads on a page marked "advertisements" at the top of
each article. The ads are tailored to the article and the advertiser bids
for the space and pays weekly, monthly, or annually and pays up front. No
clicking through to it.

Fred