[Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...

[John Vandenberg]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:35 AM,  <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/2010 2:03:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jayvdb at gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> > I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to
>> see
>> > ads will be very productive.  I'm also skeptical that manually placed
>> and
>> > manually monitored,  internet advertising even pays for the wages of the
>> worker.
>> >
>> > This is why Google uses automagic.  And why everyone else does as well.
>>
>> Not everyone.  There are still many websites that only have a few
>> sponsors.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>
> The number of sponsors is not related to the question of whether they are
> manually placing and monitoring ads on a page by page basis.
> Sites with few sponsors can also be rotating ads through automagic, so it's
> not a question of the number of sponsors.
>
> My counter point was that the issue of placing relevant ads manually, is
> financial suicide, as the income from individual ads is minimal.  My point
> being, that the income from individual ads placed, is far less than the wages
> paid to the human ad placer and monitor.

I agree with you that manually placing and monitoring ads on a
per-article basis would not be cost effective.  If it was a paid
employee, the community would quickly grow a distrust for them.  If it
was the community placing ads, it would skew the community and
probably result in admin boards being twice as nasty.

However we could encourage donations by having a static page that is
part of the UI of each project that prominently lists everyone who has
donated to WMF. e.g.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors
(btw, can someone change 'Herpes' to Herpes Doctor!)

and

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thanks_Virgin_Unite

--
John Vandenberg