[WikiEN-l] Re: Google ads

[Sheldon Rampton]

Kurt Jansson wrote:

>The ability to tell journalists "Wikipedia is completly free of 
>advertising" is
>worth more than a few cents from Google ads, IMHO. With ads, even if 
>opt-in, we
>are much less of a bird of paradise in the web's top 1000. And there 
>might also
>be a negative psychological effect on the donors.

I think we're talking about more than "a few cents from Google ads." 
I was talking awhile back with the guy who created envirolink.org. 
They started running Google ads awhile ago, and I was surprised when 
he told me how much money the ads were bringing in. I forget the 
amount, but as I recall it was more than $1,000 per month. And for 
Wikipedia, which gets a lot more traffic than Envirolink, I think the 
revenues would likely be greater.

I you want to see how the ads look on envirolink, here's the URL:

http://www.envirolink.org/

Of all the advertising I've seen on the web, the Google ads are the 
most tasteful and least intrusive. They're text-based ads, which 
means little use of bandwidth. They're topic-relevant. (The ads on 
envirolink.org all have something to do with the environment.) 
They're clearly labeled as advertising, and they can placed in a 
position on the page where they don't overwhelm its editorial 
content. Also, it is possible to reject advertising deemed 
inappropriate. (The envirolink webmaster told me that they have 
rejected attempts by anti-environmental organizations to place ads on 
their website.)

As for the value of the ability to tell journalists that Wikipedia is 
completely free of advertising, what value is that exactly? Most 
journalists work themselves for publications that rely on advertising 
for part of their revenue. I happen to work as a journalist for an 
organization that does not accept advertising or corporate 
contributions, but we're the exception, not the rule, and the reason 
we follow this policy is because our specific mission is to act as a 
critical watchdog of corporate and government propaganda.

As far as credibility with journalists is concerned, the issues are:

(1) Would acceptance of advertising diminish the independence and 
integrity of Wikipedia's non-advertising content? For this to be the 
case, we would have to imagine a scenario in which Wikipedia users 
shy away from adding certain types of content out of fear that it 
would offend an advertiser. Given the way that Wikipedia operates, I 
think this scenario is unlikely.

(2) Is there a danger that visitors would confuse advertising with 
editorial content? I think this danger is actually small.

(3) Is there transparent disclosure of the relationship between 
Google and Wikipedia? This should be pretty easy too. Every Google ad 
comes with a link at the top that says, "Ads by Google." Clicking on 
that llink opens a page that explains how the advertising works.

--Sheldon Rampton