[WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

[stevertigo]

> > > The 'server strain' argument occurs only because
exponential growth has been
> > > seen.

The main issue for opponents is that the revenue
stream would likely far exceeds any server needs.
Where will all the extra money go? Or more to the
point, what right does the general quasi-nymous
community of disembodied internet personae have to
argue with whatever decision Jimbo makes? (He's done
alright thus far, and the Siegenthaler thing couldn't
have been planned/timed better). Opportunities to cash
in on millions and millions of dollars dont come along
every day, and most people in that position would be
regarded as foolish to not do so.
 
>From that baseline, all of the stated reasons can be
regarded as superficial, but its fair to say that its
both a community decision and a business decision
involving matters of:
 a) solvency
 b) upscaling
 c) compensating workers (ie. programmers)
 d) changing from an open model to an 
    heirarchial one.
 e) jet fuel and shiatsu massages

Opponents may largely be satisfied if the (e) category
is all but struck from the list --being the classic
loophole of in the corporate business model. And (d)
is debatable in 16 dimensions. 

Whatever the decision if the community does not agree
with how the decision is made or how ads are
implemented, it will simply drift somewhere else.
Wikipedia is just a name after all. I personally dont
think its a bad idea, but only if the ads are all at
the very bottom of the page.

Stevertigo





	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/