[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia struggles, Mozilla set for life?

[William Pietri]

RLS wrote:
> [...] If we were 
> really desperate for the money, why wouldn't we just say "Hey spammer, 
> pay us $X and we'll let your link stay there."  Because it ruins NPOV 
> and creates COI.
>
> Why do people think revenue-generating ads served by a vendor are any 
> different?
>   

Again, I'm not advocating anything here; just discussing. Well, perhaps 
I'm advocating great caution. Anyhow.

Revenue-generating ads served by a vendor like Google are different 
because they come with a built in Chinese Wall. With individual 
advertisers, there is a lot of negotiation and therefore opportunity for 
pressure. Ads served through some sort of disinterested network like 
Google keep Jimmy Wales from getting a call where, say, Larry Ellison 
threatens to pull a $1m campaign because he doesn't like our article on 
Oracle's latest acquisition.

I mentioned a couple of other ways we could reduce NPOV and COI issues, too.

However, the difference is in degree rather than in kind. No matter how 
we do it, accepting money other than from our readers means we have an 
interest beyond serving our readers.

William

P.S. Technically, of course, we have two interests: our readers and 
ourselves. I think that's why the BADSITES drama causes so much heat: 
normally pulling together, the two interests conflict there.

-- 
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri