[WikiEN-l] Florence

[Nathan]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>wrote:

>
> >> Why is financial gain given such a bad rap compared to just about any
> other
> >> type of gain?  What about those who exploit Wikipedia for their own
> >> political gain, or heavenly gain, or for some misguided utilitarian
> gain?
> >> I'd say the bigger threat to Wikipedia is from those who have a goal
> other
> >> than personal financial gain.  Time and time again I see articles ruined
> not
> >> by corporations trying to sell their goods but by idealogues trying to
> push
> >> their utilitarian (or religious) theories.
>
> on 8/17/08 7:43 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > We're fighting those threats on a daily basis, and generally winning
> > (we win battles, we'll never win the war, it's the price we pay for
> > allowing anyone to edit). Adverts are a different kind of threat -
> > they're a threat from the inside. It's much harder to fight internal
> > battles than external ones. Of course, the people that are actually in
> > favour of adverts on Wikipedia are in an extremely small minority, so
> > there isn't really a threat at all, it's all just sensationalism.
>
> I certainly hope you are right, Thomas.
> >
> >> I've never understood the strong aversion to money seemingly held by
> some
> >> Wikipedians.
> >
> > Few people are averse to money, it's money at the expense of the
> > values Wikipedia is built around (freedom of knowledge, for the most
> > part) that people don't like.
> >
> Nicely said. Don't forget also: money made by a few at the expense of, and
> on the backs of, the many.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
The strongest, or at least most pervasive, motivation out there for keeping
advertising
off Wikimedia projects is the design aesthetic - when all websites have paid
advertising of
some sort, Wikimedia sets itself apart by having none. Readers and editors
alike
appreciate this distinction, and its possible that our inherent credibility
gap is helped
by the fact that we're not trying to sell people anything.

On the other hand, the horror on this list and elsewhere about the "threat"
of
advertising reminds me of the folks who are against the sysop flag for bots
-
"they'll take over the world, who will be able to control them before they
control us!"
Same with the idea that advertising means "they" will be getting loaded at
"our"
expense. "We" in this context should be the community of editors on
Wikimedia
projects, and "they" are the Foundation. Seemingly we share the same set of
goals,
and we already allow others to profit from our work. Why not our very own
Foundation,
with goals that we determine?

By firing off against advertising anytime the subject barely marks the
surface, you
are ensuring that the Foundation never gets to benefit from our work. Its a
self defeating philosophy, especially when advertising can be managed in
many ways
that effectively allay most concerns.

An example of limitations: A single ad, on the 10,000 most popular articles
only,
with placement accepted only from tax-deductible charities with no financial
interest
in the subject matter. That wouldn't be that hard to do, and it could easily
ensure
the long term viability of the Wikimedia Foundation in a way that is much
more
transparent for our readers than accepting huge donations from individuals
and
businesses.

Nathan