On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: 2008/8/19 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Let's assume the ads are limited and tasteful, and that the "customers" don't mind them.
Approximate earning power of such ads appears to be minimal.
-- geni
Minimal according to who? All these arguments are made in the absence of evidence.
What we know:
* The Foundation always needs money to continue operating * Any new initiatives to expand the community base or extend the impact of Wikimedia in other ways cost money * Most of this money comes from donations, and there are no plans to generate truly significant revenue in other ways * Donations are at the mercy of the global economy and the public image of the Wikimedia Foundation * Advertising is a way for the Foundation to generate revenue that is not dependent on the donor climate * There is opposition within the Wikimedia community to advertising
What we don't know:
* The level of community opposition to advertising is unknown, surveys on this subject have been unscientific and poorly structured in the past * The opinion of the intended audience is completely unknown, no surveys of this population have been undertaken * No estimate of the potential income from various types of advertising plans has been generated
So what stops us from truly investigating the options here? A number of folks seem to have a visceral negative reaction to just the mention of the words "revenue"
and "advertising" - such that they dismiss the possibility that additional income could even be useful. I'm not sure how to respond to that sort of irrationality.
Perhaps the disconnect is that we view the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation
on different planes of significance. I think the idea of accumulating and distributing the sum of human knowledge to everyone or nearly everyone on the planet is the most seductive charitable goal I've ever encountered. I don't think we're anywhere even close to achieving that goal. Information and knowledge is isolated and contained in academia, and most academics still regard Wikipedia as the unserious domain of crackpots and hoaxers. Other people seem to think that we're getting along just fine, that we just need to wait for readers to get the Internet and for academics and others to "catch on."
There area a thousand different ways that money could be spend to attract new content and new contributors, to publicize the Wikimedia Foundation (most people seem to have no idea it exists) and its goals, to fund initiatives in other mediums and languages with a limited online community, etc. There are similarly a thousand different ways advertising on the site could be structured to address concerns of the community.
What I continue to fail to understand is why the rejection of advertising is so blanket and abrupt - some people insist on making this a black and white, Good vs. Evil issue. You're framing the discussion in such a way as to make the complete and utter denial of advertising and its potential benefits the only moral position.
Does that mean that I and the others who advocate taking a more substantial look at advertising form the new Wikimedia Axis of Evil?
Nathan