[WikiEN-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia

[Oldak Quill]

On 10/03/2008, jossi fresco <jossif at gmail.com> wrote:
> In regard to today's article on the Los Angeles Times about Wikipedia and
> funding, I am sure that this has been discussed in the past, but it is not
> about time we look into this dispassionately?
>
> Would it really be the "end of Wikipedia" to have a "Sponsored links"
> section as a subsection of the "External links" section on articles in which
> two or three Google ad words could be placed?

It would be the end of our commercial and content independence. We
could not claim to treat subjects without bias (with neutrality) if
we're accepting $$$ to promote companies on relevant articles.

Even if the ad service (and advertising companies) are treated with
independence (ignoring threats by those companies to pull out
advertising money for treating a subject in a particular way), how do
you think reader impressions will change?

Internet advertising is already too imposing and the popularity of
anti-advertising tools reflect this. Just because the status quo is to
be intrusive with advertising, doesn't mean we should follow suit. The
availibility of these tools creates a disparity between those with the
technical know-how to remove ads from their browsing, and those who
don't.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)