You're assuming that there is some connection between editorial control of
articles and the allocation of advertising. There isn't. Take Google ads,
for instance. Even a very conservative use of Google Ads would make
Wikipedia more than enoug to sustain its finances, and would involve zero
risk of an apparent endorsement from Wikimedia in my opinion. We wouldn't be
determining which ads go where, what they say, etc. We're not talking about
interleaving sponsored results in searches, or allowing paid endorsements of
specific articles. There is a wide gulf, and this is a complex issue.
Simplistic approaches and attitudes to this problem, which bears on the
future of this endeavor, should be avoided.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l