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@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@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l