On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:08:24 +1000, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Having said that, the issue of public perception is absolutely vital, and you do make a perfectly good point.
How many outsiders seriously think Wikipedia is of better quality because it doesn't have ads like every other site?
I hope the idea of a dispassionate discussion can allow me to suggest that the influential editors within wikipedia have a certain viewpoint which is not representative of the actual readership who don't get involved in this issues. The net has come as far as it has because of advertising, not because of fundraising drives. That is a fact, not an NPOV opinion.
It is certainly why the net is full of crap. I think we aim to do better.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I absolutely agree. I think it's a great example to have a highly successful site with no damned advertising. Granted, I don't see many ads through the blocker anyway, but it's nice to know that there's one place where the damn billboards -aren't there-, not just where I (or my computer) knows not to look at them. The Internet (and the world) needs a lot less advertising, not more. If Wikipedia starts ads, I quit. And I know I'm not the only one.