On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
<b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:08:24 +1000, Peter Ansell
<ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Jimmy Wales
<jwales(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au
[[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia.
Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
_______________________________________________
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
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.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.