[Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

[The Cunctator]

On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> Michael Noda wrote:
> > On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
> >>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
> >>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
> >>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
> >>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
> >> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
> >> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
> >> write that up as a cost.
> >
> > The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
> > [[opportunity cost]].
>
> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.

If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.

Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
etc.).

> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.

There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)