[Foundation-l] Fundraising & Networking updates

[Andre Engels]

2008/1/16, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:

> > I think this is a very odd definition of "advertising" or "product
> > placement"; the logos are there because these are the official
> > identifying marks of the company, and thereby add to a comprehensive
> > encyclopedic description thereof. They are added by our readers under
> > "fair use", and there's no top down decision that we want them - it's
> > the community that judges them to have informational value. Turning
> > this into any kind of officially sponsored content seems highly
> > problematic, as it would blur the line between content and ads much
> > more than even Google ads would.
>
> I don't. For any company you Google who happens to have a Wikipedia
> article, you see a page with their logo and a company description.
> Now, it may be a neutral description, but the company is still there.
> People pay SEOs truckloads of money to get that kind of Google
> ranking for their companies, and an entire industry has emerged
> from search engines (as you know). You mean to tell me that these
> companies who are otherwise paying very heavily to get that top-ranked
> spot aren't getting free advertising from us? We may not be getting paid
> for it, but companies left and right are advertising all over Wikipedia and
> this must stop.

So, what is your alternative? Should Wikipedia not be having pages on
companies? I am all with Erik on this. I am not against advertising on
Wikipedia, although pros and cons should be considered well if we are
ever going to do it. But IF we ever get advertisement on Wikipedia,
the NUMBER ONE rule should be that those advertisements in no way
influence the content of the encyclopedia. Never ever should there be
material in Wikipedia from a paying sponsor which would be removed had
they not been a paying sponsor - or vice versa.


-- 
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels