[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 21, Issue 53

[Mark Williamson]

And then, of course there is the http://babes.bomis.com/ Bomis Babe Report.

While not exactly pornographic, it is obviously intended to be
"babelicious", and I can guess that not only do you make money off of
it somehow, but that you don't count it as "pornographic" (because
really, it isn't exactly.)

Mark

On 22/04/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, come on.
> 
> > For the entire history of Bomis from day one until the current day, the
> > percentage of revenue that comes from adult businesses has been under
> > 10%.  The bulk of the revenue of Bomis today comes from advertising
> > syndicated from Google; in the past it was at various times Overture and
> > NBCi which provided the bulk of the revenue.
> 
> "Under 10%" is code language for "Over 5%". Bomis is easily
> "legitimised" by adding tonnes of search-engine sponsored results,
> directory type stuff, syndicated adds, and the like, just to 'balance
> out' the pornographic content.
> 
> Many pornographic websites which are more explicitly pornographic than
> Bomis also have a search engine/syndicated advertising 'front', from
> which they derive the majority of their revenue, but...
> 
> > Far from being a "secret", Bomis is a public website that anyone can
> > look at anytime they like.  If Bomis is pornography so is much of what
> > happens in R rated movies.
> 
> I never said Bomis was a secret. I simply said that the fact that
> Bomis peddles pornography, and that the history of Wikipedia is
> intricately intertwined with Bomis, is kept a secret of sorts. Read
> the Wikipedia articles on the issue, you will not see much mention of
> pornography, but go to #wikipedia on freenode and you will hear a much
> different story.
> 
> And I remind you that in many R-rated movies, there are... well, you
> can find that information at Wikipedia.
> 
> > Bomis _is_ a brand which is very different from the Wikipedia brand,
> > which is why I have always insisted on keeping the two very separate.
> 
> Yes, but is not Bomis the ultimate origin of Nupedia which is the
> ultimate origin of Wikipedia? You have said many things in this
> discussion confirming that Nupedia and at first Wikipedia were both
> Bomis projects. Sure, there was never a sign posted at Wikipedia that
> said "Come Buy Porn from Bomis!", but the fact that much of the
> funding for Wikipedia comes directly or indirectly (ie, through you
> and other donors who profit from Bomis) from a business which makes
> "less than 10%" of its revenue through pornography.
> 
> So while in your mind they may be very seperate, this is not something
> that everybody follows along with, similar to your delusion that you
> aren't a sort of god-king but rather just a sort of "amicus
> vicipaedii" who is respected so much people tend to do what you say. I
> hope that eventually you will catch on to the reality of the issue -
> what real people actually really think, their real motivations rather
> than those you imagine for them, and that what people think and what
> you would like people to think are often very different.
> 
> Mark
> 
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> 


-- 
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE