Mailing List Archive

True such a review may work but my concern is one sneaky one slipping by.
Human error happens and even if such a thing happens once its implications
would be quite severe. I was not suggesting advertisements would completely
go nuts. :)

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:

> White Cat wrote:
> > We have an ongoing election in the United States. I am sure presidential
> > candidates would love to use wikipedia for their smear campaigns. We
> have
> > already seen many examples of this such as edits coming from congress
> IPs.
> > Such attempts are reverted per [[WP:BLP]] which we will not be able to
> do to
> > our paying customers.
>
> I take no sides in this discussion, but I would just like to note that
> this last bit is not really true. In the unlikely event that the
> Foundation decided to take advertising in some limited fashion on the
> search results page or similar (and I should note that this is an
> interesting discussion in the community, but not something the board is
> actively interested in or considering at all) it would be quite simple
> to accept only pre-approved ads, and to mark them quite clearly as not
> part of the content, etc.
>
> There are grave and legitimate concerns about what accepting advertising
> would do to the perception of neutrality of Wikipedia, but it is worth
> noting that worst case scenarios are easily avoidable.
>
> I remain opposed to putting ads in Wikipedia. (I have to say that in
> case anyone wants to suggest the opposite.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You kinda got me concerned when you said "pops up" but then I read the rest
of the sentence. It also got me thinking.

Pop-up ads would be better than in-line adds. Granted more annoying but
would be less of a compromise from NPOV. Basicaly we would cover the screen
with the ford logo rather than put the ford logo in the middle of the page.

- White Cat

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> > Can you comment on in what circumstances or at what point the Board
> would
> > consider a step like that?
>
> Oh, I have no idea.
>
> This question pops up in the community from time to time, and the press
> loves the question.
>
> One of the concerns I have about this whole issue is that it can be such
> a "third rail" to even discuss it or look into it. I think that's
> unfortunate. My longtime position is that we should really make sure we
> have a very good idea of how much money we are turning down before we
> turn it down. (Including various variants such as one-click permanent
> opt-out, opt-in, search page only, approval by community on a per-ad
> basis only, etc.)
>
> My own sense of things is that even after we look (together, as a
> community) at all those options (calmly, rationally, and without people
> going into hysterics that the discussion is even happening), we will
> still turn down ads. But we will then be doing so in a responsible
> adult manner, rather than a knee-jerk manner.
>
> But, this is just the opinion of one community member / board member.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>
> During the next 3-10 years I expect to see Wikipedia's monopoly on
> collaboratively written internet encyclopedias to be significantly eroded by
> serious competitors. In my opinion, a commercial fork is a likely avenue
> for such competition (though not the only one). How well we withstand that
> competition is likely to depend on the capability and flexibility of the WMF
> team being assembled now. I'd like to see the WMF as the dominant player in
> collaborative knowledge creation and sharing going into the indefinite
> future, but given that the WMF has no ownership of content, I would say that
> this is far from a sure thing. I don't think that Wikipedia would ever be
> wiped out by competitors, but it isn't that hard for me to imagine scenarios
> in which Wikipedia loses the bulk of the traffic and importance it has
> today.
>
> -Robert Rohde

This is actually a great point that we should take very seriously.

Kul

Kul Takanao Wadhwa
Head of Business Development
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
kul@wikimedia.org
(415) 839-6885 ext. 603

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm interested in hearing more concrete details (lacking in Rohde's post)
about why exactly this is a point we should take very seriously.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Kul Takanao Wadhwa <kwadhwa@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

>
> This is actually a great point that we should take very seriously.
>
> Kul
>
> Kul Takanao Wadhwa
> Head of Business Development
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> kul@wikimedia.org
> (415) 839-6885 ext. 603
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I agree. Pop up ads would be better than inline ads.



----- Original Message ----
From: White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:47:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?

You kinda got me concerned when you said "pops up" but then I read the rest
of the sentence. It also got me thinking.

Pop-up ads would be better than in-line adds. Granted more annoying but
would be less of a compromise from NPOV. Basicaly we would cover the screen
with the ford logo rather than put the ford logo in the middle of the page.

- White Cat

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> > Can you comment on in what circumstances or at what point the Board
> would
> > consider a step like that?
>
> Oh, I have no idea.
>
> This question pops up in the community from time to time, and the press
> loves the question.
>
> One of the concerns I have about this whole issue is that it can be such
> a "third rail" to even discuss it or look into it. I think that's
> unfortunate. My longtime position is that we should really make sure we
> have a very good idea of how much money we are turning down before we
> turn it down. (Including various variants such as one-click permanent
> opt-out, opt-in, search page only, approval by community on a per-ad
> basis only, etc.)
>
> My own sense of things is that even after we look (together, as a
> community) at all those options (calmly, rationally, and without people
> going into hysterics that the discussion is even happening), we will
> still turn down ads. But we will then be doing so in a responsible
> adult manner, rather than a knee-jerk manner.
>
> But, this is just the opinion of one community member / board member.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

As far as the brain concerned they are no different. See [[Priming
(psychology)]].

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> I agree. Pop up ads would be better than inline ads.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:47:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?
>
> You kinda got me concerned when you said "pops up" but then I read the
> rest
> of the sentence. It also got me thinking.
>
> Pop-up ads would be better than in-line adds. Granted more annoying but
> would be less of a compromise from NPOV. Basicaly we would cover the
> screen
> with the ford logo rather than put the ford logo in the middle of the
> page.
>
> - White Cat
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
> > Nathan wrote:
> > > Can you comment on in what circumstances or at what point the Board
> > would
> > > consider a step like that?
> >
> > Oh, I have no idea.
> >
> > This question pops up in the community from time to time, and the press
> > loves the question.
> >
> > One of the concerns I have about this whole issue is that it can be such
> > a "third rail" to even discuss it or look into it. I think that's
> > unfortunate. My longtime position is that we should really make sure we
> > have a very good idea of how much money we are turning down before we
> > turn it down. (Including various variants such as one-click permanent
> > opt-out, opt-in, search page only, approval by community on a per-ad
> > basis only, etc.)
> >
> > My own sense of things is that even after we look (together, as a
> > community) at all those options (calmly, rationally, and without people
> > going into hysterics that the discussion is even happening), we will
> > still turn down ads. But we will then be doing so in a responsible
> > adult manner, rather than a knee-jerk manner.
> >
> > But, this is just the opinion of one community member / board member.
> >
> > --Jimbo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 21/03/2008, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree. Pop up ads would be better than inline ads.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:47:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?
>
> You kinda got me concerned when you said "pops up" but then I read the rest
> of the sentence. It also got me thinking.
>
> Pop-up ads would be better than in-line adds. Granted more annoying but
> would be less of a compromise from NPOV. Basicaly we would cover the screen
> with the ford logo rather than put the ford logo in the middle of the page.
>
> - White Cat

If the only way to have adverts is to have pop-ups, then we shouldn't
have adverts. Forcing your user to actively get rid of the advert if
they want to read the article is very bad - adverts should be out of
the way where users can look at them if they want and ignore them if
they want.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

It wouldn't be malicious popups obviously.

I whole heartedly hate the idea of advertisements on wikipedia but if we are
going to have ads they should not be inline ones. Popups are easier to deal
with than flashy in line ads.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 21/03/2008, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I agree. Pop up ads would be better than inline ads.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:47:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?
> >
> > You kinda got me concerned when you said "pops up" but then I read the
> rest
> > of the sentence. It also got me thinking.
> >
> > Pop-up ads would be better than in-line adds. Granted more annoying but
> > would be less of a compromise from NPOV. Basicaly we would cover the
> screen
> > with the ford logo rather than put the ford logo in the middle of the
> page.
> >
> > - White Cat
>
> If the only way to have adverts is to have pop-ups, then we shouldn't
> have adverts. Forcing your user to actively get rid of the advert if
> they want to read the article is very bad - adverts should be out of
> the way where users can look at them if they want and ignore them if
> they want.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
> It wouldn't be malicious popups obviously.
>
> I whole heartedly hate the idea of advertisements on wikipedia but if we are
> going to have ads they should not be inline ones. Popups are easier to deal
> with than flashy in line ads.

I dont think i necessarily agree with this. Some inline ads would not
be entirely unacceptable. All ads should be text-based (not blinking
animated gifs, not flash, nothing with audio, etc). Ads should be
relegated to a very specific section of the page where there will not
be any confusion as to their origin, and where they will not
immediately interfere with the user interface. I think that we will
put so many restrictions on them that advertisers may not find it
profitable to put ads on our site anyway. restricted text-based ads
are less distracting and annoying popup ads with all sorts of
blinking, flash-based ads with audio and video, long load times, etc.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hardly. Browsers started including pop up blockers
for a reason.

-Chad

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree. Pop up ads would be better than inline ads.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:47:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?
>
> You kinda got me concerned when you said "pops up" but then I read the rest
> of the sentence. It also got me thinking.
>
> Pop-up ads would be better than in-line adds. Granted more annoying but
> would be less of a compromise from NPOV. Basicaly we would cover the screen
> with the ford logo rather than put the ford logo in the middle of the page.
>
> - White Cat
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
> > Nathan wrote:
> > > Can you comment on in what circumstances or at what point the Board
> > would
> > > consider a step like that?
> >
> > Oh, I have no idea.
> >
> > This question pops up in the community from time to time, and the press
> > loves the question.
> >
> > One of the concerns I have about this whole issue is that it can be such
> > a "third rail" to even discuss it or look into it. I think that's
> > unfortunate. My longtime position is that we should really make sure we
> > have a very good idea of how much money we are turning down before we
> > turn it down. (Including various variants such as one-click permanent
> > opt-out, opt-in, search page only, approval by community on a per-ad
> > basis only, etc.)
> >
> > My own sense of things is that even after we look (together, as a
> > community) at all those options (calmly, rationally, and without people
> > going into hysterics that the discussion is even happening), we will
> > still turn down ads. But we will then be doing so in a responsible
> > adult manner, rather than a knee-jerk manner.
> >
> > But, this is just the opinion of one community member / board member.
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:
> On 20/03/2008, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> However, a fork, particularly a commercially financed one, that seeks to go
>> beyond being a mere copy by providing a differentiated feature set and
>> seeking to build its own community could be an entirely different beast from
>> any of the forks we have now seen. And in my personal opinion, an
>> especially dangerous one at that.
>>
>
>
> Not necessarily. What we need is to make not only forking possible,
> but to make re-merging feasible, complete with GFDL credit trail. Then
> there's a lot less to fear from forks.
>
The GFDL is particularly bad for that, though, which would make it all
the better if the mooted relicensing to some sort of wiki license
happens. A reuser of Wikimedia content can easily make it unattractive
for us to re-merge their content by adding Invariant Sections to their
derivative work, giving us the choice of including e.g. a verbatim ad
slogan that can never be edited (or multiple ones if we re-merge from
multiple sources!), or not re-merge.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Delirium wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> Not necessarily. What we need is to make not only forking possible,
>> but to make re-merging feasible, complete with GFDL credit trail. Then
>> there's a lot less to fear from forks.
>>
> The GFDL is particularly bad for that, though, which would make it all
> the better if the mooted relicensing to some sort of wiki license
> happens. A reuser of Wikimedia content can easily make it unattractive
> for us to re-merge their content by adding Invariant Sections to their
> derivative work, giving us the choice of including e.g. a verbatim ad
> slogan that can never be edited (or multiple ones if we re-merge from
> multiple sources!), or not re-merge.

Even simpler, fork under 1.2 only license. This problem would persist
for all licenses which offer the option of choosing a later version.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:
> On 20/03/2008, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> However, a fork, particularly a commercially financed one, that seeks to go
>> beyond being a mere copy by providing a differentiated feature set and
>> seeking to build its own community could be an entirely different beast from
>> any of the forks we have now seen. And in my personal opinion, an
>> especially dangerous one at that.
>>
> Not necessarily. What we need is to make not only forking possible,
> but to make re-merging feasible, complete with GFDL credit trail. Then
> there's a lot less to fear from forks.
Another extension of that idea would be to have the viral nature of the
licence apply to make the ad itself GFDL.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'd love to see that be pulled off on Microsoft logo.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 20/03/2008, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> However, a fork, particularly a commercially financed one, that seeks
> to go
> >> beyond being a mere copy by providing a differentiated feature set and
> >> seeking to build its own community could be an entirely different
> beast from
> >> any of the forks we have now seen. And in my personal opinion, an
> >> especially dangerous one at that.
> >>
> > Not necessarily. What we need is to make not only forking possible,
> > but to make re-merging feasible, complete with GFDL credit trail. Then
> > there's a lot less to fear from forks.
> Another extension of that idea would be to have the viral nature of the
> licence apply to make the ad itself GFDL.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

White Cat wrote:

> > I whole heartedly hate the idea of advertisements on
> > wikipedia but if we are going to have ads they should not be
> > inline ones.

Andrew Whitworth wrote:

> I dont think i necessarily agree with this. Some inline ads
> would not be entirely unacceptable. All ads should be text-based
> (not blinking animated gifs, not flash, nothing with audio,
> etc). Ads should be relegated to a very specific section of the
> page where there will not


Some community members who oppose ads might be tempted to say
"yeah, whatever, let's accept ads so we can finally get rid of
this discussion topic". The two pieces above, however, indicate
that the discussion of *whether* to have ads is the shorter one.

A much longer discussion about *how* the advertizing should be
done would ensue, should a decision be taken to have ads.
Avoiding that discussion is already a strong argument against ads.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The question of why ads is in my opinion already a secondary one. The
primary one is do we have what it takes financially to do what we aim to do.
More specifically does our finances cover our budget.

In principle I am against advertisements because they occupy valuable on
screen space. It is however exactly because of screen space being valuable
that advertisements are able to bring in money. The problem in the
discussion that the primary question is not addressed and as I value the
aims of the Wikimedia Foundation over my personal preferences against
advertisements I find this troubling.

There are many things that cost money that have a huge impact on our ability
to bring information to the people that we do it all for. And I would like
to quote the bible when I argue for the support of the people who read and
write less and least resourced languages; "what you do for the least among
us, you do for me". (sorry if my English knowledge of scripture is not that
good.. you may recognise what I aim to quote anyway).

The "stichting" I represent has invested in MediaWiki localisation. It makes
some difference. I want to invest more in localisation and in terminology. I
want to invest in the availability of great open source fonts that cover at
least all the languages we support and all the languages that are in the
Incubator (and are recognised in the ISO-15924 standard). In many ways in
this way I am doing things that I feel strongly about, several of these
things can be done more effectively within the WMF. The WMF is not in a
position to do this. The lack of funding does in my opinion seriously affect
what it can do. It is also too much occupied in the things that make sense
from a first world perspective. The WMF is in many ways an organisation that
allows people to do their own thing.

Again, the main problem with our discussion about advertisement is first
that people do not consider why it would be needed and second because people
understand the aims of the WMF differently to the extend that some consider
the WMF as nothing but a hosting organisation and not as the movement it
also is.

Thanks,
GerardM

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Lars Aronsson <lars@aronsson.se> wrote:

>
> White Cat wrote:
>
> > > I whole heartedly hate the idea of advertisements on
> > > wikipedia but if we are going to have ads they should not be
> > > inline ones.
>
> Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>
> > I dont think i necessarily agree with this. Some inline ads
> > would not be entirely unacceptable. All ads should be text-based
> > (not blinking animated gifs, not flash, nothing with audio,
> > etc). Ads should be relegated to a very specific section of the
> > page where there will not
>
>
> Some community members who oppose ads might be tempted to say
> "yeah, whatever, let's accept ads so we can finally get rid of
> this discussion topic". The two pieces above, however, indicate
> that the discussion of *whether* to have ads is the shorter one.
>
> A much longer discussion about *how* the advertizing should be
> done would ensue, should a decision be taken to have ads.
> Avoiding that discussion is already a strong argument against ads.
>
>
> --
> Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Well, I agree with you. :)

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Lars Aronsson <lars@aronsson.se> wrote:

>
> White Cat wrote:
>
> > > I whole heartedly hate the idea of advertisements on
> > > wikipedia but if we are going to have ads they should not be
> > > inline ones.
>
> Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>
> > I dont think i necessarily agree with this. Some inline ads
> > would not be entirely unacceptable. All ads should be text-based
> > (not blinking animated gifs, not flash, nothing with audio,
> > etc). Ads should be relegated to a very specific section of the
> > page where there will not
>
>
> Some community members who oppose ads might be tempted to say
> "yeah, whatever, let's accept ads so we can finally get rid of
> this discussion topic". The two pieces above, however, indicate
> that the discussion of *whether* to have ads is the shorter one.
>
> A much longer discussion about *how* the advertizing should be
> done would ensue, should a decision be taken to have ads.
> Avoiding that discussion is already a strong argument against ads.
>
>
> --
> Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Lars Aronsson <lars@aronsson.se> wrote:
>
> White Cat wrote:
>
> > > I whole heartedly hate the idea of advertisements on
> > > wikipedia but if we are going to have ads they should not be
> > > inline ones.
>
>
> Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>
> > I dont think i necessarily agree with this. Some inline ads
> > would not be entirely unacceptable. All ads should be text-based
> > (not blinking animated gifs, not flash, nothing with audio,
> > etc). Ads should be relegated to a very specific section of the
> > page where there will not
>
>
> Some community members who oppose ads might be tempted to say
> "yeah, whatever, let's accept ads so we can finally get rid of
> this discussion topic". The two pieces above, however, indicate
> that the discussion of *whether* to have ads is the shorter one.
>
> A much longer discussion about *how* the advertizing should be
> done would ensue, should a decision be taken to have ads.
> Avoiding that discussion is already a strong argument against ads.

Ha! I wholeheartedly agree. We have better things as a community to
focus energy on. I'd personally rather spend the time to solicit
donations from all my friends and neighbors, than spend the same
amount of time to read through 5 gazillion+ messages about whether
blinking is worse than popping up. The happy thing is, I'd almost
certainly raise more money by actively doing the former than passively
doing the latter.

Anyway, I am a little confused about what prompted this latest round
of ad-discussions, since I thought it was a pretty settled question
many years ago. I feel like this conversation comes back every so
often, perhaps like [[El Nino]]: it blows through, causes a few
hurricanes, involves new people (but some of the same communities)
every time, and then quietly goes away again, leaving weather
forecasters to hope there will be a longer break in between cycles
next time. Someone with some time should do a meta-analysis of
perennial proposals on the mailing lists and the village pump -- is
there any periodicity to when, say, the question of advertisements
recurs? If so, this would be very useful to chart, so the rest of us
can go on vacation and stop reading email 'til it blows over.

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

phoebe ayers wrote:
> Someone with some time should do a meta-analysis of
> perennial proposals on the mailing lists and the village pump -- is
> there any periodicity to when, say, the question of advertisements
> recurs? If so, this would be very useful to chart, so the rest of us
> can go on vacation and stop reading email 'til it blows over.
Sorry, but the only ones with that kind of available time are too busy
complaining about the ads that no-one plans to have.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I was looking for a reason to try out Google Charts ;) Sorry about the
x-axis.. http://tinyurl.com/2rjha4
Now would be a good time to go on vacation, btw.

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> is there any periodicity to when, say, the question of advertisements
> recurs? If so, this would be very useful to chart, so the rest of us
> can go on vacation and stop reading email 'til it blows over.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Well done! Now that is some research we can all use. Fundraising
coordinators, take note: advertising discussions coincide with
fund-drive planning and spring allergies.

-- phoebe

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> I was looking for a reason to try out Google Charts ;) Sorry about the
> x-axis.. http://tinyurl.com/2rjha4
> Now would be a good time to go on vacation, btw.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > is there any periodicity to when, say, the question of advertisements
> > recurs? If so, this would be very useful to chart, so the rest of us
> > can go on vacation and stop reading email 'til it blows over.
> >
> > -- phoebe
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard ha scritto:
>
> I went to the V&A (Victoria and Albert Museum) today. (I did bring my
> camera and get lots of nice photos. V&A allows non-flash photography
> of most exhibitions.) They had a box at the door with "Suggested
> donation £3" with the "£3" really big. I put in £5. It was clearly
> voluntary, but also made it clear it would have been somewhat dickish
> not to put a few quid in if you could spare it. They have the
> occasional sponsored exhibition (e.g. "The Samsung Gallery of Korean
> Art").
>
> I dunno - articles with "Was this article useful to you? Suggested
> donation: 25c" or something.
>
>
I agree, but a 25c donation via PayPal goes all to PayPal...,
microdonations are not so effective online
Cruccone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 25/03/2008, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard ha scritto:

> > They had a box at the door with "Suggested
> > donation £3" with the "£3" really big. I put in £5. It was clearly
> > voluntary, but also made it clear it would have been somewhat dickish
> > not to put a few quid in if you could spare it.
> > I dunno - articles with "Was this article useful to you? Suggested
> > donation: 25c" or something.

> I agree, but a 25c donation via PayPal goes all to PayPal...,
> microdonations are not so effective online


I know ... when they've looked at 20 articles, suggest $5? I suggest
this for anons - logged-in editors will presumably contribute content
or editing.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Or maybe put donate on the bottom of the article next to the MediaWiki shiny.



----- Original Message ----
From: David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:25:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?

On 25/03/2008, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard ha scritto:

> > They had a box at the door with "Suggested
> > donation £3" with the "£3" really big. I put in £5. It was clearly
> > voluntary, but also made it clear it would have been somewhat dickish
> > not to put a few quid in if you could spare it.
> > I dunno - articles with "Was this article useful to you? Suggested
> > donation: 25c" or something.

> I agree, but a 25c donation via PayPal goes all to PayPal...,
> microdonations are not so effective online


I know ... when they've looked at 20 articles, suggest $5? I suggest
this for anons - logged-in editors will presumably contribute content
or editing.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l