[Foundation-l] Advertisements?

Wed Mar 19 16:53:58 UTC 2008

Alternatively we can make the process of donation something less painful
with the creation of more WMF chapters.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> We do not write articles about our advertisers. We do not even write well
> about our major sponsors. If anything the
> Kennisnet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennisnet>article is out dated
> and it does not even inform substantially what it is
> that they do. Now I am not going to improve the article, it is just that I
> want to point out that this is not what we do. Given the English wikipedia
> community stance on self promotion, do you really believe that an article
> that is more then the NPOV about an advertisement has a chance? Do you
> think
> that anyone in his right mind expects this to happen?
>
> With advertisements you do not sell to the highest bidder. The most you do
> is provide a segregated platform, indicated as such, where a commercial
> message will be available. The other part is separate and is independent
> in
> its message. When this is not be the case, it is time to fork.
>
> The WMF has in the past indicated that they were not considering
> advertisements, that they would not absolutely rule it out because it may
> become necessary in the future. What we can do is be plain in not wanting
> advertisements. What we can do is consider under what circumstances
> advertisements need to be considered. What we can do is consider what
> advertisements should look like when we are to have them. What we can
> consider is what we could do when more money is available. These are all
> different issues and they should be treated as such.
>
> I disagree that the WMF should bring information slowly. Because this
> attitude maintains the digital divide as it exists today. In languages
> like
> English, German, Dutch there is a wealth of information available. All the
> Wikipedia information is available for these languages in other sources as
> well. I am not so convinced that for a language like Bengali or Telugu we
> have the same luxury. Mind you imho Bengali and Telugu are doing really
> well.
>
> When the "children in Africa" are mentioned, I am happy to tell you that
> the
> OLPC is working hard to give these kids (also in Asia, South America and
> the
> US) their own computer. It is for this reason, among many others, that we
> have to have information available for these kids now because they are
> learning now.
>
> There is a lot that you can do with a little money and a lot of effort. We
> are good at a lot of effort, we often do not have the little money to
> leverage our lot of effort. We need to invest where our money does the
> most
> good. I invest in making the localisation of MediaWiki more relevant and
> why
> I actively support Betawiki. The only language that does not need to do
> anything for its localisation is English. You may infer from this why you
> do
> not see Americans or Britons on Betawiki. People who have English as their
> first language do not appreciate how easy things are for them.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know what the community as a whole really thinks, but I think
> > >  your view that clearly labeled and distinguished advertisements are
> > >  fundemental breach of NPOV is absurd.  I trust in the basic
> > intelligence of
> > >  our readers to be able to distinguish between a clearly labeled ad
> and
> > our
> > >  actual content.  Do you consider the NYTimes (and essentially every
> > other
> > >  newspaper and magazine) to be fundementally biased simply because
> they
> > carry
> > >  ads?
> >
> > Actually, yes. I am rather suspicious of such publications when they
> > run stories about their major advertisers. One also wonders what they
> > choose -not- to run about them. If there were a newspaper which did
> > not use ads, I would read it any day over the ones that do, for the
> > exact reason of lack of potential bias (and actual bias, in giving
> > part of their space to someone to promote themself). If we sold ads,
> > we would be doing the same thing; namely, allowing self-promotion on
> > part of our site in exchange for money. We have, historically, totally
> > disallowed self-promotion in article space (or other areas such as
> > Special:Search commonly viewed by readers), and should continue to
> > strictly forbid it.
> >
> > As to labelling and distinguishing, I wouldn't find part of an article
> > acceptable if it were blatant self-promotion, even if it were labelled
> > "Blatant self-promotion". When a reader views or searches for an
> > article, there should be -no self promotion- anywhere on the reader's
> > screen. Period, end of the story. Anything else violates NPOV.
> > Labelled POV is still POV.
> >
> > >
> > >  IF ads are ever added to Wikipedia, then I for one would stick with
> the
> > site
> > >  that would be expected to have tens of millions of dollars for
> further
> > >  development rather than clinging to an idealistic, but ultimately
> > >  self-destructive, fork.
> >
> > Wikipedia/Wikimedia itself was initially an idealistic but ultimately
> > unrealistic and self-destructive project. It has survived and
> > prospered on the sweat of dedicated contributors who agree with its
> > ideals (and many of whom disagree with the sale of those ideals to the
> > highest bidder), legions of readers who find it a valuable resource
> > due to exactly the same, and donations. It has never had large amounts
> > of cash. It has been successful in spite of, or perhaps even because
> > of, that lack.
> >
> > >
> > >  -Robert Rohde
> > >
> > >  PS. I'm not saying ads are the only solution, but I consider them an
> > >  entirely reasonable option.
> >
> > For some websites, sure they are. For this one, it's one of the most
> > divisive and destructive things we could do to the project. I would
> > urge you to learn from the experience of the Spanish Wikipedia. It
> > took them years to recover from that. You know as well as I do that
> > ads on the English Wikipedia (which I'm most familiar with, so I use
> > it as an example) would cause drama beyond belief and contributors to
> > leave in hordes. This is not for no good reason, -Wikipedia should not
> > have ads-. Ever. The only thing I would come back to do is vote every
> > board member who even makes a peep about instituting or keeping the
> > ads out on their ass, and vote for everyone who advocates getting rid
> > of them. And I am by no means alone in this view.
> >
> > The reason this project is worth anything at all, monetarily or
> > otherwise, is because of the volunteers who worked to build it. Even
> > setting aside the ethical question of alienating and ignoring the
> > wishes of a large percentage of those, there is the practical
> > question--we can always hold a fund drive, or at the worst slash
> > costs, and things would keep kicking along, but could Wikimedia
> > survive a mass exodus and major forking across the board? Maybe, but
> > I'd like to not find out.
> >
> > I am not heartened by the silence of most of the Foundation board
> > members. I would very much like to hear a resounding "ABSOLUTELY NOT",
> > or at the very least "We considered the option but have already
> > rejected it." I find the quiet on this issue to be worrisome. Our
> > current Board is composed of some pretty smart people, but it would
> > still be good to hear definitively that they do not intend to do this.
> > And of course, if such an option is under ANY amount of consideration,
> > the Board certainly must be aware that it would be most unwise to even
> > begin deliberation on such a question without first seeking community
> > input.
> >
> > P.S. Spare us the "children in Africa" bit. (That applies to everyone
> > who is directly or indirectly using it.) It is Wikimedia's job to make
> > knowledge available to the world, but better to fulfill that mission
> > slowly and surely than never at all, by killing the project or
> > tainting it with (real or perceived) bias. It's a despicable rhetoric
> > tactic to make one's opponent appear as though (s)he is "against
> > helping the poor (insert sympathetic cause here)", when in reality
> > that's tangential to the discussion at best.
> >
> > --
> > Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>