[Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

David Gerard-2
Feed the 'pedia, Let them know it's cup-rattling time ... I've put a
note on my blog, as has Kat Walsh:

  http://reddragdiva.livejournal.com/375133.html
  http://mindspillage.livejournal.com/11763.html

If others could follow suit, that would probably be a good thing. If
we're not going to have ads on the site, we need to get the money
other ways. Let EVERYONE know we need their pennies!

(Note I also suggest that if they're not cashed up, they can give us
photos or write stuff!)


- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Parker Conrad
I'm curious -- what is the objection to advertising? If there was, say, one
unobtrusive text ad per page, I imagine that would cover all of the
wikimedia foundation's costs and allow new features to be developed a little
more quickly. Would people be offended and stop contributing?


On 12/18/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Feed the 'pedia, Let them know it's cup-rattling time ... I've put a
> note on my blog, as has Kat Walsh:
>
>   http://reddragdiva.livejournal.com/375133.html
>   http://mindspillage.livejournal.com/11763.html
>
> If others could follow suit, that would probably be a good thing. If
> we're not going to have ads on the site, we need to get the money
> other ways. Let EVERYONE know we need their pennies!
>
> (Note I also suggest that if they're not cashed up, they can give us
> photos or write stuff!)
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Andrew Gray
On 18/12/06, Parker Conrad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm curious -- what is the objection to advertising? If there was, say, one
> unobtrusive text ad per page, I imagine that would cover all of the
> wikimedia foundation's costs and allow new features to be developed a little
> more quickly. Would people be offended and stop contributing?

The objection is that the community reacts with screaming and violence
at even the vague *thought* of advertising; getting money in is
absolutely not worth driving off our contributors. The objections may
or may not be well-reasoned - some are, some are just silly - but they
exist, and we're not going to be able to handwave them away with
executive decisions on the matter.

It has happened before - the Spanish wikipedia forked over a garbled
"there is a possibility we might not rule out thinking about
discussing the prospect of looking into advertising" argument; it
stalled that project for quite some time.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Oldak
In reply to this post by Parker Conrad
On 18/12/06, Parker Conrad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm curious -- what is the objection to advertising? If there was, say, one
> unobtrusive text ad per page, I imagine that would cover all of the
> wikimedia foundation's costs and allow new features to be developed a little
> more quickly. Would people be offended and stop contributing?

If we accepted advertising, we would be faced with an impossible
conflict of interest. If Coca Cola is giving us 20 000 USD, how would
any reader consider our article on them to be NPOV?

Basically, we would lose any validity we currently have.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Parker Conrad
On 18/12/06, Parker Conrad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm curious -- what is the objection to advertising? If there was, say, one
> unobtrusive text ad per page, I imagine that would cover all of the
> wikimedia foundation's costs and allow new features to be developed a little
> more quickly. Would people be offended and stop contributing?


Because people hate, despise and loathe the idea of advertising, and a
substantial fraction of the volunteers who write all the content would
get up and *leave*. And that would be bad.

Basically, instead of the annoyance of advertising you get the
annoyance of slow servers on a Sunday afternoon and occasional
downtime. And people seem to be willing to accept that deal. Jimbo has
said in the past that downtime is our most lucrative product ;-)

So we get money by asking the readers, and now that we have properly
audited books we're going after big-time donors.


- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Berto 'd Sera-2
In reply to this post by Parker Conrad
Hi!

>Would people be offended and stop contributing?
I gather the only serious answer is: nobody knows. That's unless there had
been previous experiments I'm not aware of. But it sure would have an impact
on bandwidth. No matter how small the banner, given the kind of traffic we
generate our needs are going to noticeably grow. I suppose that such a move
would need a serious technical analysis, it's not just like adding a banner
on an average website.

Berto

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

David Monniaux-2
Berto 'd Sera wrote:

>Hi!
>
>  
>
>>Would people be offended and stop contributing?
>>    
>>
>I gather the only serious answer is: nobody knows. That's unless there had
>been previous experiments I'm not aware of. But it sure would have an impact
>on bandwidth. No matter how small the banner, given the kind of traffic we
>generate our needs are going to noticeably grow. I suppose that such a move
>would need a serious technical analysis, it's not just like adding a banner
>on an average website.
>
Banners typically are directly included from third party sites, which
enables these sites to count the number of accesses.

The issue of advertisement is entirely political, not technical. I'm
also sure that whoever provides the advertisement would be glad to deal
with the technical issues (Wikipedia is a big site, they can do that).

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Berto 'd Sera-2
Berto 'd Sera wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Would people be offended and stop contributing?
> I gather the only serious answer is: nobody knows. That's unless there had
> been previous experiments I'm not aware of.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

theProject
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 12/18/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 18/12/06, Parker Conrad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'm curious -- what is the objection to advertising? If there was, say,
> one
> > unobtrusive text ad per page, I imagine that would cover all of the
> > wikimedia foundation's costs and allow new features to be developed a
> little
> > more quickly. Would people be offended and stop contributing?
>
>
> Because people hate, despise and loathe the idea of advertising, and a
> substantial fraction of the volunteers who write all the content would
> get up and *leave*. And that would be bad.
>
> Basically, instead of the annoyance of advertising you get the
> annoyance of slow servers on a Sunday afternoon and occasional
> downtime. And people seem to be willing to accept that deal. Jimbo has
> said in the past that downtime is our most lucrative product ;-)
>
> So we get money by asking the readers, and now that we have properly
> audited books we're going after big-time donors.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

Someone's going to have to explain this to me. If the problem with Coca-Cola
buying advertisements on our site is that our article on them might be
perceived as not NPOV, then how is it any different if we accept a donation
from them? As far as I know, we do have a list of fairly big donors, and
some of them have articles.

Not that I support advertising on Wikipedia -- something just seems a bit
disconnected.

--
theProject
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

J.L.W.S. The Special One
I support the use of contextual (Google AdSense) ads on Wikipedia.

Contextual ads are small and unobstrusive. In addition, they may
benefit the reader by pointing them to additional resources.

Wikipedia is now a top-20 site. Server and bandwidth costs will grow
rapidly. Donations are not a reliable way to keep Wikipedia
financially afloat.

I remember reading a report in the Signpost which says that Wikipedia
could earn over $500 million if it used contextual ads.

On 12/19/06, theProject <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/18/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 18/12/06, Parker Conrad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm curious -- what is the objection to advertising? If there was, say,
> > one
> > > unobtrusive text ad per page, I imagine that would cover all of the
> > > wikimedia foundation's costs and allow new features to be developed a
> > little
> > > more quickly. Would people be offended and stop contributing?
> >
> >
> > Because people hate, despise and loathe the idea of advertising, and a
> > substantial fraction of the volunteers who write all the content would
> > get up and *leave*. And that would be bad.
> >
> > Basically, instead of the annoyance of advertising you get the
> > annoyance of slow servers on a Sunday afternoon and occasional
> > downtime. And people seem to be willing to accept that deal. Jimbo has
> > said in the past that downtime is our most lucrative product ;-)
> >
> > So we get money by asking the readers, and now that we have properly
> > audited books we're going after big-time donors.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> Someone's going to have to explain this to me. If the problem with Coca-Cola
> buying advertisements on our site is that our article on them might be
> perceived as not NPOV, then how is it any different if we accept a donation
> from them? As far as I know, we do have a list of fairly big donors, and
> some of them have articles.
>
> Not that I support advertising on Wikipedia -- something just seems a bit
> disconnected.
>
> --
> theProject
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

David Gerard-2
On 19/12/06, J.L.W.S. The Special One <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Contextual ads are small and unobstrusive. In addition, they may
> benefit the reader by pointing them to additional resources.
> Wikipedia is now a top-20 site. Server and bandwidth costs will grow
> rapidly. Donations are not a reliable way to keep Wikipedia
> financially afloat.
> I remember reading a report in the Signpost which says that Wikipedia
> could earn over $500 million if it used contextual ads.


Certainly, but the problem is it would still make a large chunk of the
people who actually write the sites get up and leave.


- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

James Hare
What if the ads were off by default?

On 12/19/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 19/12/06, J.L.W.S. The Special One <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Contextual ads are small and unobstrusive. In addition, they may
> > benefit the reader by pointing them to additional resources.
> > Wikipedia is now a top-20 site. Server and bandwidth costs will grow
> > rapidly. Donations are not a reliable way to keep Wikipedia
> > financially afloat.
> > I remember reading a report in the Signpost which says that Wikipedia
> > could earn over $500 million if it used contextual ads.
>
>
> Certainly, but the problem is it would still make a large chunk of the
> people who actually write the sites get up and leave.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Rich Holton
James Hare wrote:
> What if the ads were off by default?
>

It might make sense to have any such ads "on" by default, and off as
soon as you login. This would encourage creating accounts, and is a
fairly common practice on the web.

Having said that, I'll add that I am against having any ads. I don't
think I'd quit the project altogether if we had ads, but I do think
something significant would be lost; my motivation to contribute would
diminish, and my monthly subscription donation (tiny as it is) would end.

There is no doubt that volunteers are Wikimedia's most valuable asset,
and ads would have a significant negative impact on that asset. We may
not know for sure how significant, but it would not be trivial.

-Rich
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Mark Wagner-2
In reply to this post by theProject
On 12/18/06, theProject <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Someone's going to have to explain this to me. If the problem with Coca-Cola
> buying advertisements on our site is that our article on them might be
> perceived as not NPOV, then how is it any different if we accept a donation
> from them? As far as I know, we do have a list of fairly big donors, and
> some of them have articles.

The nature of the relationship is different.  Consider the following
two scenarios:

1) Starbucks signs a $20,000-a-month contract to place banner ads on
Wikipedia.  Some time afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been
manipulating the caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat
sales.  They tell us to keep it out of their article or they'll cancel
the contract.  What does Wikipedia do?

2) Starbucks gives Wikipedia a $20,000 donation.  Some time
afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been manipulating the
caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat sales.  They
tell us to keep it out of their article.  Wikipedia puts it in the
article and thumbs its collective nose at Starbucks.  What are they
going to do, ask for their donation back?

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
When DirtyCom donates $20.000,- to the Wikimedia Foundation, it does not
gain leverage on the WMF. So it does request us to be nice. When this gets
in the news that they operate in this way, they will have a serious public
relations issue. Not only did they raise their x level in order to raise the
repeat sales, they also have raised a lot of negative sentiment for their
brand.

Many companies understand very well who it is they deal with. Not
understanding this aspect of  the Wikimedia Foundation and its project is
seriously stupid. For the WMF organisation not to appreciate this aspect of
its projects is impossible. It is therefore extremely unlikely that a
situation like this will arise.

Thanks,
    GerardM


On 12/19/06, Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 12/18/06, theProject <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Someone's going to have to explain this to me. If the problem with
> Coca-Cola
> > buying advertisements on our site is that our article on them might be
> > perceived as not NPOV, then how is it any different if we accept a
> donation
> > from them? As far as I know, we do have a list of fairly big donors, and
> > some of them have articles.
>
> The nature of the relationship is different.  Consider the following
> two scenarios:
>
> 1) Starbucks signs a $20,000-a-month contract to place banner ads on
> Wikipedia.  Some time afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been
> manipulating the caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat
> sales.  They tell us to keep it out of their article or they'll cancel
> the contract.  What does Wikipedia do?
>
> 2) Starbucks gives Wikipedia a $20,000 donation.  Some time
> afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been manipulating the
> caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat sales.  They
> tell us to keep it out of their article.  Wikipedia puts it in the
> article and thumbs its collective nose at Starbucks.  What are they
> going to do, ask for their donation back?
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Subsume
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner-2
Technically, I don't see a difference.

Also, who would physically make sure it stayed out of the article? They'd
quickly be reverted.

WMF couldn't make such a guarantee in the first place, and I'm pretty sure
language to that effect would appear in any advertising contract.

-S

On 12/19/06, Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 12/18/06, theProject <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Someone's going to have to explain this to me. If the problem with
> Coca-Cola
> > buying advertisements on our site is that our article on them might be
> > perceived as not NPOV, then how is it any different if we accept a
> donation
> > from them? As far as I know, we do have a list of fairly big donors, and
> > some of them have articles.
>
> The nature of the relationship is different.  Consider the following
> two scenarios:
>
> 1) Starbucks signs a $20,000-a-month contract to place banner ads on
> Wikipedia.  Some time afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been
> manipulating the caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat
> sales.  They tell us to keep it out of their article or they'll cancel
> the contract.  What does Wikipedia do?
>
> 2) Starbucks gives Wikipedia a $20,000 donation.  Some time
> afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been manipulating the
> caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat sales.  They
> tell us to keep it out of their article.  Wikipedia puts it in the
> article and thumbs its collective nose at Starbucks.  What are they
> going to do, ask for their donation back?
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Subsume
In reply to this post by Parker Conrad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

On 12/18/06, Parker Conrad <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm curious -- what is the objection to advertising? If there was, say,
> one
> unobtrusive text ad per page, I imagine that would cover all of the
> wikimedia foundation's costs and allow new features to be developed a
> little
> more quickly. Would people be offended and stop contributing?
>
>
> On 12/18/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Feed the 'pedia, Let them know it's cup-rattling time ... I've put a
> > note on my blog, as has Kat Walsh:
> >
> >   http://reddragdiva.livejournal.com/375133.html
> >   http://mindspillage.livejournal.com/11763.html
> >
> > If others could follow suit, that would probably be a good thing. If
> > we're not going to have ads on the site, we need to get the money
> > other ways. Let EVERYONE know we need their pennies!
> >
> > (Note I also suggest that if they're not cashed up, they can give us
> > photos or write stuff!)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

J.L.W.S. The Special One
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner-2
That's why ads should be contextual (Google AdSense), not banner ads.

On 12/20/06, Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/18/06, theProject <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Someone's going to have to explain this to me. If the problem with Coca-Cola
> > buying advertisements on our site is that our article on them might be
> > perceived as not NPOV, then how is it any different if we accept a donation
> > from them? As far as I know, we do have a list of fairly big donors, and
> > some of them have articles.
>
> The nature of the relationship is different.  Consider the following
> two scenarios:
>
> 1) Starbucks signs a $20,000-a-month contract to place banner ads on
> Wikipedia.  Some time afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been
> manipulating the caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat
> sales.  They tell us to keep it out of their article or they'll cancel
> the contract.  What does Wikipedia do?
>
> 2) Starbucks gives Wikipedia a $20,000 donation.  Some time
> afterwards, it comes out that Starbucks has been manipulating the
> caffeine levels of their products to encourage repeat sales.  They
> tell us to keep it out of their article.  Wikipedia puts it in the
> article and thumbs its collective nose at Starbucks.  What are they
> going to do, ask for their donation back?
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> When DirtyCom donates $20.000,- to the Wikimedia Foundation, it does not
> gain leverage on the WMF. So it does request us to be nice. When this gets
> in the news that they operate in this way, they will have a serious public
> relations issue. Not only did they raise their x level in order to raise the
> repeat sales, they also have raised a lot of negative sentiment for their
> brand.
>

... and under Australian law, their bribery will be tax-deductible :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Begging letters on our blogs?

Michael Snow
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:

> I remember reading a report in the Signpost which says that Wikipedia
> could earn over $500 million if it used contextual ads.

Please, if you're going to cite my work in making the controversial
argument that Wikipedia should carry advertising, at least get your
information right. The Signpost did not report "that Wikipedia could
earn over $500 million if it used contextual ads." The Signpost reported
about some people doing back-of-the-napkin analysis, and they didn't
come up with $500 million in revenue either. Even the biggest public
booster of such advertising, the inimitable Jason Calacanis, was only
plugging for $100 million as the annual revenue potential.

Perhaps you've gotten confused over the critical distinction between
income and valuation? Or if you were relying solely on memory, please
avoid that bad habit (responsible for quite a few Wikipedia errors),
especially when the facts require such a trivial effort to check.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
12