> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >>>> >>>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident >>> >>> That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility >>> between Google's policies and the site. If we fell victim to the same >>> policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with >>> (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their >>> adverts on our sites and would relax their policies). >> >> I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in >> to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules). >> I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though. > > I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very > few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people > that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on > the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money.
No, no, no. We sell ads on a page marked "advertisements" at the top of each article. The ads are tailored to the article and the advertiser bids for the space and pays weekly, monthly, or annually and pays up front. No clicking through to it. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
