> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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. > > Oh, sorry, I just realized how incredibly confusing I phrased that. > What I meant by "people can opt-in" was that the advertisers could > opt-in to allowing their ads to appear on Wikipedia, so that > unsuspecting advertisers didn't wind up having their products > displayed on an illustrated article about [[tit torture]]. >
Yes, that's how Google works, like a machine gun spraying all over the place, missing 1,000 times for every one time it hits. Google, however is a straw man for the purpose of this conversation. Totally unacceptable, except on an ad page linked to articles about them and their services. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
