> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm also skeptical that manually placed and >> manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of >> the worker. >> >> This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. > > Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to > appear on? Is that "manual", or "automagic"? Would letting the > advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be "manual", or > "automagic"? > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> > wrote: >> If automagic worked, I would see ads for stuff I might have at least a >> passing interest in; I seldom do. But if I'm looking at an article on a >> book or an author I might well take a look at an ad page linked from >> it. >> I buy lots of books. If nothing else it would save a step or two. > > With support for location targeting you could do even better. There > are physicians who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on > location targeted Google adwords, and they do so because the revenue > they're generating from it is more than the cost. > > I think this is all pretty much a nonstarter, though. Between the > lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles > that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I > don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites.
Yes, revenue would have to be used for nonprofit purposes, either ours or others, or else. I am aware from experience here and elsewhere that even the most obvious initiatives can be futile. That is not a reason to not to advance them, repeatedly. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
