On 6 November 2010 03:43, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 00:53, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
An'n 05.11.2010 23:44, hett Fred Bauder schreven:
How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the
table each year?
Fred
According to
Anyway, here's some analysis of this very question done back in 2006.
Estimates for annual revenue from adverts ranged from $42 billion to
$100 billion, and that's without accounting for our growth since then.
On 6 November 2010 10:56, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Anyway, here's some analysis of this very question done back in 2006.
Estimates for annual revenue from adverts ranged from $42 billion to
$100 billion, and that's without accounting for our growth since then.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:38, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
No, we don't *need* ads. But think how much we could improve our
infrastructure and software with that money. Think how much content we
could help to free. And think how much more international we could
become.
I don't think I could stand it if we picked up advertising. I hate the way
wikia looks, and therefore have an aversion to contributing in any way to
its progress. Can you imagine! We actually link to Wikia sites and give them
traffic (though I guess that is better than filling up wikibooks and
Works for me.
FT2
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it
in
the rest of the way.
These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable
knowledge to readers. This
Veronique Kessler, 26/10/2010 17:40:
I am pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's audited
financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are
available on the Foundation wiki
Thank you.
I see (p. 5, 11):
*Special event revenue, net: 11,995/0 (2009/2010)
*Special
Actually, Wikipedia articles link to a lot of pages that have adverts.
So what. :-)
Kind regards
Ziko
2010/11/6 Arlen Beiler arlen...@gmail.com:
I don't think I could stand it if we picked up advertising. I hate the way
wikia looks, and therefore have an aversion to contributing in any way to
Hoi,
As the A word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to talk
instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to
discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that we
so beautifully formulated in our strategy..
To start it off, I have
On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
On 06/11/2010 16:22, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
To start it off, I have blogged some of my sentiments.
Thanks,
GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/annual-wikipedia-argument-about.html
You have the license on that image wrong it CC-BY-ND not CC-BY-SA : just
saying.
Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including
advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's
opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be
incorporated ONLY on the Search page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search in the
On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
ads there would be able
to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the
term being searched for)
That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example, we should not
be showing adverts for either
Hoi,
I just checked it again. It is cc-by-sa.
The point of the article is that we need to get our message out. Pointing
out that I have the license wrong does not contribute to the conversation I
hope for... or is that our message?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 November 2010 18:02,
On 6 Nov 2010, at 17:43, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
ads there would be able
to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the
term being searched for)
That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example,
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote:
Hello,
Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust.
They also create confusion. Not long ago I lent my computer to a 15 year-old
family friend who did not have Internet access at home and who wanted to
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including
advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's
opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be
incorporated ONLY on the Search page:
On 6 November 2010 20:54, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including
advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's
opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be
On 06/11/2010 17:43, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyattliamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
ads there would be able
to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the
term being searched for)
That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example, we
Hoi,
As the A word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to
talk
instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to
discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that
we
so beautifully formulated in our strategy..
To start it off,
On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including
advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's
opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be
incorporated ONLY on the Search page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search in
On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:54, MZMcBride wrote:
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including
advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's
opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be
incorporated ONLY on
On 11/7/10, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:54, MZMcBride wrote:
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including
advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's
opinions towards ads would be different
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
An'n 05.11.2010 23:44, hett Fred Bauder schreven:
How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the
table each year?
Fred
According to alexa.com Facebook has a 3-month global pageview share of
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
Does not work for me,, because it unreasonably implies that references
without it are not so funded.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:56 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Works for me.
FT2
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think you have hit the nail on
On 11/6/2010 4:19 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Marcus Buckm...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
An'n 05.11.2010 23:44, hett Fred Bauder schreven:
How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the
table each year?
Fred
According to alexa.com Facebook has
Michael Peel wrote:
Erm... how many people actually know what an interwiki is? I doubt it's a
significant number. Combine that with how many people would think about of
that particular usage of Special:Search, and I suspect that you're talking
very small numbers. Certainly, I've never thought
By flagging a piece of research as 'funding by ACME Big Pharma', we
suggest that the research is somehow flawed, without clearly saying
it, without any evidence, and without sources that support our
suggestion.
This is akin to adding categories which are not unambiguously
supported by prose and
John, by your rationale, every scholarly journal that follows defined
ethics guidelines *requiring* that the funding be disclosed impugns the
authors' integrity. Does it really?
There is a difference between transparency and assumption of wrongdoing;
and history is full of people who resisted
--- On Sun, 7/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
It is
appropriate that journals expect that researchers provide
information
to _them_ about potential conflict of interests, so it can
be
available for peer-reviewers both before and after
publishing.
In case this was not
33 matches
Mail list logo
