On 7 November 2010 22:42, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Why have advertising anywhere when you can just google for things you
want to buy?
Consumers don't put advertising anywhere and it is consumers that can
just google for things. Advertising is done by companies to attract
On 8 November 2010 06:41, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
One reason more why not to depend on ad providers, like Google is:
The popular wiki TV Tropes, a site dedicated to the discussion of
*cough* That would be the reason I started this thread with ;-p
- d.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 22:17, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 November 2010 06:41, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
One reason more why not to depend on ad providers, like Google is:
The popular wiki TV Tropes, a site dedicated to the discussion of
*cough* That would be the
Does Wikimedia currently have a financial problem? It does not appear too.
So if the funding model is not broken what are we trying to fix / accomplish
with advertising? Wikipedia currently gets hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of content from its volunteer editors. Many of us would be a
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Does Wikimedia currently have a financial problem? It does not appear too.
So if the funding model is not broken what are we trying to fix / accomplish
with advertising? Wikipedia currently gets hundreds of millions of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/11/2010 18:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of
wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product
visually appealing, and used the generated money from the
advertisements purely
An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of
wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product
visually appealing, and used the generated money from the
advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps
It would be interesting to see how frequent database
C'mon - we've been promising no ads for as long as anyone can remember.
People have given their money because of it...
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of
wikipedia that really tried their utmost
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of
wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product
visually appealing, and used the generated money from the
advertisements purely to fund ever more
On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
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:
On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
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:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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
On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating
products, you will.
The click-through rate would be tiny and therefore so would the
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating
On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
to click on
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We use a
On 7 November 2010 16:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
1) Why the huge assumption of bad faith? I don't think you're correct
that people would sign up for ads who don't want ads. As you
correctly point out, there would actually be no long-term benefit to
anyone for doing so.
2) If the
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us
revenue and
On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
want ad revenue for
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
It can save a step. Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better
screened than Google's ads.
Going to Wikipedia seems to be adding a step, not removing
One reason more why not to depend on ad providers, like Google is:
The popular wiki TV Tropes, a site dedicated to the discussion of
various tropes, clichés and other common devices in fiction has
suddenly decided to put various of its pages behind a 'possibly
family-unsafe' content warning,
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
This was manifestly not a fatal idea. In fact, it appears they concluded
that *operating on donations *would be fatal. Moral of the story: Wikipedia
is different.
Considering how much spam we receive, and how long some of it persists, I
sometimes wonder if we haven't miscalculated the costs and
Hello,
Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust.
Have a look what Lawrence Lessig tells about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA
Kind regards
Ziko
2010/11/5 Cool Hand Luke user.coolhandl...@gmail.com:
This was manifestly not a fatal idea. In fact, it appears they
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust.
Have a look what Lawrence Lessig tells about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA
After the first few minutes it turns into a long drawn out
42 matches
Mail list logo
