Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder 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 timely database d

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 wrote: > > > An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of > > wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the prod

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> 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 data

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

-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 pur

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM, James Heilman 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 dollars > worth of

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 littl

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 22:17, David Gerard wrote: > On 8 November 2010 06:41, Milos Rancic 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 thr

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 8 November 2010 06:41, Milos Rancic 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. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 7 November 2010 22:42, Fred Bauder 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 consumers they wouldn't o

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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, appa

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> On 7 November 2010 16:21, Anthony 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 payme

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony 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. In some cases. Not all though.

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton >> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton > 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 not actually buying, which advert

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 7 November 2010 16:21, Anthony 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 payment isn't

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >>> On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder wrote: We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has to c

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder 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 revenue. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

>> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> wrote: On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: > ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: > > http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >>> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.T

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: >>> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >>> >>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogl

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 thoug

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard 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 a

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 11/7/10, Michael Peel 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 if g

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 ON

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard 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 policie

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 06/11/2010 17:43, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt 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 > b

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 6 November 2010 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 > > incorporat

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > 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 search online for a Sum

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 6 Nov 2010, at 17:43, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt 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 Coca-cola or Pepsi to p

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 wh

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard 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

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

Actually, Wikipedia articles link to a lot of pages that have adverts. So what. :-) Kind regards Ziko 2010/11/6 Arlen Beiler : > 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. Ca

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

You might want to look at this link from ACSI(American Customer Satisfaction Index) which introduced indexing of social sites this year: "Satisfaction is measured with four social media websites—Facebook, MySpace, Wik

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk 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 infomercial supportin

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 : > This was manifestly not a "fatal" idea.  In fact, it appears they concluded > that *operating

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

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 an

[Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

... 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: https://lists.wikimedia.o