Bohdan Melnychuk wrote:
>Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we
>are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads
>but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I
>really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows me so little
>content initially because the rest is covered in ads. This all went too
>far and I hope that Fundraising guys think of less haunting way of
>calling for donation.

Yes, it's definitely an advertisement. Adblock and others should treat it
as such. I don't think this ad is haunting, though. I'm a little sad that
when I clicked the Imgur link, I actually expected worse.

Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
has not yet sunk to that yet.

Samuel Klein wrote:
>I think a more pressing response to this is to reduce the budget to get
>some breathing room, increase work through partnerships (which Wikimedia
>doesn't have to fund entirely on its own), and increase non-banner revenue
>It's also key to improve banner effectiveness.  How nice it would be to
>have a composite that combines measures of the favorability of the banner
>among readers (most of whom don't donate anyway), mood setting & meme
>propagation, and the reduction in usability of the site (which may have an
>effect over months), against the immediate fundraising impact.  A banner
>that is 5% better with improved favorability among readers may be better
>than a banner that is 20% better but with double the unfavorability.
>There are thousands of worthy projects that have expanded their budgets as
>far as they could, then expand in-your-face banners as far as they can,
>and only stop once their sites are quite difficult to use.   It happens
>gradually (I'm looking at you, Wikia ;) but the result is the usability
>equivalent of linkrot.  Let's not let WP end up like that.

I don't have much to add to what SJ wrote recently in a related thread.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to