No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current
one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying
that the Foundation is in grave financial danger. Obviously the use of
what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives
available on our own projects is not ideal. The ads themselves are also as
ugly as hell, although I'm sure there's some A/B testing that shows that
such monstrosities extract slightly more cash from the readers that will be
used to justify that.
On 3 December 2015 at 10:01, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> > > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia
> > > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> > >
> > [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
> > Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the
> > of the ads so far this year.
> You approve of WMF using stock photos?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: