61–70 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly agree. On the other hand, I would block any ad they posted, so I'm not sure how much my opinion should count.
Honest question, how would you have them get paid for your use of their service?
To be honest, though, it's not my problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except: editing is done by an unruly hive. There is no organizational nexus on which to place "comply or we'll withdraw our advertising" pressure. And, any attempt to apply such pressure would quickly trigger its own self-nullification via editor outrage (as with the 'Streisand Effect'). In order for an advertiser to have sinister influence, you'd need to assume a bunch of other changes which weaken Wikipedia's resil…
Your posts on the subject seem far and away too utopian when we're talking about wikipedia. They've already had a lot of scandals about censorship/bias/etc. now . That would only get worse when money was on the line.
Not sure which would be less annoying - a few Adsense links clearly marked and off on the side, or the ginormous banner and somewhat overwrought copy.
I don't think "annoying" is one of the reasons why they don't do ads.
What make me sad about wikipedia is that year after year, they will have to make this 'begging'. And jokes about Jim Wales will appear all over the web, and some more begging, and people complaining about some rich dude who 'only' donate 500 larges. Well, Wikipedia has to find a sustainable model, they do not want ads or propaganda, but some new model has to be found, books, classes, especial encyclopedias, I don't k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your posts on the subject seem far and away too utopian when we're talking about wikipedia. They've already had a lot of scandals about censorship/bias/etc. now . That would only get worse when money was on the line.
How does advertising make it worse? Can't companies already hire PR firms and other editors to slyly improve their coverage? Isn't that cheaper and less subject to backlash than trying to communicate conditional advertising budgets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except: editing is done by an unruly hive. There is no organizational nexus on which to place "comply or we'll withdraw our advertising" pressure. And, any attempt to apply such pressure would quickly trigger its own self-nullification via editor outrage (as with the 'Streisand Effect'). In order for an advertiser to have sinister influence, you'd need to assume a bunch of other changes which weaken Wikipedia's resil…
But wikipedia have previously frozen controversial pages that are having edit wars. They could choose the last revision that is reasonable favourable to advertiser and then freeze the page
"We don’t run ads because doing so would sacrifice our independence. The site is not and should never be a propaganda tool." I really don't understand wikipedia's continued hesitation to accept advertising--nor the argument that it would sacrifice their independence--anyone can edit it already, so I question whether sponsorship needs to have any impact on article content whatsoever. What's the problem with having a b…
> I really don't understand wikipedia's continued hesitation to accept advertising Try to think of an example where editorial maintained independence from the sales department. My favorite example from dead-tree newspapers: For all the noise they make about the sacredness of editorial, I don't think it was a coincidence that the number of articles about the bubble in real estate were inversely proportional to RE adve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does advertising make it worse? Can't companies already hire PR firms and other editors to slyly improve their coverage? Isn't that cheaper and less subject to backlash than trying to communicate conditional advertising budgets?
they have no direct influence unless they are a customer (paying money to Wikipedia), sure they can try to game the system, but Wikipedia isn't going to do some action at their request. If a company pays a lot of money to Wikipedia its possible someone within the Wiki organization would be willing to bend the rules a bit to cave to their request because it may keep the money flowing whereas otherwise tough decisions…
Also, the organization that handles funds – the Foundation – has very little special editorial power, and their actions are especially transparent. (For example, their real names are necessarily known, whiich is not the case for other editors.) Attempting to influence content by being an advertiser, then making ad spends conditional on favorable bias, would be about the worst possible way to try to influence Wikipedia content. You'd be spending a lot, via a path that's under the most scrutiny. You'd probably prompt staff to be extra harsh on you to avoid any appearance of infuence.
Anyone who really wanted to spend to influence Wikipedia would just hire editors outside the funds/ads-handling organization. That threat is larger, and unaffected by the presence or absence of advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I really don't understand wikipedia's continued hesitation to accept advertising Try to think of an example where editorial maintained independence from the sales department. My favorite example from dead-tree newspapers: For all the noise they make about the sacredness of editorial, I don't think it was a coincidence that the number of articles about the bubble in real estate were inversely proportional to RE adve…
Do you have any research about this inverse proportion? The bubble was in the news the whole time. People just didn't care. http://seattlebubble.com is entirely funded by real estate advertising.
Not from 2002-2005. By that point, it had already surpassed bubble prices of 1989 in real dollars.