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 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: 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 site. If we fell victim to the same policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their adverts on our sites and would relax their policies). 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]], though. I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money. No, no, no. We sell ads on a page marked advertisements at the top of each article. The ads are tailored to the article and the advertiser bids for the space and pays weekly, monthly, or annually and pays up front. No clicking through to it. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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: 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 site. If we fell victim to the same policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their adverts on our sites and would relax their policies). 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]], though. I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money. No, no, no. We sell ads on a page marked advertisements at the top of each article. The ads are tailored to the article and the advertiser bids for the space and pays weekly, monthly, or annually and pays up front. No clicking through to it. Fred 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. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though. I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money. Oh, sorry, I just realized how incredibly confusing I phrased that. What I meant by people can opt-in was that the advertisers could opt-in to allowing their ads to appear on Wikipedia, so that unsuspecting advertisers didn't wind up having their products displayed on an illustrated article about [[tit torture]]. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 revenue. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 products, you will. The click-through rate would be tiny and therefore so would the revenue. I would think the click-through rate would be above-average. People who want ads are more likely to click on those ads (also less likely to be using ad-blocking software). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 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. I would think the click-through rate would be above-average. People who want ads are more likely to click on those ads (also less likely to be using ad-blocking software). 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 advertisers stopped falling for years ago. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 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. I would think the click-through rate would be above-average. People who want ads are more likely to click on those ads (also less likely to be using ad-blocking software). 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 advertisers stopped falling for years ago. 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 per click, why would people click through to get us revenue? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 payment isn't per click, why would people click through to get us revenue? This has nothing to do with good or bad faith. If people are only opting in because they want ads, then there are going to be a very small number of people opting in. Why have ads on Wikipedia pages when you can just google for things you want to buy? If payment *were* by click, then people would abuse it, which is why payment wouldn't be by click and we wouldn't get much money. That was the point I was trying to make. Can you give an example of a site with opt-in advertising that actually gets significant revenue from it (for the number of page views they get)? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 not actually buying, which advertisers stopped falling for years ago. 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. Let me amend that. I don't think that the percentage of people who want ads would be lower in an opt-in scenario. Obviously *some* people who don't want ads would sign up for ads. But presumably *most* people who do want ads would also sign up for ads. So the proportion of people who want ads would go up, in my estimation quite dramatically. Of course, this is somewhat dependent on how good the ads are, including both how relevant they are and how well the scammers are screened out. On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 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 payment isn't per click, why would people click through to get us revenue? This has nothing to do with good or bad faith. Claiming that people are going to scam the system by signing up for (and clicking on) ads for the sole purpose of transferring money from the advertisers to Wikipedia is a huge assumption of bad faith. If people are only opting in because they want ads, then there are going to be a very small number of people opting in. I don't know about that. It depends in large part on how good the ads are (see above). Why have ads on Wikipedia pages when you can just google for things you want to buy? It can save a step. Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better screened than Google's ads. If payment *were* by click, then people would abuse it, which is why payment wouldn't be by click and we wouldn't get much money. That was the point I was trying to make. Right, but your we wouldn't get much money point was just speculation, and I was speculating differently. Can you give an example of a site with opt-in advertising that actually gets significant revenue from it (for the number of page views they get)? I can't think of any site that has opt-in advertising, so no. In any case, as I clarified a few emails above, I never meant to suggest that Wikipedia should have opt-in advertising (*). Clearly more money would be made if the advertising were not opt-in. And clearly any advertising would cause a huge rift in the community. (*) I was simply trying to say that I doubt Google would allow Google ads on unscreened Wikipedia articles unless the advertiser specifically asked for it ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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 us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us revenue and not actually buying, which advertisers stopped falling for years ago. 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. Let me amend that. I don't think that the percentage of people who want ads would be lower in an opt-in scenario. Obviously *some* people who don't want ads would sign up for ads. But presumably *most* people who do want ads would also sign up for ads. So the proportion of people who want ads would go up, in my estimation quite dramatically. Yes, you are obviously right about that. It would be a high proportion of a very small number, though. People don't click on ads because they go looking for them, they click on ads because they get distracted from what they are doing by the ad and it occurs to them that it might be worth clicking on it. That's why adverts are made to be attention grabbing. Why have ads on Wikipedia pages when you can just google for things you want to buy? 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. We can't do any significant screening of ads. We can remove obvious scams and really annoying ads, but anything more than that wouldn't be neutral. If payment *were* by click, then people would abuse it, which is why payment wouldn't be by click and we wouldn't get much money. That was the point I was trying to make. Right, but your we wouldn't get much money point was just speculation, and I was speculating differently. Can you give an example of a site with opt-in advertising that actually gets significant revenue from it (for the number of page views they get)? I can't think of any site that has opt-in advertising, so no. And why do you think that is? Sure, I'm speculating, but the fact that neither of us knows of any site that is actually doing it suggests my speculation is accurate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 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. In some cases. Not all though. Another huge advantage would be that the ads would sometimes be much better targeted, as there would be clarification and disambiguation which doesn't occur in a typical Google search. We can't do any significant screening of ads. We can remove obvious scams and really annoying ads, but anything more than that wouldn't be neutral. How is it neutral to remove obvious scams? I can't think of any site that has opt-in advertising, so no. And why do you think that is? I don't know. I guess mostly because opt-in advertising is pretty much guaranteed to make less money than non-opt-in advertising. Although, who knows, maybe it's just because no one major has ever tried it. Sure, I'm speculating, but the fact that neither of us knows of any site that is actually doing it suggests my speculation is accurate. No, sorry, it doesn't. What it suggests is that opt-in advertising is pretty much guaranteed to make less money than non-opt-in advertising. That wasn't the disagreement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
In a message dated 11/7/2010 8:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: 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 advertisers stopped falling for years ago. I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to see ads will be very productive. I'm also skeptical that manually placed and manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the worker. This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
In a message dated 11/7/2010 2:03:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, jay...@gmail.com writes: I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to see ads will be very productive. I'm also skeptical that manually placed and manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the worker. This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. Not everyone. There are still many websites that only have a few sponsors. -- John Vandenberg The number of sponsors is not related to the question of whether they are manually placing and monitoring ads on a page by page basis. Sites with few sponsors can also be rotating ads through automagic, so it's not a question of the number of sponsors. My counter point was that the issue of placing relevant ads manually, is financial suicide, as the income from individual ads is minimal. My point being, that the income from individual ads placed, is far less than the wages paid to the human ad placer and monitor. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
In a message dated 11/7/2010 8:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: 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 advertisers stopped falling for years ago. I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to see ads will be very productive. I'm also skeptical that manually placed and manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the worker. This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. W I envision ads being sold by salespeople on commission. Anyone who sells an ad would be responsible for selecting and monitoring the ads they sell. Commission guarantees our salespeople will go after ads that are relevant to the page they are linked from that marketers feel are worthwhile. Even without counting click throughs we could add information to the link on the ad page which showed the other end where the potential customer came from. If automagic worked, I would see ads for stuff I might have at least a passing interest in; I seldom do. But if I'm looking at an article on a book or an author I might well take a look at an ad page linked from it. I buy lots of books. If nothing else it would save a step or two. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:35 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/7/2010 2:03:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, jay...@gmail.com writes: I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to see ads will be very productive. I'm also skeptical that manually placed and manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the worker. This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. Not everyone. There are still many websites that only have a few sponsors. -- John Vandenberg The number of sponsors is not related to the question of whether they are manually placing and monitoring ads on a page by page basis. Sites with few sponsors can also be rotating ads through automagic, so it's not a question of the number of sponsors. My counter point was that the issue of placing relevant ads manually, is financial suicide, as the income from individual ads is minimal. My point being, that the income from individual ads placed, is far less than the wages paid to the human ad placer and monitor. I agree with you that manually placing and monitoring ads on a per-article basis would not be cost effective. If it was a paid employee, the community would quickly grow a distrust for them. If it was the community placing ads, it would skew the community and probably result in admin boards being twice as nasty. However we could encourage donations by having a static page that is part of the UI of each project that prominently lists everyone who has donated to WMF. e.g. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors (btw, can someone change 'Herpes' to Herpes Doctor!) and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thanks_Virgin_Unite -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I'm also skeptical that manually placed and manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the worker. This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to appear on? Is that manual, or automagic? Would letting the advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be manual, or automagic? On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If automagic worked, I would see ads for stuff I might have at least a passing interest in; I seldom do. But if I'm looking at an article on a book or an author I might well take a look at an ad page linked from it. I buy lots of books. If nothing else it would save a step or two. With support for location targeting you could do even better. There are physicians who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on location targeted Google adwords, and they do so because the revenue they're generating from it is more than the cost. I think this is all pretty much a nonstarter, though. Between the lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I'm also skeptical that manually placed and manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the worker. This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to appear on? Is that manual, or automagic? Would letting the advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be manual, or automagic? On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If automagic worked, I would see ads for stuff I might have at least a passing interest in; I seldom do. But if I'm looking at an article on a book or an author I might well take a look at an ad page linked from it. I buy lots of books. If nothing else it would save a step or two. With support for location targeting you could do even better. There are physicians who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on location targeted Google adwords, and they do so because the revenue they're generating from it is more than the cost. I think this is all pretty much a nonstarter, though. Between the lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites. Yes, revenue would have to be used for nonprofit purposes, either ours or others, or else. I am aware from experience here and elsewhere that even the most obvious initiatives can be futile. That is not a reason to not to advance them, repeatedly. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
In a message dated 11/7/2010 3:19:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, wikim...@inbox.org writes: Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to appear on? Is that manual, or automagic? Would letting the advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be manual, or automagic? On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If automagic worked, I would see ads for stuff I might have at least a passing interest in; I seldom do. But if I'm looking at an article on a book or an author I might well take a look at an ad page linked from it. I buy lots of books. If nothing else it would save a step or two. With support for location targeting you could do even better. There are physicians who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on location targeted Google adwords, and they do so because the revenue they're generating from it is more than the cost. I think this is all pretty much a nonstarter, though. Between the lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites. When an advertiser picks which searches they want to appear on, this is handled by the customer. No time commitment from Google employees there. And this affects searches, not individual hand-picked end-user pages. Similarly, webcontent creators using Adsense, can block certain types of ads, or even certain advertisers, but again, this is done by the customer, so-to-speak, not by a Google-paid employee. If there were a system created, where all the *effort* were off loaded to the payer, not the pay...ed, then you'd gain that financial benefit. The creation of such a system however, involves the effort of a much higher level of paid employee :) So there you go. No free lunch. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Between the lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites. Yes, revenue would have to be used for nonprofit purposes, either ours or others, or else. No. It would likely require much more than that. More like the hurdles that had to be jumped through by the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation, only more difficult because Wikipedia is already well-established. That or you could try to convince the IRS that the advertisements themselves are part and parcel of the mission to educate the public, which might actually be possible. Either way it would take quite a bit of effort on the part of the WMF, and that combined with the pushback from the community, I just don't think it'll ever happen. I am aware from experience here and elsewhere that even the most obvious initiatives can be futile. That is not a reason to not to advance them, repeatedly. I'd argue against you on that one, but it'd probably be futile. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If there were a system created, where all the *effort* were off loaded to the payer, not the pay...ed, then you'd gain that financial benefit. The creation of such a system however, involves the effort of a much higher level of paid employee :) So there you go. No free lunch. You should work for Britannica. :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table, vs. Google's serving portion
On 6 November 2010 01:20, Seth Finkelstein se...@sethf.com wrote: Nobody knows, because the unknown factor in such calculations is whether Google would continue to bless Wikipedia so heavily if it started running ads. You cannot assume that the current dominance in search ranking would be maintained. Google can - and does - tweak algorithmic factors, which then have profound effects on what types of sites rank highly. Err from google's POV it's in their financial interest for sights that feature their ads to be high in the SERPS. Large numbers of people going to a site which doesn't host their ads means large numbers of lost clicks on google ads. As for tweak algorithmic factors firstly it's already happened at least once (there was a noticeable drop in wikipedia's Google SERPS positions a few years back). Secondly since both bing and yahoo rank wikipedia highly (in fact while I haven't checked recently for a long time google ranked wikipedia lower than those two) it seems unlikely that any reasonable algorithmic change would kill off wikipedia's traffic. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in the field* is, however, something that strongly suggests we should not deliberately withhold such information from the reader. Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. However the field in question has long established standards when it comes to citation. So for example when Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B and MUC7 mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts cites Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin they do so in the form of: Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, Epstein LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucins. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002. And do not mention it's funding source (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). So if you wanted to follow the standards of their field editors would have to disclose their funding source. This would presumably result in a history entry looking something like this: 12:23, 6 November 2010 examplestudent (talk | contribs | block) (127,638 bytes) (nonsensical edit involving plankton)(funding:parents +student loans company limited+Joint Information Systems Committee) (rollback | undo) -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create them. A user writing X said Y is not verifying that Y is true. They are verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third party can check, why they believe X said Y is true. Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create information isn't at question. They are simply saying this is what X said, this is where anyone can check X said it and form their own view. By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their own view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality and basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on it. FT2 On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:22 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in the field* is, however, something that strongly suggests we should not deliberately withhold such information from the reader. Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. However the field in question has long established standards when it comes to citation. So for example when Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B and MUC7 mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts cites Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin they do so in the form of: Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, Epstein LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucins. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002. And do not mention it's funding source (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). So if you wanted to follow the standards of their field editors would have to disclose their funding source. This would presumably result in a history entry looking something like this: 12:23, 6 November 2010 examplestudent (talk | contribs | block) (127,638 bytes) (nonsensical edit involving plankton)(funding:parents +student loans company limited+Joint Information Systems Committee) (rollback | undo) -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create them. A user writing X said Y is not verifying that Y is true. They are verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third party can check, why they believe X said Y is true. Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create information isn't at question. They are simply saying this is what X said, this is where anyone can check X said it and form their own view. The point geni was making is that while it is appropriate for journals to publish funding information with their articles, it is not normal for people citing those articles to note the same with each citation. I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this has yet to eventuate. By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their own view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality and basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on it. The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader to decide how biased the sources are. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
I haven't heard the word eventuate before. My comment addresses the plain meaning of the words - namely that if sourcing style was followed editors would have to disclose funding sources too. The wiki process means that editors (even grossly biased ones) are not creators of novel views. Their edits and the article as a whole can be derived from writings of those who did create the views included. It's the latter whose biases, ultimately, need checking. A wiki editor who is biased has their edits (and the state of the article) speak for them. The material can therefore in principle be neutrally assessed by his/her peers without knowledge of that editor's private views *. That's not true for the authors of the content we cite. * - of course often that can't happen due to disruption, but in principle we could find neutral editors for any article in any stage, who could so assess it. So in principle this is always true even in specific cases it doesn't happen. FT2 On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:44 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create them. A user writing X said Y is not verifying that Y is true. They are verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third party can check, why they believe X said Y is true. Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create information isn't at question. They are simply saying this is what X said, this is where anyone can check X said it and form their own view. The point geni was making is that while it is appropriate for journals to publish funding information with their articles, it is not normal for people citing those articles to note the same with each citation. I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this has yet to eventuate. By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their own view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality and basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on it. The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader to decide how biased the sources are. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this has yet to eventuate. This is a good point, rarely are editors simply randomly editing. They have interests, they may be fans, have partisan views, be doing actual public relations work, or just have an interest in getting a story that is frequently distorted straight. The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader to decide how biased the sources are. -- John Vandenberg A brief notation of the funding of a research project is not lots of information. We have good sources that research projects funded by marketers, at least those published, show systemic bias. Not enough bias to disqualify them entirely as a class as reliable sources, but enough to justify noting funding. Journalistic reports by state supported media share that same characteristic. It would be wrong to wholly discount it, but equally wrong to treat it as we would independent journalism. Bottom line, is reliance on editorial judgment. Something that is hard for a mass organization to develop. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table, vs. Google's serving portion
On 11/7/2010 4:09 PM, geni wrote: As for tweak algorithmic factors firstly it's already happened at least once (there was a noticeable drop in wikipedia's Google SERPS positions a few years back). Secondly since both bing and yahoo rank wikipedia highly (in fact while I haven't checked recently for a long time google ranked wikipedia lower than those two) it seems unlikely that any reasonable algorithmic change would kill off wikipedia's traffic. I don't think there's any point in checking Bing and Yahoo separately anymore. I'm not sure what effect that might have on Wikipedia traffic in and of itself, but it means there are fewer algorithms to tweak, for good or ill. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in the field* is, however, something that strongly suggests we should not deliberately withhold such information from the reader. Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. However the field in question has long established standards when it comes to citation. So for example when Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B and MUC7 mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts cites Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin they do so in the form of: Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, Epstein LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucins. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002. And do not mention it's funding source (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). This is a valid argument. However, mentioning the funding source is not unheard of in medical citations. See the first example given here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmedpart=A32352#A32755 Funding is consistently included on abstract pages. Examples: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013614 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010548 Here, funding is included along with the publication data. It is a standard format. Where references are hyperlinked, as in your counterexample, professionals can view the article. Our readers cannot, unless they have access to the relevant academic database. A. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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, apparently due to pressure by Google withdrawing its ads. What puzzles me most is the content that is put behind this warning. TV Tropes features no explicit sexual content, and no explicit violence. It does of course discuss these things, as is its remit, but without actual explicit depictions. In fact, something as relatively innocuous as children being raised by two females, whatever the reason are put behind the content warning, even if the page itself doesn't take a stand on the issue, merely satisfying itself by describing the occurence of this in fiction. [1] So, if WMF ever go with ads, it should be its own provider. [1] http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/07/2348259/TV-Tropes-Self-Censoring-Under-Google-Pressure?from=rss ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] message from Cyrano
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was sent this. I don't know what to do of it. * * * Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please send an email to foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post to the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential communication to make, please rather email i...@wikimedia.org Thank you. Please forward my message to the public. Cyrano, back earlier Message follows: However we could encourage donations by having a static page that is part of the UI of each project that prominently lists everyone who has donated to WMF. e.g. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Forgive me if I enter this conversation without reading the last hundreds of mails, but I see we are talking about 'sponsorship, yes or no ?' here. A recurrent question my good sirs. Who is pushing it this time? Who is expecting a lot of money from it? Because there is a lot of money to make from the 6th site of the world. Did the foundation explained it to you? Do we have a problem with the current fund raising model and campaign. Do we have big sudden urgent monetary need? I thought we didn't. I thought that Wikipedia and Wikimedia were non-profit projects. So why are we even discussing sponsorship? Have we any financial problem? Do we want to allow rich organizations to start casting their monetary vote into what we should do? Shouldn't we remain stoically independent by receiving only voluntary donations and voluntary efforts from good wills guided by universal principles? Is there a consensus from the Foundation about this? I'd like a quick and honest answer from each of the member. Is it acceptable to accept money from organizations like Virgins which pursues lucre before free knowledge for anybody? I firmly vote no until I have a full understanding of the financial need of risking the financial autonomy of wikimedian projects. And I'm quite alarmed to be discussing this. Cyrano, back from the moon. - PD: Will the next step be signing contracts where we allow Virgins to say buy the last cd of [insert star name here] and support Wikipedia! Yes! Virgin supports Wikipedia! Virgin loves knowledge. Virgins thinks, with a tear in the eyes, that any kid should have the right to education, damn it!. Virgin is your friend, see? So each time you buy a CD, Virgins Unite (we though at first Virgins IsYourFriend but we we're told we were too obvious) gives one cent to the big encyclopedia online that everybody shares! See? Look at our logo on their site! LOOK AT IT MY SWEET CHILD, AND BUY MY PRODUCTS! Oh boy, I can't wait too see it in its full splendor now that we catched the tail of the devil. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM1530AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L9QAIAOknFAJwwR1TXZ/HX82xHINE 9YOqz+YEhqXCLOhGphcLPIroZ+biOfnHyGUWobUwwVUHD++0HLXnvEiypOQyFmwH /h1kaVOeBGOyk6zsZc22dMXX4yftUHikc8bRyW93rYWU6ntO0UF0XM3yoFJYTw+a 2QT96g5MakMKB8secMBHi8KiFgFBcuntgsNNTPqHFQNRuIeDqg4ohYEKf0FoOFdc 1P9QpguW36bDPejIfJRZxKk/QZLSrWpjKKOQl3x96zYx07W6HHcAQuFbfNgY9Vyk 1CPyHfVDFAvrA/OIOeieOpVgB7GUnozoq9kaHPQks24nktmBmZ+I73C6OVoXf5c= =uVHN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
