User talk:4 Wikipedia advertising

I'm sorry to tell you this, but Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. Georgia guy 19:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am more pro free market than the average person here, but I don't see anything wrong with advertising. Of course it should be unobtrusive like the sample. We will always need money. At some point our volunteers may burn out and need to be replaced by professionals. The only alternates that I see are relying on begging the readership for donations or looking for grants from institutions and philanthropists. Grants will probably come with strings attached, which may be worse for Wikipedia's independence than advertising. pstudier 20:34, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * Many of our volunteers are professionals. 68.237.137.57 04:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me, I meant no disrespect. I probably should have used the term paid staff.  pstudier 04:52, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Comment. You may want to check out the historical debate about this at meta.wikimedia.org ie Making Wikipedia profitable and Sponsorship. Evil Monkey &rarr; Talk 21:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside all the other arguments, I think that it looks tacky. It would certainly have put me off using Wikipedia (I tend to trust reference sites with no advertising much more than I do those with advertising). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The advertising debate *has* happened and it died. But not before the Spanish Wikipedia forked over it. And then when it came up again, the Polish Wikipedia did again. So there will be no advertising on WP. Period. Never. Zip. Done. Burgundavia 18:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Userpage image
The image you had on your userpage is copyrighted and used under a claim of fairuse. Unfortunatly fairuse images are not allowed in the User namespace.

Prodego talk  16:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)