Wikipedia talk:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements/Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising

By the way, I've felt this way for quite a while. Recent developments only re-enforce my views. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I Agree
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I'm only 25 years old. So I don't claim to be something I'm not. This is just my opinion.

I think Wikipedia is amazing for so many reasons, as well all know. One of which, is the fact that it doesn't have any ads. My first reaction... Wow, isn't that so great?! No ads to look at! After more consideration, I feel that they should have ads. I think it would be great if I could use this site and never see an ad. But that's just not reality. This website isn't a right, it is a service. Our usage of this site may be free, but someone somewhere is paying for it. This website costs money to maintain. If they don't have enough money, (and in simple terms) then the site will fail. Very simple. Let's stop being selfish people. I would rather have this site with well-place discrete ads over no site at all. I wish people were less idealistic and more realistic. Atleast that's my take. SleepyStud 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ads OK if advertisers have zero power over Wikipedia
From http://www.calacanis.com/2006/10/30/wikipedia-advertising-proposal-part-ii-and-i-shouldnt-have-us/ - I like this excerpt:


 * So, how about this as a suggestion: Wikipedia put up one Google Adsense leaderboard and there is a large link under it that says "Turn off advertising" and users could select if they donated to Wikipedia with their eyeballs or with a cash donation. Heck, you could even have a selection when you first load the site: "I'd like to support the wikipedia by having one, two, or three ads per page."

I think wikipedia is getting swamped. I see frequent server slowdowns, and many areas needing new software programming. I think wikipedia needs more paid staff, programmers, board members etc.. But there are dangers when more money is involved.

To protect against these dangers I think the board should elect itself. I mean that new members should be added to the board whenever a majority of existing members decides to choose a new member to add. Also, the board should be able to eject members of the board by a majority vote of the board. I want all final power in this board, because it thoroughly understands wikipedia and each other. And I think they should get paid.

I want some good lawyers to be well-paid to make sure that this is all setup legally, and continued legally. So that wikipedia is never taken over and ruined by lawsuits, advertisers, partisan user groups, shareholders, etc.. If the core group (the wikipedia board) is compromised, then wikipedia could be doomed. The Reform Party was taken over by Pat Buchanan supporters in order to get the millions of dollars of government funds from Ross Perot's previous vote percentages. All kinds of devious and illegal methods were used as outlined in the wikipedia page on the Reform Party.

I am independent, and not a supporter of any one political party or ideology, and only mention this to show the possible dangers of more money, and the traditional way of users voting in a wikipedia board. I have seen or read of similar problems in other organizations. What is important is that the Wikipedia board maintains its vision and it guidelines. Not that it is elected by its users. And it definitely should not be controlled by shareholders, or advertisers. --Timeshifter 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pic
The only problem with the pic is that the ads are at the top - the category definition as I have written it clearly says ads should go on the bottom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True. I created it to show on some forums before I found this page.  I might change it later, although personally I wouldn't mind if the ads were at the top.  --Skrapion 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was project page deleted?
The project page link is no longer working: WikiProject Yes ads

I happened to come across some discussion about deleting this category here. In that discussion someone said the project page here had just been deleted. Does anybody know why? Why is there even discussion about deleting this category when there is this opposing category: Category:Wikipedians against advertisements. Why is its project page not deleted also?

It seems against NPOV to delete either project page. Anyway, I support ads on a voluntary basis, so the 2 categories are not necessarily opposed. So this confrontational, anti-NPOV, deletion of part of one side's exposition seems petty. --Timeshifter 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, JzG deleted the project page three days ago. His stated reason was "Endless precedent against Wikiprojects which advocate one side of a debate". If you think the opposing project page should be deleted than you could always bring it to MfD. Regardless of that though, the reason given for deleting the project really doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for deleting the category. This is far from the only category advocating one side of a debate.-- Dycedarg &#x0436; 05:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info and links! Actually, I don't want their project page deleted. And I support ways where everybody can be happy. Such as user-controlled ads with options for placement, turning them off, etc.. But little of this can be discussed without category pages, project pages, their talk pages, etc.. --Timeshifter 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the project page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 05:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rapid responses from both of you. --Timeshifter 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User-controlled advertising
Jeffrey O. Gustafson removed the indented paragraph below from the category page with this edit summary: "the ability to turn off ads would make ads effectively worthless". What do others think? Please reply below the paragraph.


 * Another possibility is user-controlled advertising. "Turn off advertising" and "Turn on advertising" buttons would allow anybody (even non-registered users) to decide for themselves whether they want to support Wikimedia with their eyeballs. Anybody can check off a "remember my choices" button, so that a cookie will remember to keep ads on or off when they are viewing Wikimedia pages. There could even be choices for top, bottom, or side placement of ads. Or concise or detailed ads. Or ads with or without flash animation. Etc..

I think millions of wikimedia viewers would allow advertising. A lot more than the number who are donating money now. A lot more money would be raised by those viewers donating their eyeballs versus those donating cash. --Timeshifter 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I created this category page:
 * Category:Wikipedians for optional advertisements


 * This way there are more choices, and those who think that optional advertising may or may not raise much money, have more choices. One could even join both categories. --Timeshifter 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)