Wikimedia Proposes Advertising [Updated]

user9918277462 writes "The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has announced a new partnership with the Answers Corporation, which provides the content for Google Definitions links. There is also a lengthy discussion, wiki-style for those who wish to participate." Update 10/25 18:42 by SM: An announcement has been posted on Wikipedia to help clarify the original submission (which thankfully was patently false and has since been cleaned up a bit, our apologies to Wikimedia). Answers.com will be creating their own co-branded version which will show ads and no ads will be shown on wikipedia.

Comments

Some issues really need to be clairified.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Some issues really need to be clairified.

Wikis can be really horrible at these sorts of debates-- Sifting through the Wikipedia comments is like looking for a needle in a chickencoop full of hysterical chickens and misinformed roosters.

Plus, since most of the text can be changed at any moment, how do I know that what I'm reading is accurate at this time, and not the opinion of some troll?

1. Why does the Wikipedia board feel that they need advertisements? Are there budget problems or other financial issues?
2. What do the opponents to the advertisements propose as an alternative? *Alterative Solutions* almost always work better then a straightup Boycott.

3. What does this mean for the end user? Are there going to be advertisements within Wikipedia? I know what the submission says-- but the Wikipedia page itself says "Answers.com will launch a Wikipedia Edition of their popular 1-Click Answers software", which makes it sound like there Answers.com is simply offering their own "Edition" of Wikipedia with some adsl. I can redistribute most of the content in Wikipedia, can't I? Isn't that what some commericial online enclopedias do?

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

with some adsl

That should say "with some advertisements".

Vim no has Grammercheker.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[User 956]

Plus, since most of the text can be changed at any moment, how do I know that what I'm reading is accurate at this time, and not the opinion of some troll?

Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.

Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button. This has a number of advantages:

• Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
• Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
• Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
• (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[Talrias]

You're right. The press release (as written by both Answers.com and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees) was not exactly what they were trying to say. There's already been a long discussion about exactly what the deal involves one of the mailing lists. I'll try and summarise the facts:

• Downloading of the tool is optional, and advertising only appears to people who are using the tool.
  
• The tool will be listed on an existing Wikipedia page, [[Wikipedia:Tools]].
  
• The link can be removed by any Wikipedian if they so choose (but of course this works both ways).
  
• Answers.com did not pay the Wikimedia Foundation to get the tool placed on Wikipedia.
  
• The Foundation will receive a unspecified percentage of all profits Answers.com gain from advertising using the tool.
  

Unfortunately the situation was not helped by a rather badly worded press release which led the community to a false sense of what the deal actually was. The above is what will occur, according to Jimbo Wales and the other members of the Board.

Chris

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[spencerogden]

How do you propose to decide when the Wiki is 'stable' enough for release? Do you expect to get agreement from users? Or would individual articles be marked stable? Even deciding when an individual article is stable would be difficult.

As far as citing a stable version, its my understanding that a link to wikipedia can include a version so that the same text is referenced, regardless of future updates.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[amembleton]

Who decides when a page becomes a stable page? If take a copy of a page on a regular basis (eg yearly or monthly), then you are just as likely to end up with pages containing incorrect content.

You make a good point about being able to "cite a stable version". But, you can already cite particular versions by going into the history of a page and clicking on the date of a version that you want. That page never changes; you can cite this page.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[slavemowgli]

You already can link to specific revisions of a page, which is what you should do when you're citing an article, anyway, so that wouldn't be anything new.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[The Bubble]

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and especially with the reasons behind it; but you have to consider, not only the implications of these proposals to those who would harm the Wiki, but also the implications to those who would contribute.

Removing the instant payoff for defacement also removes the instant payoff of contribution, which, to me, is part of the cool factor of the Wiki: if I contribute, those contributions go into effect now, and can be seen by anyone else immediately.

As you point out, this information would still be accessible in the "unstable" section, but unstable versions of a page are often overlooked, and this could become a serious issue when people go to contribute: a user is reading a page, and want's to make an addition or correction; now they have to check the "unstable" version and see if the change has already been made.

The simplicity of Wiki editing is a lot of its draw, and a lot of its power. This same simplicity and freedom is also its biggest flaw; but removing this simple freedom is not the answer, and more than dictatorship is the answer to quell those who would break the law of society.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[bumptehjambox]

*Alterative Solutions*

What, like beer? Thats a solution that causes many alterations to wikipedia content.

That name "Alterative Solutions" sounds like a consultancy full of guys that are hammered all the time.
Maybe they shouldn't spend their finances on advice from a bunch of drunks.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[dapyx]

Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.

This is not feasible because Wikipedia has 800,000 article and the number is growing by thousands each day. In a few months it will reach a million and in a couple of years two million. Who is going to mentain the stable and unstable versions for each of those articles? For Linux Kernel it works, as the quantity of data is not that immense, but here we don't have enough experts that are willing to do such mundane jobs.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[Anonymous Coward]

NPOV. Revert.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution probably isn't to have two separate branches but rather a single one with "stable" indicating some point of time in that article's history. New edits are done to the latest version and perhaps after being reviewed by an expert, voted upon or or having enough time go by (there are arguments for and against all three methods), the stable snapshot of the article is updated to be the newer revision.

Perhaps after amassing enough good edits and being rated a good contributor, someone could make changes to stable articles that themselves become stable immediately. The default view of Wikipedia would be stable unless you were logged in, say (default view would of course be customizable once logged in).

The instant gratification of changes for anonymous contributors can be retained in some sense... of course, instead of editing the stable version, they'll need to be directed to the latest when they click edit (so recent changes aren't overwritten). Once they save, perhaps a cookie could be set that would mark them as browsing unstable versions now. Then they'd see the latest versions of every article, including the one they just made (while limiting the visibility of any vandalism they might do).

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[xclay]

Well, that's what editors do for Britannica and other encyclopedias. They'd be the once deciding whether or not it's stable or not. Editors spend time. Time costs money. Therefore, Wikipedia board needs money.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[ronocdh]

• Answers.com did not pay the Wikimedia Foundation to get the tool placed on Wikipedia.

• The Foundation will receive a unspecified percentage of all profits Answers.com gain from advertising using the tool.

I wonder if many people would be fooled by that. "Oh no, officer, I didn't pay him for drugs, I only told him that if he gave me drugs, I'd pay him."

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[Vorondil28]

Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.

Holy crap, that's the best idea I've heard on the whole what's-wrong-with-wikipedia argument. I'd be curious to see what RMS (who was the one who really pushed the idea of a free-content encyclopedia) has to say about a stable/unstable implementation of a wiki.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[Random832]

Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).

It's always been possible to cite _any_ specific version of a wikipedia page.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[eonlabs]

I think there's probably a simpler solution.
Highlight text in color by how recently it was added.
Doesn't even need to be an intense FF0000, but something mild like a 440000 or a 333300
Range the colors based on stability, and let black text be what has been approved by an editor or someone walking the pages working for wikipedia.
Pay for the editors with ads that are related to the articles you're looking at.
e.g. companies paying for every time someone links to their site to buy...metal detectors from the metal detector page, or cookbooks, from the foods page. I find that a lot of the time, I don't mind the ads if they're related to what I'm doing, and they're not intrusive, causing epileptic seizures, or blocking parts of the page I'm trying to read. Hell, I'll actually use some of them when they're not flashing my eyes out of my head.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[jp10558]

I think what they are saying is that Answers.com didn't pay an upfront fee to have someone put the link to the tool there. That's probably why the link can also be removed by any wikipedian(sp?).

I'm guessing the advertising is more payment for bandwidth use than anything else really.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[cHiphead]

I'll tell you what this is... its CDDB all over again. CDDB (now 'Gracenote') took information submitted for years by its users under the guise of a public service, then turned around the turned it into a fully commercial entity, additionally requiring users to submit an email every time a 'free' use of the db occurs. (read: advertising dollars.)

Its a dispicable idea and whoring the information submitters' work. A simple everyone-can-update-the-page script is being used and abused to make money for a select group of people, while those select people are not the ones creating the content.

Cheers.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

make money for a select group of people,

Is it? I thought the ads were going to pay for Wikipedia's increased costs-- bandwidth, new servers, etc.

CDDB is similar in that CDDB took a community project and turned around to turn it into a commercial entity. That's different from this case, isn't it? As I understand this issue, a private company is taking Wikipedia and reselling it, and is giving some of the proceeds back to Wikipedia Foundation.

Re:Some issues really need to be clairified.

[Maian]

That won't work. It would end up looking really weird. Just imagine a single sentence that composed of 4 different colors, even if they're really similar. Also, it may end up putting emphasis on the "unstable" sections, which is the exact opposite of what we want.

Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Isn't it funny how people are going to advertise -- on Wikipedia -- a project to keep Wikipedia free of advertisements? Check out this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject _no_ads#Projects

This of course, just underscores the point made by Walter Block in Defending the Undefendable how even people who ridicule persuasive (non-informational) advertising as "wasteful" take every chance to engage in it themselves. (While the no-ads project may provide information, the advertisements they plan to use for that project do not.)

And yes, if the comment about the "irony" is still there, it was me.

Anyway, I just have to say: good riddance to bad rubbish. I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias (like listing "ethical coffee" as a type of coffee bean, just to get in a little plug for another left-wing cause). Now, it gets to implode from that, since as we all know, socialists hate paid advertising.

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Leftists are actually heavily under-represented in charitable volunteering.

But that's not the point: people who can insert their bias into an article do so, and it remains until someone corrects it. If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance. I think it's inherent to the format.

Re:Irony alert

[Guppy06]

"Leftists are actually heavily under-represented in charitable volunteering."

We're not talking about tithing, we're talking about Wikipedia. It's not intended to be a "charity," it's simply an attempt at a group-managed knowledgebase; a collective hobby.

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias

Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias.

Capitalists would suffocate the project in any attempt to maximize profits. Fascists wouldn't be into the idea of a Wiki at all.

For the record, I'm mostly just a Wikipedia user-- not a hardcore author or anything.

Re:Irony alert

[mickwd]

"Leftists are actually heavily under-represented in charitable volunteering."

"If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance."

If only left-wingers were interested in a particular topic, then surely only left-wingers would be reading it ?

You talk about balance, and complain about the "left" but not the "right".

Aren't you a little unbalbanced ?

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

I didn't say it was a charity (though it does have the same general form). My point was that the whole allegation that "the only people who care enough about anything to do it without hope of monetary reward are liberals" is false. And I wasn't talking about monetary contributions, but actual doing.

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias.

INSIGHTFUL??? wtf? Yeah, if you "care" about something greater than yourself, you must be a socialist. It can't be that there are people who care but realize socialist ideas don't work ... nope, if you don't agree with the entire socialist agenda, you must be greedy and only looking out for yourself.

Seriously, where do you find people like "EnronHaliburton2004"... and the people who modded him up?

Re:Irony alert

[Pxtl]

"I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias"

Nonsense. I've seen numerous posts that have a capitalist bias instead of the usual socialist one. They usually read something like this:

  <a href="http://pharmacy-cheap-phentermine.6x.to">che ap phentermine</a> <a href="http://pharmacy-buy-phentermine.6x.to">buy phentermine</a> <a href="http://phentermine-online-pharmacy.6x.to">ph entermine online</a> <a href="http://hydrocodone-online-pharmacy.6x.to">hy drocodone online</a> <a href="http://buy-hydrocodone-pharmacy.6x.to">buy hydrocodone</a> <a href="http://buy-ambien-pharmacy.6x.to">buy ambien</a> <a href="http://texas-holdem-em.6x.to">texas holdem em</a> <a href="http://adware-spyware.6x.to">adware spyware</a> <a href="http://spyware-doctors.6x.to">spyware doctors</a> <a href="http://buy-diazepam.6x.to">buy diazepam</a> <a href="http://pacific-poker-online.6x.to">pacific poker online</a> <a href="http://carisoprodol-pharmacy.6x.to">carisopr odol</a> <a href="http://buy-carisoprodol.6x.to">buy carisoprodol</a> <a href="http://buy-viagra-pharmacy.6x.to">buy viagra</a> <a href="http://viagra-online-pharmacy.6x.to">viagra online</a> <a href="http://buy-tramadol-pharmacy.6x.to">buy tramadol</a> <a href="http://discountpill.hotusa.org/">viagra</a>

For some reason the evil socialists delete posts like that. Darn idealogues.

Re:Irony alert

[utexaspunk]

Project run for free by people with collectivist view of the word resorts to advertising because otherwise number of people who use system without contributing thereto makes system unsustainable... hmm... yes, shocking indeed...

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

It can't be that there are people who care but realize socialist ideas don't work

Really? None of them? Things like sharing and collaboration don't work? Wikipedia is a failure? Are you perhaps confusing the word "socialism" with some right-wing scare tactic?

entire socialist agenda

There's a socialist agenda? Fuck, I must have missed a meeting or something!!! Please tell me what this socialist agenda encompases! Is this different then the Left-wing controlled media? I don't want to miss out!

Seriously, where do you find people like "EnronHaliburton2004"

People only need to look for the frothing mouth of some crazy right winger. I'm there to help him understand the difference between hype and reality. But again, sometimes I oversleep and miss the meetings. Sorry...

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

My point was that the whole allegation that "the only people who care enough about anything to do it without hope of monetary reward are liberals" is false.

Yeah, but my point is that you're imagining things. Really, I can't tell if you're statements are merely the result of a misunderstanding, or if you are deliberately trying to spread misinformation and confusion for kicks. Who said that these people are all liberals? Nobody...

In fact, I really appreciate any non-liberals on Wikipedia. The documents can be really well written, and really help me to understand some of the non-Liberal and anti-Liberal views.

Of course, there are plenty of right-wingers (and left-wingers) who just like to spread disinformation. Rush Limbaugh doesn't actually believe most of the stupid shit he says, he's just malicious.

Re:Irony alert

[Viper Daimao]

well i dont think the topic of the original post was about bias from the right, and the wording of the claim that If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance. innately suggests (at least to me) that poster meant that the same would be true if you replaced left winger with right-winger.

Re:Irony alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're not aware of said poster's continuing unbalanced (as in mentally) tirade against the left or anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of market forces.

Re:Irony alert

[hackstraw]

I would say just leave this LeonGeeste alone. He/She is the most annoying member of slashdot that I have come across, and I have been reading Slashdot before it was even named slashdot.

For those that do not know LeonGeeste very well, he is someone that is so bright that he got an engineering degree in 2 years and one semester straight from college while singlehandedly defeating a mental illness that he now believes is a personal preference for those with weak "willpower" and just prefer to be schizophrenic, depressed, psychotic or whatever. Oh, and he bases his thesis of mental illness as being a preference from an economic theory.

He speaks much more of economics than engineering topics including a much anticipated paper to be submitted to http://www.mises.org/, which is an economics site, primarily for academics. The link in his .sig http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531 is also a more economics based though.

This person also speaks of science in terms like "more rigorously proven", which makes no sense to anybody that has studied or actually done science.

I personally believe that this person is full of shit, and is some kind of kissass here on slashdot that is trying to fit in.

Re:Irony alert

[SatanicPuppy]

You sir, are a jackass.

Like many of your kind, you find the idea of an enterprise that isn't dedicated to enriching itself or spreading your crap ideology to be "Leftist" or "Socialist".

I am far from a leftist. I am a gun-toting, pro-death penalty, little government, big military guy from freaking Georgia...I am also pro-choice, anti-patent, pro-first amendment, and pro-environment Wikipedia contributor.

In other words, I am a moderate. I don't run a private smear game on everyone I disagree with, as you do. I don't automatically dismiss things I don't understand, as you seem to. I don't try to hijack topics in order to push my narrow agenda as you have done.

You and the other extremists just love throwin labels around. Joe McCarthy did it years ago, and hell, you haven't even moved on from those days. Leftists? Socialists? Oooo no, big commies are coming to get us. Ignorant and transparent fear-mongering that was outdated fifty years ago...But it doesn't surprise me that your kind would seek to relive their glory days. Not that the extreme left is any better...equally stupid and petty, just as prone to labels and posturing and utter lack of compromise.

You and everyone like you, on both sides of the ideological spectrum, are a stain on the world.

Re:Irony alert

[Viper Daimao]

why are you getting hysterical and sarcastic about someone referencing a socialist agenda? Of course there is a socialist agenda, all movements have them. Just look at the Democratic Socialists of America: Environmental protection and environmental justice must be part of a democratic socialist agenda.

the socialist agenda would include things such as:

• universal healthcare
• more retirement benefits provided by the govt
• more social equality

a right wing agenda would include:

• lower taxes
• increase military spending
• lessen benefits provided by govt (Such as social security, unemployment insurance, ect...)

having an agenda is not some grand conspriacy claim. Socialist promot socialist ideas, republicans promote republican ideas, libertarians promote libertarian ideas, simple as that.

Re:Irony alert

[dakotamangus]

It can't be that there are people who care but realize socialist ideas don't work

Something seems to be working:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05133/504149.stm
Do socialist countries have more social mobility than capitalist ones? Actually with free education, health care and a high minimum wage, it is not all that surprising...

Note the original article came from that old socialist rag, The Wall Street Journal.

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

That's the agenda of one organization. It is not "the entire socialist agenda". In addition, not everyone who believes in some socialist principals believes in an organized socialist movement, such as that promoted by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Really? None of them? Things like sharing and collaboration don't work? Wikipedia is a failure?

*banging head on keyboard*

No, that's not even close to anything I said at all. (Except for Wikipedia starting to fail, but that's a separate issue.)

Who the **** says sharing and collaboration are socialist? That's the exact opposite of what I was trying to say! Worker-owned companies can and do exist within capitalism. Non-monetary profit organizations exist within capitalism. Non-monetary goals exist within capitalism. Pursuing non-monetary goals is not "anti-capitalist" or "socialist". The problem is, people like you equivocate between two definitions of capitalism:

1) a system in which non-human tools and natural resources (aka the means of production) are privately owned and operated

2) pursuing personal wealth

I've been using capitalism in the first sense. Then you jump on and use it in the second sense. When I say Wikipedia is biased against capitalism, I'm saying it's biased against 1), not necessarily 2) (although that shows up as well). When I say socialism (as differentiated from capitalism) is a bad idea, I'm saying that private ownership of the MOP is a good idea, not that any specific model possible within such a metacontext (employee ownership, collaboration, group projects, non-montary goals) is a bad idea.

Thought experiment: if all non-management workers took over their workplaces today and got rid of the current owners and managers and took the revenues for themselves (revenues at each firm to the workers at that firm), is the result still capitalism? Yes, the workplaces just have different owners.

Believe it or not, you don't have to be socialist to pursue a non-monetary goal. Please stop blurring the definitions here.

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

me:My point was that the whole allegation that "the only people who care enough about anything to do it without hope of monetary reward are liberals" is false.

you:Yeah, but my point is that you're imagining things. Really, I can't tell if you're statements are merely the result of a misunderstanding, or if you are deliberately trying to spread misinformation and confusion for kicks.

I'm claiming that there are non-liberals who care about the world... and you claim I'm imagining things? Seriously, no offense, but you have to be quite deluded to believe that. I don't know what you had to go through to have such a skewed perception of the world. Do you honestly think everyone who opposes Social Security, federal involvement in education, "progressive" income taxaction, capital gains taxation, min. wage laws, etc etc etc is doing so because they hate poor people and want to enrish themselves at their expense? That's a mighty tough conspiracy to maintain, especially since lots of low-income people support Republicans ... in fact, the average low-income white person is much more likely to vote Republican than Democrat.

But my point is not to prove or disprove which political party is better. My point is that if you seriously think the intellectual justification for free-market capitalism is "gimme gimme gimme, **** the poor", you really don't understand your opponents' views, which means you really don't understand your own. That's not good.

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Your point is well taken and despite poking at Mr. Irony Alert (I don't think he knows what irony is)

Name's Geeste (at least, with this pseudonym), and I know exactly what irony is. When you oppose advertising, and promote that goal with advertising, that's irony.

Re:Irony alert

[birge]

Really? None of them? Things like sharing and collaboration don't work? Wikipedia is a failure? Are you perhaps confusing the word "socialism" with some right-wing scare tactic?

Perhaps you're confusing "things that good people do" with an intelligent philosophy of government. Are you really so caught up in your own self-righteousness that you think those of us on the "right" think people SHOULDN'T help others? Or that doing volunteer work for no pay is somehow a bad thing? Do you think we don't contribute to Wikipedia or give of our time and money for charity?

The problem (one of them, at least) we have with socialism is that it's coersive. What makes good behavior for people doesn't neccesarily translate to governments. In a socialist system, if you fail to contribute to wealth redistribution, eventually you will be physically forced to by the government at gun point. Is it right to force people to help others, to force them to give up some of their money for the good of a few? Maybe it is. I don't honestly know, though I suspect it's wrong. But don't allow yourself the cheap and easy conceit that your politics is about being nice and ours is about being mean.

(Just to head off the obvious cheap comeback I'm sure you've formulated already: pointing out that our current government engages in corporate socialism, etc. is a valid criticism of the current government, but not a valid counterargument to what I've said.)

Re:Irony alert

[Damer Face]

No, that would be hypocrisy.

Try this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony for more information; which sentence you might find ironic but I don't.

Re:Irony alert

[Shimbo]

I've always complained that Wikipedia was infected with a socialist bias

I think that says more about you than it does Wikipedia; especially given your choice of wording.

Re:Irony alert

[rasactive]

I used to think people with UIDs in the 600000s were bad, but they're nothing compared to these 900000s retards.

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

If the eviction of an evictor is ironic, so is the use of advertisements by advertisement opponents. Try to read pages before you link them.

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Perhaps you're confusing "things that good people do" with an intelligent philosophy of government.

I'm not talking about governments, or any organized movement at all. Everytime someone mentions the word socialism, a dozen people start screaming about the boogyman, conspiracies, failed governments, etc. The word "socialist" is a 4-letter word.

I'm just talking about parts of an ideology-- the vast majority of Wikipedians aren't big-S card carrying Socialists, but they are more likely to believe in some ideals which exist in socialist (and non-socialist) theory-- collective control over a shared resource, cooperation & collaboration, etc. The parent commenter was saying that these ideas "won't work" and will cause Wikipedia too "implode"-- I don't agree.

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not coersive-- but it can be a propoganda tool ;)

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I'm claiming that there are non-liberals who care about the world... and you claim I'm imagining things?

No. You misunderstand. Here's what you just said:

My point was that the whole allegation that "the only people who care enough about anything to do it without hope of monetary reward are liberals"

Nobody here made that allegation, and nobody said that that liberals are the only people who care. You pulled this out of thin air, and you keep repeating this argument-- I think it's called a straw man argument.

Re:Irony alert

[birge]

Ok, I'm with you in disagreement with the parent. As I said in another post, equating Wiki to socialism is a strawman for both sides.

But by the same measure, people freak out about socialism not because they think collective control of shared resources, cooperation, etc. never work, but that it's dangerous when such things are implemented by a central government with a great deal of power and money. So, it's unfair for the parent to suggest Wiki will fail because socialism has failed (at least in pure forms) but it's also unfair for you to say that Wiki's success is, in any way, vindication of the ideals of socialism. To the extent the ideals of socialism are taken out of the context of a government, it's not socialism. If anything, it's Judeo-Christianity. But that line of thinking would really freak the lefists out... :-)

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

OH REALLY? Nobody said this:

"You mean that people who contribute their time to a project for free tend to have a collectivist view of the world? Shocking. SHOCKING I tell you."

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166211&cid=138 65676

or this:

"Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias."

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166211&cid=138 65796

(Hey! I recognize that person from somewhere!)

or this:

me: "socialist ideas don't work"

someone who shall remain nameless: "Really? None of them? Things like sharing and collaboration don't work?"

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166211&cid=138 66037

Wow, and you have the audacity to claim that it's Rush Limbaugh who's spreading malicious lies. (Don't insult my intelligence again by denying you said that. I can link that one too.)

I know, you can claim you were "only" saying that people who care, people who share, people who work together are more likely to be liberals, and that further there's a significant difference between that claim and the claim that "all people with non-monetary goals that care about the poor are liberals", but the point is, you have this deluded belief that your ideology "cares" more than other ideologies, or that there's something "anti-capitalistic" about having non-monetary goals. And that is totally off base. Until you realize it's off base, you will never understand the other side, and by extension, your own.

Re:Irony alert

[Damer Face]

Where does fate fit into your example?

And: Ahahahahahahaha I got you to spend time reading the loathsome socialist wikipedia. Ahahahahahahaha.

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Nobody said this:

"You mean that people who contribute their time to a project for free tend to have a collectivist view of the world? Shocking. SHOCKING I tell you."

or this:

"Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias."

Neither of us said or implied anything like the only people who care enough about anything to do it without hope of monetary reward are liberals. Our statements contain phrases like "tend to have" and "bias", which have powerful, magical meanings.

Plenty non-liberals care enough to volunteer for their interests.

But you know that. You're just spreading misinformation. How does that straw taste?

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Read the rest of my post where I point out that even the "tend to" and "bias" is wrong.

Re:Irony alert

[jp10558]

Do you honestly think everyone who opposes Social Security, federal involvement in education, "progressive" income taxaction, capital gains taxation, min. wage laws, etc etc etc is doing so because they hate poor people and want to enrish themselves at their expense? That's a mighty tough conspiracy to maintain, especially since lots of low-income people support Republicans ... in fact, the average low-income white person is much more likely to vote Republican than Democrat.

I can see many practical issues with all of those programs/issues, however I also see them as some see democracy - the worst solution, except for everything else.

Although, I personally support a social saftey net for many reasons, which I've better defined here: http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14645 358#14649568

All of this is that a fully free market economy seems as sustainable as humanities attempts at the opposite - communism. We have seen the quality of life in a close to fully free market economy, in the US during the late 19th and early 20th century. Frightful conflicts arose and led to the forming of unions to end that (though how successful that was is another debate - the point is the masses didn't stand for a fully free market solution).

I find it amazing that people can claim to care about society, and other people in general, yet oppose setting a minimum standard of living and being willing to pay to maintain that. It seems hypocritical to me, and certainly very selfish.

Re:Irony alert

[anaesthetica]

Actually, I think the fundamental system of Wikipedia is capitalist (scroll down).

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

I find it amazing that people can claim to care about society, and other people in general, yet oppose setting a minimum standard of living and being willing to pay to maintain that. It seems hypocritical to me, and certainly very selfish.

This is a prime example of the misconceptions I'm trying to make people aware are misconceptions. People do not oppose the minimum wage, if that's what you're referring to, because they're "against a minimum standard of living". They oppose it because it does not do what it is intended to do. If someone's labor is not expected to add $X/hour to revenues on average, that person is not worth hiring at $X/hour. No law changes that. Making employers pay that means they will simply not hire the person. Sure, you can make them hire people, but then you just ever-so-subtly push the problem upstream: seeing that they will be compelled, in some jurisdictions, to hire people they don't want, they revise all future plans about where to locate, systematically discounting the value of the labor in the min. wage region, thus reducing whatever remaining wages that are still profitable to offer. Again, you can short circuit the need for profitability by just implementing socialism, but that has a whole slew of other problems I can go into if you want. The best way, the opposition claims, to increase wages is to allow a flexible labor market in which there is no risk to hiring someone so employers will "take a chance" on anyone - disabled, female, minority, uneducated, single parent, whatever. As it stands, as you increase the difficulty of hiring people, hiring becomes a huge risk so employers make people jump through all kinds of hoops before hiring them. That "helps" the poor? Nope.

If, on the other hand, you were talking about a social safety net, I know of few non-leftists would be unwilling to significantly contribute toward a social safety net if they knew it would do any good, i.e., have checks to make sure the recipients are either genuinely unable to produce, or ensure that the aid will render them able to produce. And that just ain't how government help works.

Now do you see how someone can oppose the above policies without being evil?

Re:Irony alert

[jp10558]

If, on the other hand, you were talking about a social safety net, I know of few non-leftists would be unwilling to significantly contribute toward a social safety net if they knew it would do any good, i.e., have checks to make sure the recipients are either genuinely unable to produce, or ensure that the aid will render them able to produce. And that just ain't how government help works.

I think you missed significant parts of my original post, to wit:

I can see many practical issues with all of those programs/issues, however I also see them as some see democracy - the worst solution, except for everything else.

There are practical implementation issues. I have yet to see anyone actually propose or test implement a better solution though.

I've heard the charities suggestion, but please explain to me why I should expect that to work better now than in the early 20th century, which I addressed here:

We have seen the quality of life in a close to fully free market economy, in the US during the late 19th and early 20th century. Frightful conflicts arose and led to the forming of unions to end that (though how successful that was is another debate - the point is the masses didn't stand for a fully free market solution).

Do you think our workforce laws have had nothing to do with better conditions at work? Has Social Security not improved the retirements of countless Americans compared to before it existed?

Other than government - how would you implement a universal minimum standard of living?

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Now that you've changed emphasis, I'll gladly address your other points:

I've heard the charities suggestion, but please explain to me why I should expect that to work better now than in the early 20th century, which I addressed here:

We have seen the quality of life in a close to fully free market economy, in the US during the late 19th and early 20th century. Frightful conflicts arose and led to the forming of unions to end that (though how successful that was is another debate - the point is the masses didn't stand for a fully free market solution).

The unions were more driven by ideology than sober wage-maximization. Wages were rising faster than at any other time in history. The employment offered was much easier than the "noble" alternative of small-scale farming. There, you didn't have 6 10-hour days; you had sever 12-hour days, plus the huge risks attendant with any weather-variant field. But even if you include allllllllllllll the regulations added around the turn of the century, that was an extremely free market relative to todays, which puts paid the notion that the masses "didn't stand for a fully free market". Compared to today, it was fully free, even with all the union demands met. Today's liberals would be livid at the idea of going back to Progressive Era government.

Do you think our workforce laws have had nothing to do with better conditions at work?

Not at all. Again, if someone's labor is worth $X, it's worth $X. If not, it's not. Laws don't change that. The laws are not the determinant of wages; productivity is. Safety is part of compensation to draw workers from alternate fields. If a workplace is unsafe, employers have to pay what are called "compensating differentials" i.e., more money for more dangerous work. This is not because of any regulation; it's an emergent market phenomenon. Someone who chooses his field of occupation will first go to the safest workplace; he must be paid more to be drawn away from this. If the cost of the increased safety is less than the compensating differential, the employer buys it anyway. If not, it's not worth the cost - even to the worker. All these regulations have made it more difficult to negotiate better compensation packages by mandating one-size-fits-all workplace rules. If you're willing to work at a job, tough, you can't - because the employer would have to follow some labyrinthine pay schedule that doesn't reflect current realities.

Has Social Security not improved the retirements of countless Americans compared to before it existed?

Of course it hasn't. It's a horrible deal. I mean, if you got in on the ground floor, I guess it was a massive transfer to you, but for some reason, I consider Ponzi schemes "beyond the pale". For everyone else, it's meant a horrible ROR on their retirement savings. We could fund a program at the level of SS for people who fail to plan while still allowing everyone else much better retirement plans if we would just scrap the damn thing. But some people, and I'm not naming names, have this scorched-earth policy twoard the rich were basically, they'll advocate policies that hurt them even if they hurt the poor even more! That's exactly what most redistribution schemes are like.

Other than government - how would you implement a universal minimum standard of living?

There have always been more than enough people willing to help those willing to help themselves. But people generally flee to, not away from, the countries with fewer "guarantees". But I'm actually open to testing your ideas out. Check the link in my sig. If you really thought a government-enforced minimum standard of living, you should be more than willing to support it. You do think you're right, right? ...RIGHT?

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

But that line of thinking would really freak the lefists out... :-)

As a left-winger, I totally agree with you. These theories definately have some Judeo-Christian origins.

I think it's fine to promote such ideas-- it can serve as a method of bringing Christians and the Left together-- that can only be a good thing.

Re:Irony alert

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I'm sorry, you can't just exclude certain words from a conversation because you find them inconvenient. You're making wild accusations based on your misinterpretation of certain key phrases, and are creating an argument out your imagination.

Truth be told, you don't even know what my ideology is-- you speak to me as if I was some large fuzzy socialist boogyman, but I'm not actually a socialist.

You said Wikipedia would fail due to some socialist leanings. I disagree.

Re:Irony alert

[birge]

Boy, do I agree with you on that. It's odd that the left and the Christians should be at such odds these days. That they aren't shows, I think, some inconsistencies and hypocracys on both sides, but also some unfortunate political fallout of the elections that has really divided people more than is warranted by their differences.

I miss the days when we all hated the Russians, and liked each other.

Re:Irony alert

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The best way, the opposition claims, to increase wages is to allow a flexible labor market in which there is no risk to hiring someone so employers will "take a chance" on anyone - disabled, female, minority, uneducated, single parent, whatever.

This condition will only exist when their wage is $0. For any non-zero wage there is a "risk". Therefore, logically, what you propose amounts to a reduction of wages towards $0 in order to reduce "risk" of hiring and corresponding increase in profits (note here that there is no provisions of those profits to be re-invested or redirected towards employees). One can also imagine a scenario whereby one owns his workers outright, like in the late 1800s, whereby they are paid in "scrip" redeemable only at the company store you also own. Which is quite consistent with your proposal, because this is precisely the logical, ultimate outcome of the process of "reducing risk" via lower wages brought on by complete de-regulation and globalization of the marketplace (i.e. return of feudalism, or more precisely, creation of a corporate feudalism). An indentured slave is the least "risky" proposition as he/she is in no position to refuse your bidding, well maybe perheaps by being petty about things and dying prematurely. This outcome we know with absolute certainty, as much of it already happened in the said Gilded Age of Robber Barrons, a response to which was the minimum wage regulation, preventing "scrip" and other sorts of evil "wage" schemes. But how easily do we forget, so that we can learn the same lessons over and over again.

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

I didn't exclude any words. You claimed that those on the left and/or with socialist leanings are more likely to contribute to a project and collaborate with others with no monetary reward. This belief is in error. And now you're putting words into my mouth. I never said "Wikipedia would fail due to some socialist leanings." If you try to find places where I said that, I'll just -- like you -- invoke plausible deniability and claim you're misinterpreting me. Fun!

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

Well, let no one say you misrepresent yourself. Of course hiring someone will always have risk. Do we have to artificially increase the risk? No. Any such attempts come straight out of the hide of the worker. I did not advocate any particular goal of "reducing risk of labor"; I was just citing one thing that pulls down wages. (And of course, you're wrong - even a wageless worker carries risk.) With your slavery example, you make my point for me: insofar as a worker can't "shop around" for a better deal, he's screwed. That happens in slavery, but it also happens with socialist states, but you wouldn't advocate that, right? Good.

And again, to clarify, lowering wages does not reduce risk; the risk is still there, it's just hedged. And regulations do not make workers better off. That's my point all along. If someone's not worth hiring at a price, they're not worth hiring at that price, no matter what the regulations are. If they are worth hiring, competition for workers drives their wage up to that price. When workers were paid in scrip, they were so paid because even that limited currency was a better offer than they could find elsewhere. Had you mandated that not happen, they would have gotten a worse deal (else employers would already make that offer). When you impose workplace regulations (beyond fraud), you may benefit the people there, but only until the employer can find a way to get rid of them and replace them. Further, like I said above, they systematically discount the value of future labor (and thus wages) not because they "feel like paying less" but because such a risky environment makes it worth less.

People like to talk about the Gilded Age, but they never mention places like Hong Kong with historically no minimum wage, yet which also is a place millions of workers flock to from places that "guarantee" a miniumum wage, like China.

It is not man's laws, but fundamental economic realities that set wages. But hey, I'd love to try out your ideas. If you really believe what you're posting, you should support the idea in my sig. The state with strong labor laws should easily draw all the workers from the state with no labor laws, right? ...RIGHT?

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

I'm just talking about parts of an ideology-- the vast majority of Wikipedians aren't big-S card carrying Socialists, but they are more likely to believe in some ideals which exist in socialist (and non-socialist) theory-- collective control over a shared resource, cooperation & collaboration, etc.

1) Those ideas aren't remotely unique to socialism - the exist in capitalism too. Believe it or not, supporters of capitalism like cooperation - just not limited to the narrow context in which you use it. In fact, in your parenthetical you admit as much. So, uh, why again why Wikipedia attract more socialists?

2) I guess you think corporations are socialist because they also involve collective ownership over a shared resource (share-holding), to say nothing of internal cooperation, collaboration, etc.

Please, get a clue what you actually stand for. You seem to have this view that "Socalism is defined as good stuff, capitalism is opposition to good stuff by definition."

Re:Irony alert

[IgnoramusMaximus]

And of course, you're wrong - even a wageless worker carries risk

I merely responded to your proposition of creating, quote, "flexible market, in which there is no risk to hiring someone". Clearly a $0 wage or enslavememt is one of the preconditions. I am sure there would be more, like state insurance to the slave owner for any damages a "defective" slave could inflict. But it is you who proposed creating a "no risk" situation to the employer and furthermore, prepostrously claimed that it would lead to increase in wages. I merely pointed out its chief required pre-conditions and the subsequent contradiction in your analysis. If you think you can retro-actively change your declarations, with such pathetic weaseling about as, quote: 'I did not advocate any particular goal of "reducing risk of labor"; I was just citing one thing that pulls down wages' then you are sorely mistaken. I assumed that you were serious about the issue but this first exchange presents you immediately as a clownish purveyor of hot air, who does not hesitate to recraft his "message" each time someone happens to point out its inherent illogic.

That happens in slavery, but it also happens with socialist states,

That is plainly a fabrication. Even in the Soviet Union, the workers were able to choose their place of employment (providing they were not politically active dissenters), unlike the scrip-paid workers of certain US companies who not only did not have a choice in the matter (the gigiantic company being one of the very few employers in the geographical area, "employing" whole families including children from young age) but once "employed" they were steadily getting more indebted to the company due to the very clever arrangement of the "company store" credit issued at an interest rate that would make a Mafia loan-shark blush. One could try to argue that all Soviet companies were ultimately owned by the state, which was true, but they all had their own managment and quite unique and different internal operation, including wages. Not to mention that a small number of overlapping groups of ultra-wealthy investors hold significant shares of most major companies today, creating disturbingly similar scenarios. That is right, a vile communist dictatorship offered more freedom to the workers then some of the crown achievements of the US Gilded Age, a time of indentured servitude or abject poverty for most and exorbitant riches for very few, a time to which you clearly pine to return to.

And again, to clarify, lowering wages does not reduce risk; the risk is still there, it's just hedged.

Ergo, reduced. You are constructing self-contradictory sentences. It is plainly obvious that $0 cost, no-rights, enslaved, government-bonded "employees" are as close to your, quote, "no risk to hiring someone" as one can possibly get. Yet your panicked flailing indicates that you do not like these, completely contrary to your assertions, implications of your own de-regulatory proposals.

If someone's not worth hiring at a price, they're not worth hiring at that price, no matter what the regulations are.

That may be true but the regulations prevent you from enslaving that desperate person at 1/5th going wage paid in scrip + 75% interest rate on the advance of food and baby formula from your "generous" company store. Yet you do not grasp this simple, plain to see, implication. This, combined with a social safety net, moderates the absolute power and leverage the employer has over employees in the vast oversupply of labour situation, which persisted for most of the human history but was never as accutely prominent as it is now.

If they are worth hiring, competition for workers drives their wage up to that price.

Competition for workers?! Minus points deducted for complete, numbskulled lack of even a smallest of modicums of understanding of the situation. Let me repeat: vast oversupply of labour is the present dominant condition

Re:Irony alert

[LeonGeeste]

WTF? I think you seriously misunderstood me there. My point was that (and I can't even believe I have to spell this out for someone, since it should be so obvious) contributing to a collaborative effort does not make one socialist; that the effort itself is not socialist; that the effort itself does not in any way contradict capitalist[1] principles; and that proponents of socialism are no more likely to contribute to it.

I am *not* calling Wikipedia socialist because it's non-profit (non-profits flourish under capitalism). I'm calling it socialist because many articles promote socialism. Get it now?

[1]Again, just to clarify for the n-th person who can't make the distinction. When I talk about capitalism here, I'm talking about free markets within a private property metacontext(a), not the other definition, pursuit of monetary wealth(b). You can have (b) without (a) and (a) without (b). I'm not sure my placement on your foes list is warranted.

People still do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contribute information to a project which can turn around and make money with it?

Re:People still do that?

[NathanBFH]

Like your comments on slashdot? Hmm...

Re:People still do that?

[m50d]

It's GFDL so anyone can do pretty much anything with it. There were already mirrors with ads around, search google some time for any encyclopaedic project and you'll find a fair few of them. I guess I'll just have to put the official wikipedia in the same "scumbags" category.

Not a problem

[totallygeek]

I think that Wikipedia is a great service. The people behind it should be compensated for time, effort, hardware and bandwidth. I have no problem with advertisements to fund this. I mean, it is better than paying for a subscription!

Re:Not a problem

[OctoberSky]

I have 5 Mod points that are going to go unused because there is no "Logical" in the pull down list.

Mod parent up +5 Logical.

Re:Not a problem

[CuteVlogger]

Some people prefer a subscription - they're willing to pay for more privileges and fewer ads.

Wikipedia should consider an subscription alternative for those people willing to spend money for 'better' service.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, it is better than paying for a subscription!

But there have been fundraisers in the past. Where did the money from those go? Why not more fundraisers?

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what the AdBlock extension is for. What are advertisements, anyway?

Re:Not a problem

[LordSnooty]

I mean, it is better than paying for a subscription!

You think so? Let's see what happens the first time a company's ad & a less-than-glowing writeup concerning that company, product or service collide. Assuming they go for Google-style ads-in-context. Could Wikipedia's NPOV be compromised?

Re:Not a problem

[Rycross]

Wouldn't a "less-than-glowing writup concerning that company, product or service" constitute personal opinion or a review, thus being non-NPOV?

Re:Not a problem

[Kadin2048]

I agree with you in spirit; the problem I have is that Wikipedia recently had a fundraising drive where they accepted donations. Although they certainly didn't say "we're never going to have ads," I think -- given that they were ad free and asking for donations -- a lot of people may have given them money while under the impression that they were contributing to an ad-free site (or to keep it that way).

For the Wikimedia Foundation to have taken people's money so freely and then to start putting up ads isn't going to win them many friends with the community they've spawned, and perhaps most especially among the people who just donated.

At the very least it's going to make a lot of people more reluctant to give money to similar causes in the future, because they'll feel like I do now: I didn't donate anything other than my time (although I was considering it), but if it's true that they're going to an ad-supported business model then I'm just glad I didn't cut that check, since clearly they don't need my money.

It's not that I don't think Wikipedia is a good service -- I do, or even that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't within their rights to put up ads -- they are. What I'm not comfortable with is that they asked for donations from individuals without exhausting the other options first. In my mind, asking your users for cash ought to be an option of last (not first) resort, and that they did ask for donations should have meant that they had either taken the idea of advertising completely off the table as unacceptable, or already pursued it as far as it could go.

It's the difference between somebody asking me for money when they're truly destitute and desperate, or asking me for money and then waiting to see how much I cough up before they decide whether to get a job.

Hopefully there's more to the story that I just haven't found out yet, but right now I think that their timing really stinks, and that a lot of other people will probably agree.

Re:Not a problem

[88NoSoup4U88]

Very much agree : I don't mind (non obtrusive) ads, if it let's me see the content for free.
I think the problem that might arise here is that alot of people contributed to it with their knowledge and time, and those are now not getting any compensation for it.
A solution to this could be that the money that they gain with advertising, only goes towards server maintenance (and other costs that come with hosting a site like wikipedia), and maybe even donate the rest to some good cause.

A bit offtopic, but the recent exploring of game developers to include advertising worries me to some extent: If we talk about the FPS market, there are -alot- of people/clans who rent/keep up servers for exactly those games : Once the ingame advertising has also reached this market, are -they- getting any share in the revenue this will bring to the developer ?

Re:Not a problem

[slackmaster2000]

I don't have a problem with advertisements most of the time.

However, I'm not comfortable with ads in this case, because advertisements can lead to the skewing of information. If wikipedia becomes reliant on an advertiser, and a politically-motivated group doesn't like something in the wiki, then they start smacking around the advertiser who in turn starts putting pressure on the wiki.

This is why organizations like PBS and NPR exist, although neither is perfect in this regard. Advertisement-free information isn't about providing people with a nicer experience, it's about being free to share information without having to filter it first through the corporations who are paying the bills. Again, I'm not saying that either of these organizations are free of corporate sponsorship, they're not.

I do think that the wiki people should think twice before taking this path.

Re:Not a problem

[Talrias]

While this proposal is not going to lead to the introduction of ads on Wikipedia, it is a good point and one I raised on the mailing list. Hopefully it is an avoidable problem.

Here's a (probably apocryphal) story of a program on the BBC, I believe it was a car review program, who gave a bad review to a certain American car model. The CEO of the company found out about it, was furious and ordered the advertising team to pull all adverts to punish the TV station. The advertising team replied "sorry sir, but the BBC don't run adverts".

While direct comparison between Wikipedia and the BBC would obviously be flawed due to Wikipedia's open philosophy, a hypothetical situation could occur where a corporation which provides a significant contribution towards Wikipedia's hosting (in the way of loaning servers or donations) could theoretically demand that the Wikimedia Board change the content in an article to remove a link or sentence from an article which criticises them as a company, and threaten to pull funding if the Board did not. While this would be horribly hard to enforce (and would be a major PR disaster for the corporation if it were leaked to the press) it is a concievable situation and I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to think of some organisations which would demand this.

I wouldn't describe Jimbo Wales' response to this as particularly eloquent, but I think it gives some comfort to people who hope it will never come to this.

Chris

Re:Not a problem

[kebes]

I'm not trying to be mean... I agree with the spirit of your post... but let me say:

I think that Wikipedia is a great service.
Wikimedia is not a "service" in the traditional (economic) sense. Wikimedia is a not-for-profit organization with a charitable charter to distribute information to everyone for free. They should uphold this charter.

The people behind it should be compensated for time...
The people behind it are people like me, who write articles and fix entries all the time. The money that Wikimedia gets (by donation or corporate alliance) never comes back to the people who do the work. In fact, we (the people who work on Wikipedia) don't want the money. We do this work because it's fun and/or we believe in the ideology of making information available to everyone.

I have no problem with advertisements to fund this.
An interesting fact about this debate is that the Wikimedia board has clearly stated that they do not need this ad money in order to run Wikimedia. The donations so far have always been enough to buy servers and buy bandwidth. This extra money would thus only be used for new Wikimedia projects. These would be additional (presumably charitable) projects for disseminating information freely to others. Neither the creators of Wikipedia nor the board stand to financially gain from this deal.

I mean, it is better than paying for a subscription!
I don't think Wikimedia could ever become a subscription service. Because all the content is GPL, anyone could take a snapshot of the entire database, fork it, and thereby create their own, open and free version of Wikipedia. They couldn't call it wikipedia, but the information is forever free for others to use as they see fit.

Re:Not a problem

[Haeleth]

The people behind it are people like me, who write articles and fix entries all the time. The money that Wikimedia gets (by donation or corporate alliance) never comes back to the people who do the work.

This is correct. Wikipedia would be worthless without those of us who give up some of our own free time to write for it and to combat spam and vandalism.

On the other hand, we do also benefit from the foundation having money to spare. I'm sure you've noticed how slow the servers get at times. There are plenty of offsite mirrors for the casual seeker of information, but they're no good for editors because we can't edit Wikipedia through them. So more money -> more servers -> more bandwidth -> faster Wikipedia -> we all benefit.

An interesting fact about this debate is that the Wikimedia board has clearly stated that they do not need this ad money in order to run Wikimedia. The donations so far have always been enough to buy servers and buy bandwidth.

I wish they'd do some of that buying, then. It's a waste of everyone's time when ten people spend five minutes each trying to get through to revert some troll's one-word vandalism, and then finally get a connection only to find that someone else already did it. Right now Wikipedia has plenty of helpers, but if it keeps getting slower and slower like it has lately, it's going to start losing people who just can't be bothered with all the waiting any more...

Re:Not a problem

[AdamWeeden]

I think you were looking for the seldom used +5 Vulcan moderation.

Re:Not a problem

[c0bw3b]

That idea really doesn't work with Wikipedia since, as you say, the open nature of Wikipedia makes a direct comparison impossible. Anyone who was a tool of the company in question could just remove the offending material... and then someone else would just revert it back.

Fundraising

[A beautiful mind]

Didn't Wikipedia have a fundraising last time i checked? Why the need for advertising then?

The first priority should be keep the site clean, because that's one of the strengths of wikipedia, if i would have wanted advertising i would have went to any commercial info site.

Re:Fundraising

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they saw that fundraising didn't bring in enough cash to maintain the service they provided. They have stats of how many people access the site and obtain information. They most likely saw that there weren't as many people donating money to support the site, thus the ads.

Re:Fundraising

[Stormy Dragon]

Well, did you donate to the fundraiser?

Re:Fundraising

[Awperator]

Didn't Wikipedia have a fundraising last time i checked? Why the need for advertising then?

I went to work today. I guess I dont need to go for the rest of my life. I have all the money I need!

The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[digid]

I don't mind this at all. This 1-click software is quite useful and others should be informed about it. Anytime I see a word that's unfamiliar I just alt+click and I get the wiki. Any application. Very nice.

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[RapmasterT]

This 1-click software is quite useful and others should be informed about it. Anytime I see a word that's unfamiliar I just alt+click and I get the wiki.

Maybe I'm just a nitpicker, but how is "alt+click" 1-click? That sounds like key+click to me, and something that I'd rather do with right-click+click rather than using two hands.

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep both hands where I can see them, please. There's nothing down there you need to be reaching for.

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[Smidge204]

Most users tend to have one hand on the mouse and one on the keyboard... as opposed to one on the mouse and one on their joystick. :)

right-click+click is four separate actions: Right click, Visually locate menu item (May be to right or left of cursor depending on how close to the edge of the screen it is, and the list may have additional items depending on context so it may not even be in the same location), Move mouse to menu item, left click it. This all involves one hand so they MUST be done sequentially.

alt+click is two: Press and hold ATL, click. This involves two hands and can be done in parallel, at least as much as ALT is registered before the click.

=Smidge=

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[88NoSoup4U88]

I've recently installed Trillian and I noticed it very casually highlights words in your IM-windows, which have Wikipedia entries : You can then either highlight them (and it will popup a small description) or click on it, to go to its Wikipedia entry.
Very cool stuff in my opinion.

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[RapmasterT]

ah, but you're oversimplifying.

When most people are casually web browsing, they're not poised with one hand on the keyboard. So Alt+click involves moving off hand to keyboard, visually locating the alt key, press and hold ALT, then click.

once I move my off hand to the keyboard, what is going to hold my head up? So there's also the need to stop and manufacture a stick/pillow assemlby, at least the first time.

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[tom8658]

Firefox has one of those too. And no ads!

(I'm pretty sure there's a better extension that does the same thing: the one I remember was customizable so you could point the query to any page you wanted, including wikipedia)

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[Kadin2048]

That's admittedly cool, but I can't help but wonder how much search traffic stuff like that creates to Wikipedia. Does it run a separate query to the website for every word in your chat?

I don't have any chat transcripts right now to be able to go through and count up what my average number of words per minute or words per hour is, but I bet it's pretty high. Multiply that times the number of users of a product and you've just created a lot of people trying to access Wikipedia all the time. Actually, it starts to look suspiciously like a DDoS attack.

I hope that the software is doing something more intelligent, like querying a local database of words which have WP articles, but if not than it would only take one 'killer app' with a feature like that built in to really do in the Wiki servers. As if they're not slow enough already.

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[petermgreen]

iirc they use a static database for identifying which words to link and only actually fetch any text from when a user hovers over a link causing the start of the wp article to pop up in a tooltip like box.

actually clicking on the link brings up a menu with a few options including wikipedia and some kind of web search (not sure which one off hand).

Re:The 1-Click Software is quite useful

[CliffSpradlin]

I ran a packet sniffer at one point. The actual database of words that are in wikipedia is stored clientside, and updated periodically. Trillian actually runs a specialized mirror on their own servers of wikipedia, which the Trillian client queries when you hover your mouse over one of the words.. The server outputs very barebones text I believe, not even XML wrapped, so it's extremely minimal bandwidth usage even for you.

It's also lightning fast, the tooltip appears almost instantly. It's by far my favorite feature.

Wikipedia Entry for AdBlock Extension

[The_Rippa]

Can I be the first to update the wikipedia entry on the AdBlock extension with a filterset to hide the wikipedia ads?

Re:Wikipedia Entry for AdBlock Extension

[FooAtWFU]

That'd be hard. All the actual advertisements will appear on pages at Answers.com - not on actual Wikipedia pages. There will be a link to the software at the Wikipedia Tools page, but there are lots of links to software at the Wikipedia Tools page. They'll also put the Tools page in the sidebar, but they were considering doing something like that anyway.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dont act so surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is fast growing in reputation and use. Advertising remains the single source of income for many websites. As long as the advertising is done along the lines of Googles advertising I cant see a problem. This coming from someone who uses Wikipedia plenty.

There will inevitable be some unrealistic people who want to get something as good as Wikipedia for nothing. I bet they didnt contribute. I did.

Theres always Encarta *cough*

Re:Dont act so surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there's always Encarta - which is fortunate given that it's a hell of a lot more reliable than Wikipedia for getting accurate and relevant information on a subject.

Weird

[augustz]

Here's a deal of unknown value (for answers.com it obviously has value, market cap went up $8m on annoucement).

Folks like google offer to host, but don't seem to be taken up on the offer:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting

Does the board just want more $$ to play with (in other words, hosting doesn't give them the money they want to have the pleasure of spending)?

Re:Weird

[petermgreen]

i'll admit i dunno why google hosting is going nowhere atm, some offers are already being used (yahoo knams and lost oasis).

however the way the wikimedia server setup is currently structured all the high CPU work is done in one place. The other clusters are just caches. Maybe this will change but apparently mysql replication accross networks other than lans is not all that stable.

Very mad contributor

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I just wasted 2 years of my life adding tons and tons of information to wikipedia for FREE.

They want to profit from all that information? I want a piece!!

I am so mad right now. Very very mad.

Re:Very mad contributor

[Anonymous Coward]

then create your own fork of the Wikipedia project - if they accept advertising, this might just happen.

Re:Very mad contributor

[FooAtWFU]

Negatory. The Wikimedia foundation is non-profit. The money they get out of this deal will be used for keeping their servers online and for charitable encyclopedia-related projects ("printing out copies for children in Africa").

Or perhaps you were unaware that there were already hundreds of mirrors and forks with tons of ads sitting on Google just to get their operator a few bucks for decidedly NOT nonprofit reasons. Perhaps you should scream at them loudly first, hmm?

Re:Very mad contributor

[NathanBFH]

Wait wait, hold on. Who's pockets are you assuming this money is going in? The board's? Hardly. Any revenue generated by the Wikipedia project goes right back into it the project. How can you be upset about that?

Re:Very mad contributor

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the tons and tons of information you added to Wikipedia was more accurate than your grasp of how a non-profit works.

Re:Very mad contributor

[cnettel]

You knew all along that it was totally OK for ANYONE to harvest all of it and make money off it, of course while still complying with the license. If you didn't, you are the only to blame.

Re:Very mad contributor

[DNS-and-BIND]

Corporations will make profit due to the traffic directed to their sites from Wikipedia. This interferes with Wikipedia's true anarcho-syndicalist nature. More money for the corporations means more money for the war machine. :(

Re:Very mad contributor

[s20451]

Wow, for a second there I was afraid that nobody would find a way to link this back to "the war".

Not a problem-OPM

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it better? Either way the users end up paying for it, else no one pays for it and it dies. There's no OPM operating here. The only difference between direct and ads is that the paying burden is shifted to the minority that actually clicks on the ads. Everyone else gets a free ride on their backs.

Irony Indeed

[TheBrutalTruth]

We socialists do hate paid advertising. Thanks for the free plug!

But please don't call me left-wing, I love the NRA, capital punishment, and Wikipedia - ads or not.

Ads are a fact of life - someone has to schill to make ANYTHING happen. Nothing is free (as in Beer).

Why is it always advertising?

[teutonic_leech]

There's an old saying that goes: to a man with a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed to solve any financial woes? So many projects have started on a free basis and there is an old addage in marketing that stipulates that it is very hard to hike prices after selling something for less before (or giving it away for free). I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably (and less annoyingly). How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two a month you have access to a wealth of information you are interested in. This would be a bit like 'packaging' in the cable industry (just it would be better structured). For the hard core among us there might be a a-la-carte menu they could choose from and pay a certain amount per site. I know this sounds a bit strange at first, but it's just a matter of 'redistribution' of funds and cutting out the middle man.
Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere down the line? Of course some of us buy into it and we spend dollars that get rerouted back to the sites we access for 'free'. It's a very annoying way to make money (who likes advertising after all - and how much energy to we exert to rid us of it?) and it doesn't seem to work very well, meaning you need to cluster bomb the online population to achieve an effect.
Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Re:Why is it always advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

I think you accidentally typed that into the wrong browser window. This is Slashdot.

Re:Why is it always advertising?

[QuantumRiff]

There is a corallary saying to yours, that I personally believe.. "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a hell of a lot of fun!"

Advertising is Okay

[Dante Shamest]

They just have to do it right. Things to think of:

1. Ads should be relevant to the article, but I don't think pornography/drugs/gambling should be permitted. They'll only affect the image of the project.
2. They must be noticeable, but not intrusive. No pop-ups! Text-based would be best, something akin to Google's.
3. They must not seriously affect performance of the site. Wikipedia isn't exactly the fastest kid on the block right now, so I hope the addition of advertising doesn't make it choke.

Actually, after reading the vague press release, it seems like the ads won't be on Wikipedia itself.

Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[queenb**ch]

I'm writing this as an end-user of Wikipedia, not a contributor. If the ads are Google-esque, who really cares? I don't mind browsing past an ad or two if I can actually find what I'm looking for. My issue with the Wikipedia is that many times I come upon "a stub" that needs to be expanded. Now, the Wikipedia politely asks me if I'd like to add to the stub. The problem with that is if I knew the answer, I certainly would NOT be browsing the f&*^%$# Wikipedia looking for the answer. Given the inflow of dollars to fund more entries, this might make the Wikipedia more useful to everyone. I'm all in favor of that.

2 cents,

Queen B

Probably not that bad

[ZachPruckowski]

I use gmail like 20 times a day, and I honestly never notice the text based ads. It should be possible to make unobtrusive ads, or even ads that are benficial. Let's say that I look up a movie on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll get an ad from a store selling the DVD for cheap? They already have external links to websites involved in an article. Maybe if those sites pay to get the ad, it'll help wikipedia.

Coca-Cola (n.)

[Heffenfeffer]

Coca-Cola Coca-Cola is a subpar soft drink, especially compared to PEPSI-COLA (tm). It was designed as a delivery system of cocaine, unlike PEPSI-COLA (tm). Further, the Coca-Cola company uses incredibly moronic advertising to sell its product with no health benefits whatsover - unlike PEPSI-COLA (tm) commercials (click to watch an award-winning PEPSI-COLA (tm) commercial now!)

Coca-Cola can be found in many resturaunts with health code violations, unlike PEPSI-COLA, which can be found in top-rated resturants KFC (tm), PIZZA HUT (tm), and TACO BELL (tm).

See also:

PEPSI
WILD CHERRY PEPSI
PEPSI EDGE
DIET PEPSI

Re:Coca-Cola (n.)

[BushCheney08]

Man. Your comment made me really thirsty for some reason. Think I'll go have a Sprite...

Ain't the information gpl'd?

[Kynde]

Couldn't some people just simply mirror the stuff elsewhere and go on from there?

I agree wholeheartedly that this is a sad thing to happen. Information source of wikipedia's kind should not be mixed with business. Moreover, I was under the impression that they had received quite good money from donations.

Re:Ain't the information gpl'd?

[DaHat]

FYI: Open code is released under the GPL, open documents like what is found on Wikipedia is released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

To summarize:

GPL != FDL

Re:Ain't the information gpl'd?

[NathanBFH]

Wait wait, hold on. Who's pockets are you assuming this money is going in? The board's? Hardly. Any revenue generated by the Wikipedia project goes right back into it the project. How can you be upset about that?

Re: Ain't the information gpl'd?

[Black Parrot]

> Couldn't some people just simply mirror the stuff elsewhere and go on from there?

Answers.com has been ripping Wikipedia since forever. Google searches frequently turn up hits with identical text from both domains.

Here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Graves
http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-graves (scroll down a bit)

Re:Ain't the information gpl'd?

[NathanBFH]

My apologies to the grandparent, my parent comment got attached to the wrong one.

Re: Ain't the information gpl'd?

[Rufus211]

Are you a fucking moron? Scroll down just a bit more and you see:

Wikipedia information about Robert Graves This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Robert Graves". More from Wikipedia

The entire point of open source is that people can take it and do whatever they want with it as long as they share it. This is the same as RedHat selling Linux, Answers.com is making money off ads from Wikipedia content.

Re: Ain't the information gpl'd?

[Black Parrot]

> Are you a fucking moron?

Are you deficient in reading comprehension?

One possible problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is a great resource, and generally, I would tend to support the decisions of the organizers to fund it in the way that they see fit.

However, it is worth pointing out that they currently take in a substantial amount of donations, and that opening the door to advertising would probably blunt the enthusiasm of charitable givers.

I do hope whatever deal has been hashed out is worth a substantial fraction of currently generated revenues.

So Google can do it, but these can't?

[Xarius]

I see a lot of grousing in the linked discussion with people threatening to "leave and never come back". I'd wager almost everyone who is grousing uses Google, and this is exactly the same thing. Let's not forget that servers don't run on scotch mist and the bandwidth fairy certainly doesn't exist.

Someone needs to pay for this, and I don't see how relevant advertisements can detract from the site at all, in fact they will probably add to it a great deal.

If it was great big shiny flash banner adds with screeching canary gifs or something, I'd understand. The moaners need to put up, or shut up really.

Re:So Google can do it, but these can't?

[kebes]

You may be interested to know that Wikimedia currently says that they don't need the money for servers or bandwidth. Currently, fundraising and donations of servers from companies are enough to keep Wikimedia running. Thus, this advertising deal would represent extra funds. The extra funds would (theoretically) be used to further Wikimedia's charitable mission to spread free information to all people on Earth.

It is clear that Wikimedia needs money to keep running. However, this ad deal is not needed in order for Wikimedia to run. It only represents extra money to fund new projects. So the question becomes, are these (as yet unspecified) extra projects sufficiently worthy that Wikimedia should endorse an advertising scheme?

(PS: Google is a for-profit publicly-traded company that needs to demonstrate a return for investors, Wikimedia is a not-for-profit organization that exists due to the efforts of a community of volunteers. Wikimedia has an ideological "mission" that most volunteers uphold.)

Re:So Google can do it, but these can't?

[richardtallent]

The bandwidth fairy does exist--it's called "broadband P2P."

All we need to do is figure out how to use P2P as a platform for distributing web content to normal browsers rather than as a way to share gigabytes of Linux distros and "pirated" music. Something like a downloader/proxy utility on steriods that would intercept HTTP calls and collect the content from other users--but easy enough for Grandma@AOL to install and use.

If everyone could chip in with the broadband connection they are already paying for with little more than the click of a button (think BitTorrent, SETI, etc.), millions of popular forums, blogs, wikis, galleries, etc. could move from the ad/subscription world back to a free distribution model.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Might be reasonable

[brokenarmsgordon]

I wouldn't be opposed to unobtrustive text (google) ads on Wikimedia, but images or anything distracting is really pushing it. As long as the revenue is kept purely non-profit (supporting the cost of bandwidth and hardware, only) I find no grounds for objection.

Re:Might be reasonable

[lux55]

Perhaps some of the proceeds could also go to promoting Wikipedia and to WikiMedia development. Personally, I don't think those who are opposed to Google-style advertising to help keep the site running are being very reasonable. A site the size of Wikipedia costs money to run, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Commercial sites have tried subscription-based models, non-profits have tried donations, but neither of those seems to have been as effective as simply putting a few mostly-relevant text ads on the side of each page. Even an image, such as the ads here on /., isn't that bad, especially if it means the difference between having Wikipedia or not having it at all.

Great Idea! I can't wait! Yay! :D

[Quiet_Desperation]

Linux - a tool of the devil, pedophiles, terrorists and stupid inbred hillbillies who eat bugs.

This entry sponsered by Microsoft Vista. Vista - it'll give men three hour orgasms.

You do!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are a turing machine.

Re:You do!

[Anonymous Coward]

Big difference. I knew this is a commercial venue before I wrote these comments and I feel like writing this. I would never do boring or lengthy work for a third party site which wants anything other than a license for strictly non-commercial use.

Re:You do!

[arose]

Why don't you go and read the GFDL?

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the bigger question is, can we edit the ads?

Another Gracenote?

[johnny_sas]

It always worries me when community-contributed sites start getting commercial. I wouldn't want to see another Gracenote happening.

FAQ for your convenience!

[FooAtWFU]

Frequently Assumed Quandaries resolved:

1. The deal is not finalized. Nothing is "struck" or required.
2. Nobody is forced to use the software.
3. There are no ads/adware/spyware in the software. Er, surely there must be adverts in the software, or where does the money come from?? Dan100 (Talk) 18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC) The software lets you go to a web page, such as http://answer.com/foo - The web page has all the advertisements. -Fennec () 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
4. The link to the software will only be at WP:TOOLS, nowhere else.
   • A link to WP:TOOLS will be placed in the sidebar, not a link to the software.
5. The tools page already links to non-free software.
6. Answers.com could have posted their link on the tools page without offering the Foundation a cent.
7. Bob Rosenschien and Jimbo Wales have been in firm and absolute agreement from the beginning that the form of link chosen by the community is up to the community.
8. The community is free to remove the link from WP:TOOLS, but know that this will stop Wikimedia from receiving additional funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/ 1-Click_Answers#F.A.Q.

Re:FAQ for your convenience!

[shutdown -p now]

And something else which might be of interest:

You've asked what is perhaps the most important question of all: what's to keep them from doing this without any cooperation from the Board or revenue sharing at all? Well, other than the use of our name, there is nothing to keep them from doing it. The fact that they ethically approached us and made a generous offer to help us out in a way that is beneficial for them and us is a credit to them, and something we should applaud.
--Jimbo Wales 12:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that any Wikipedia user can edit any page, including the Tools page, at will, as long as the edit is relevant (which it seemingly is in this case).

Re:FAQ for your convenience!

[brian0918]

Did I say you could copy and paste my text without permission? That block of text wasn't GFDL. :)

Here's the deal

[elfguygmail.com]

Before everyone starts inventing stuff about wikipedia having banner ads, here's what the deal is: - A link will be added in the left side bar on Wikipedia to the WP:TOOLS page. - That page lists software that can be used to improve the user experience of the Wikimedia projects, such as toolbars and other web helpers. - On that page the 1-Click toolbar will be listed on top. - People using this toolbar and seeing the ads will bring revenue to both 1-Click Answers and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Why is it always advertising?-Illusions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the artificial desire for whitespace didn't infect you.

"Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated."

Because people love their illusions. They want to believe that they're actually getting something for nothing. Paying directly breaks that illusion. At least with advertising we can always tell ourselves "someone else is footing the bill". Unfortunately as I mentioned elsewere there's no OPM, in advertising, but those who actually buy something from the ads (remeber ads are for the purpose of getting people to BUY something) are the ones paying for the bandwith, and all the other costs. Everyone else is basically riding on their sacrifice. Just watching ads does nothing towards the bottom line.

Not a problem...if they didn't just fundraise!!!

[quadra23]

I think that Wikipedia is a great service. The people behind it should be compensated for time, effort, hardware and bandwidth. I have no problem with advertisements to fund this. I mean, it is better than paying for a subscription!

Yours is a comment that is unaware of the following:

Six servers are now being hosted in France as squids, with another eleven in the Netherlands, and a further 23 in South Korea donated by Yahoo. The hosting and bandwidth have been donated. About Wikimedia (Emphasis mine). They clearly note that hardware is the major expense and that they only have two people on staff. When you say people behind it don't forget all the volunteers that don't even get a cent from the project and the efforts and countless hours they pour in for the community. Monetary incentive shouldn't be assumed.

Also note that this is still quite shortly after Wikimedia has received very close to $200,000 in donations and that this announcement is just over a month after the drive I would question exactly what was the purpose if the drive. Articles still exist on Wikimedia that state the following For the time being, we want the Wikimedia projects to remain free of advertisements. About Wikimedia.

Before anyone goes over-board either way please remember the content posted on Wikipedia, something like this can get blown way out of proportion, The prominence of any links to the service on Wikipedia will be left entirely up to the community. This is not a pay-for-placement deal. This respect for the community is absolutely insisted upon by both Bob Rosenschein of Answers.com and Jimbo Wales. 1-Click Answers. Let's just wait and see if this is left up entirely to the community.

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[Pxtl]

In all likelihood, ad revenue would not go to new content. Rather, it would likely go to:
a) paying the operating costs of WP - serving data isn't cheap.
b) adding additional services to Wikipedia that may be more bandwidth intensive - like large files of video or software.
c) hiring moderators to clear out wikispam and help edit the wiki into a publishable "stable" form.

Hiring people to add content directly goes against the ideas of wiki, and besides - why should they since free work seems to work well?

Don't like it? Pay up.

[Nerdposeur]

My first question when I started using Wikipedia was, "How is this funded?"

Answer: donations. Since I have never given any money, I'd have no problem accepting ads.

I hope that the people who are complaining the loudest have given the most. Otherwise, they're mad because they can't get something for nothing.

The cable model worked so well, too

[bitslinger_42]

IIRC, the original promise of cable TV was that, since I was paying a subscription fee, there would be no advertising. That obviously isn't the case any more. Now, if I chose to pay for cable (I don't watch any TV any more, let alone pay for it, BTW), I am paying for the opportunity to watch commercials.

Given that highly-successful precident, I can easily forsee your proposed packaging being bastardized in a similar fashion.

Of course, you're still working on the premise that there's stuff on teh Intarweb out there that I'd be willing to pay for, even for a couple bucks a month. Thus far, I've yet to find anything.

Trouble at t' mill.

[LordSnooty]

Maru, angry contributer no 5 at the referenced anti-ads page:

Absolutely not! I will seriously look into retracting my contributions

Man alive, this could spell disaster! But wait:

Not to spoil your fun, but you have already licensed all your edits under the GFDL, and can't retract them as such.

No, a quick click of the revert button, and your carefully-tended articles contributed for no reward are back in print, surrounded by ads!

Anyway, if the ads are anything like Google, and given the nature of things I search for on WP, here's a look into the crystal ball:

ADVERTISMENT
Looking for cheap Roman Empire 2nd-5th Century?
1000s to choose from! http://auctions/

Re:Trouble at t' mill.

[pharwell]

I got a mint condition 3rd Century Roman Empire(tm) if you're interested. New in box! Never been breathed on!

Re:Trouble at t' mill.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it could be a problem. I have ~7000 edits (which puts me roughly in the top 500 editos), many of which are enourmous, spread over 2400 different articles. http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edit s?user=marudubshinki&dbname=enwiki

And: "Not to spoil your fun, but you have already licensed all your edits under the GFDL, and can't retract them as such."

Oh noes! Since you obviously are a lawyer with mad l33t legal skillz, you better go edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Revocab ility_where_no_consideration so it is right. But according to this gullible editor, this means I/other contributors can legally withdraw our contributions. Which would make the subsequent editions of the articles with edits so retracted derivative works- of a nonlicensed work. In other words, a copyright violation. This could be a problem.

--maru dubshinki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marudubshinki

Re:Trouble at t' mill.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it come with mini-gladiators? Because seeing tiny little gladiators killing lions or something would actually be pretty entertaining for like 20 minutes or so. Then I'd send it back, and say all the gladiators died in shipping.

Headline wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

As is so often the case, the slashdot headline is wrong.

From the page:

Welcome to visitors from Slashdot. Please be aware that the Slashdot story is completely wrong. There is no proposal to have advertising on Wikipedia. There are numerous errors of fact on this page. (See below if you're interested.) --Jimbo Wales 19:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I stopped using Wikipedia

[Kylere]

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it is a set of webpages maintained by far right and left wing drips. My hometown is Flint, Michigan. Michael Moore is NOT from Flint Michigan, but try to change it. His undereducated and underworked fanbois ensure that misinformation is the order of the day. Pick any issue that can have a political bias and some moron of a republican, or lemming of a democrat ensures that the truth is secondmost to their political point. It only has value for specific data (dates, times, etc), and when it is compared to real databases of factual data it shows up horribly by comparison. Let them add ads, then the Wintendo generation will be even less capable.

Re:I stopped using Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote wikipedia: Michael Moore was born in Davison, Michigan, near the city of Flint. At the time, Flint was home to many General Motors factories, where his mother was a secretary, and both his father and grandfather were employed. His uncle was one of the founders of the United Automobile Workers labor union and was part of the famous sitdown strike.

Re:I stopped using Wikipedia

[Kylere]

Good thing you posted as a coward, because I was referencing the Flint Michigan entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint%2C_Michigan ) NOT the Michael Moore entry, and prior to today when it was changed again you can see a history of changes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flint%2C _Michigan&action=history ) that keep trying to add him to and remove him from Flint. he did not work or live in Flint, and did nothing in the city other than to malign it and do so inaccurately. It is amazing that this single lie is fought over so often. Wikipedia as such remains the province of warring factions, not the domain of fact.

Identifying fact as flamebait is the action of someone trying to deny truth.

Re:Great Idea! I can't wait! Yay! :D

[heinousjay]

Wow, that's not a kneejerk moderation or anything.

For the humor impaired - this is a mock ad for Microsoft as possibly hosted on Wikipedia under the proposed ad program. I'll grant it's not that funny, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be modded down. Anyone with points want to fix this?

Boycott the wikipedia/1-click overlords

[sweetnjguy29]

I, for one, do not welcome and will boycott our wikipedia/1-click overlords if they start advertising. Way to kill the project guys.

I like their disclaimer:

[vertinox]

From Wiki article:

This article has recently been linked from Slashdot.
Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism

What are they saying. /. readers are more likley to vandalise a page? ;)

Re:I like their disclaimer:

[FooAtWFU]

Not necessarily. It could just imply:

• that a Slashdot reader has an average (or even below-average) likelihood of vandalising, but due to their sheer number the vandalism count may increase
• that people not otherwise affiliated with Slashdot but who enjoy vandalism go to vandalize the page because it is temporarily a high-profile target

Bad story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to visitors from Slashdot. Please be aware that the Slashdot story is completely wrong. There is no proposal to have advertising on Wikipedia. There are numerous errors of fact on this page.

Priceless, as the saga of bad quality slashdot editing continues.
OSS community deserves a better news website.

Wikipedias Do Not Grow On Trees

[EXTomar]

As altrustic Wikipedia is, the problem is the machines have physical monetary resources. Someone has to be paid to do the maintance. Someone has to be paid to do the bug fixing. Someone has to front the cash for the lifecycle of the hardware or whatever plan they have for deployment.

Unless people come forward to do this stuff for free they need to raise cash from somewhere to pay for all of this stuff. And unlike your "contributions" to Wikipedia, these things are hardly easy to do by a guy in his spare time.

As for "profit" I don't think Wikipedia has a profit motive but lets do the Devil's Advocate. What is wrong with a profit model based upon information mining in Wikipedia? The information is freely available for anyone to use as they chose. If I come up with a clever app that mines choice information out of it then do you still want your piece? The information should be free for anyone to find. For you, me, and Google. Hey wait...why aren't you harping on Google for your piece?

I'm perfectly happy for Wikipedia to find some sort of revenue stream to keep the thing going. Its either ads or donations/merchandise. Given my choice I would rather do donations and merchandise but I can't understand the financials on whether or not this is reasonable. Or maybe they can get lucky and find out they have a rich uncle who died and left them a fortune the size of the GNP of a small country?

Re:Wikipedias Do Not Grow On Trees

[Jugalator]

There's regular fund drives for their hardware costs anyway (not sure if bandwidth is included), and these have so far been more than successful. Wikipedia also have some sort of deal with both Google and Yahoo! to relieve them of some hardware and bandwidth needs.

Not sure about the administrator payment -- I assumed this was a group of volunteers such as a large bulk of e.g. Mozilla developers?

And no, Wikipedia definitely has no profit motive, that's why the creator started it, and why I think it has been so successful -- they simply state that "The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is a non-profit organization with the goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world. Meeting this goal through the maintenance, development and distribution of free content, Wikimedia relies on public donations to run its wiki-based projects."

Re:Wikipedias Do Not Grow On Trees

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you didn't read the article on subject/verb agreement...

Open Source Moment has no Integreity!

[managedcode]

You claim one and do one. Suck to be you.

Article wrong

[smeenz]

As is so often the case, the slashdot headline is wrong.

From the page:

Welcome to visitors from Slashdot. Please be aware that the Slashdot story is completely wrong. There is no proposal to have advertising on Wikipedia. There are numerous errors of fact on this page. (See below if you're interested.) --Jimbo Wales 19:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I originally posted this as AC so as not to be seen to be hording karma, but then I realised it wouldn't be seen if I posted it that way, so here goes again.

(Wouldn't it be nice if you could EDIT your posts on slashdot)

Re:Article wrong

[boinger]

You can edit your posts...
Right after you hit Preview, and just before you hit Submit.

Ain't the servers gpl'd?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Couldn't some people just simply mirror the stuff elsewhere and go on from there?"

And how does that change the fact that bandwith and servers aren't free? Think, man, think!

Here's my "thinking man's contribution" to the discussion. Since slashdot is always making a big deal about how wonderful BT is. Why don't all you "bandwith wants to be free" people copy the site, and set up bittorrents of each article? Sort of a "put up, or shut up" as it were.

Both bad and good...

[maztuhblastah]

Advertising just isn't the sort of thing that wikipedia should be getting into unless it needs to for support. Once the money crisis is over, it should stop showing ads.

Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium?

[ManOrMonkey]

Krabappel: Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium?
Martin: Ooh ... delicious?
Krabappel: Correct. I would also accept snacktacular.

What did you expect?

[mcguyver]

Google and Yahoo are giving away bandwish and servers for free? eBay did give money to Wikipedia as an investment and not a donation. The board is run by a bunch people that don't have millions and work regular 9-5 jobs. The partnership with answers.com may be a minor change to the Wikipedia foundation but it's a sign of things to come. There's too much money and opportunity to ignore Wikipedia's advertising potential.

Re:What did you expect?

[jwales]

+3 insightful?

How about -5 completely lacking in any relation to reality?

eBay has never given money to Wikipedia. 1 board member works a regular 9-5 job, the rest don't.

Re:What did you expect?

[mcguyver]

Woops, I stand corrected, eBay bought a 25 percent interest in Craigslist.org, not Wikipedia...I'm confusing my dot coms. I still doubt Wiki's ability to remain ad free forever. The people running the show will eventually cash in.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

and most importantly, "if you know how Wikipedia works, it's through a long process of community discussion and consensus building, not through a process of top-down announcements."

shame slashdot is not a wiki

[bigmammoth]

its a shame slashdot is not a wiki we could have strained out the inacruacies of the article post by now...

Re:shame slashdot is not a wiki

[bigmammoth]

and my spelling mistakes could have been corrected ;P

Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

if i would have wanted advertising i would have went to any commercial info site.

The light bulb should be going on over your head at any second now. Let me try to help you light the bulb.

Perhaps, someone besides you decided that since Wikipedia is taking off and is being reported in mainstream news outlets, that it may be more valuable than the simple hobby project it once was. Perhaps they had thought that it was too much of a niche, hobby project to be commercially viable. Perhaps they now see it as having commercial viability. Perhaps they are thinking, I've put so much into this, why not get some money back out of it? Perhaps the dollar signs are lighting up in their eyes. Perhaps another communist has been seduced by capitalism. Perhaps another communist has not been seduced by capitalism but, has instead found an outlet for their greed and corruption. Perhaps you socialist/communist twats will get a fucking clue and realize that the world does not share your fantasies but, is instead willing to let you believe that they do whilest taking advantage of whatever you have to offer.

Perhaps...

Re:Wiki?

[metamatic]

I'm sure the people of Hawaii thank you for your insight into their language and culture.

Thoughts about Answers.com growth and GFDL

[Jugalator]

Just recently, it was announced that Opera would start a partnership with Answers.com as well, mostly for their upcoming Opera 9 browser (which is available already as a tech preview). Seems like they're gaining popularity, and for having such a clean site I can't say I dislike it. Looks like a good site that aggregates info from various sources.

However, Wikipedia information/vandalism critics may be opposed to that Answers.com heavily use that service, and it's now starting to get seamlessly integrated in web browsers and spread to other parts of the Internet thanks to the GNU Free Documentation License, the reputable Google.com being one of them (they use it for definition queries as in define:slashdot and Who is Rob Malda). A lot of information control in the hands of you and me, in other words.

Four words....

[kiddailey]

Bandwidth is not free.

Why do people think that sites like this -- that become immensly useful and popular -- can sustanin themselves without a steady revenue stream? A web site is not like TV or radio where you broadcast a signal over the air and any number of people can pick it up without killing your station.

I don't care how much time or effort anyone spent contributing content to the site. The fact is that SOMEONE has to pay to host that content and serve it to visitors.

From the Wiki FAQ:

"Previously, the site was hosted on the servers of Bomis, Inc, a company mostly owned by Jimmy Wales, who is currently the funder of part of the site's operational costs."

So Mr. Wales pays for part of the operational costs and the rest comes from donations and a few grants and sponsorships.

We're not talking a few hundred bucks a year and a single server running out of someone's in-home LAN closet. A total of $739,200 was budgeted for the 2005 calendar year alone, and that's not pocket change.

First quarter fund raising earned a miniscule $96,648.70 and if they did as well (surpassing their goal by 25%) every quarter, they'd still be $352,605.20 shy of the 2005 budget.

Given the very little bit I know from looking at this information, I don't see it being an easy task to survive during their continued growth without some kind of revenue generating system on the site -- whether it be ads or subscription.

Re:Four words....

[kebes]

Despite the figures you quote, the Wikimedia talk page on this subject has a quote from Angela (who is on the Board of trustees). There, she specifically says:

No, it wasn't necessitated by the budget. I am expecting the revenue would be regarded as something additional to what is needed to keep the site running. For example, special projects like the distribution of content in Africa and so on.

Thus, this money isn't needed to cover servers and bandwidth. So far, donations have been enough for that, and they expect this to continue in the future. This extra money is ... well... extra...

Re:Four words....

[kiddailey]

Yes, but she also says further into the discussion:

The important points to consider are that the co-branded version will be totally licence compliant (just as gurunet currently is), that its access will be totally opt-in (so you may choose not to use it at all), it keeps Wikipedia totally ads-free as many editors want it to stay, it generates revenues much needed to support our current amazing growth (and limit the number of times a fundraising drive notice will be visible on all pages), and finally, I hope we can use part of the revenues to create a special fund for development of our projects in some developing countries...

So I guess we really don't know what the real scoop is :)

Re:Four words....

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, special projects like the distribution of content in Africa and so on.

Like the poor in Africa are really interested in shit like this. Wiki is a toy.

Re:Four words....

[Mike1024]

First quarter fund raising earned a miniscule $96,648.70 and if they did as well (surpassing their goal by 25%) every quarter, they'd still be $352,605.20 shy of the 2005 budget.

True, but if instead of citing the Q1 fund drive you'd cited the more recent Q3 fund drive, you would have reported a rather more upbeat $243,930 USD. If they did as well every quarter, they would have $975,720 -- 32% over what they are budgeted to spend.

Given that the Q1 fundraising came in 25% over target (target $75,000) and the Q3 fundraising came in 22% over target (target $200,000) and the foundation didn't feel the need to run any Q2 fundraising, I don't think they're exactly about to declare themselves bankrupt.

I'll admit the servers get a little on the slow side at times, though....

Michael

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[Talrias]

According to the Wikimedia Foundation's budget, the vast majority of funds (around 60%) received goes towards purchasing new hardware for hosting.

Chris

No ads vs ads?

[Matt_Bennett]

I really do trust in the folks behind wikipedia- they want to keep the project going, but at a certain point, someone has to pay for this stuff.

Why not set up two servers with the same content- one supported wholly by donations (with no ads), the other supported by ads (a la adwords), give them different (but close) URLs and see how it works out? If the free server gets plenty of donations, they will be able to support more users/bandwidth, on the other hand, maybe the ad supported site will get more money and be able to support more users/bandwidth.

Overall, the most important piece is that the raw data be now *and forever* free to anyone that wants it. Can't the licensing be limited to preventing the forking of a proprietary (non-free) but publicly accessable database?

Re:No ads vs ads?

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Donations usually don't cut it. People say a lot of things, but don't follow through...

Re:No ads vs ads?

[Matt_Bennett]

> Donations usually don't cut it. People say a lot of things, but don't follow through...

At least if there is an alternate ad supported site, it still exists- it doesn't die an unglorious death due to non-payment of bandwidth fees.

Uncyclopedia also partners with Answers...

[Ingolfke]

Seems like Answers Corporation is making a grab for the Wikishare. Saw this posted on the the Uncyclopedia, the one true source for knowledge, earlier today.

The Uncyclopedia has announced a fund-raising (WORK FROM HOME! MAKE SIX FIGURES) partnership with Answers Corporation (http://www.gurunet.com/) and will replace all of the Uncyclopedia content with a growing (Buy PENIS enlargement products NOW!!!) number of unobtrusive advertisements. The Uncylopedia will recieve three easy installments of $19.95.

It's a sad day for the Wikispace.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you become a Slashdot subscriber, you can get this low quality garbage sooner than the general public! What a deal.

Any chance that you are...

[Danuvius]

... made enough that you'll literally explode?

Because that'd be cool!

No Ads? Then pay for its use ...

[joelsanda]

Some Wikipedians have created the No Ads Wikiproject in response.

Yeah ... because that's cheaper than taking the annual bill for Wikipedia hosting and bandwidth, dividing it equally amongst themselves, and forking over the cash.

I hope the proposed solution works for them. It's a lot more reasonable and likely to succeed than the No Ad version.

Re:No Ads? Then pay for its use ...

[remahl]

Wikipedia is supported by donations as it is, and it works quite well. The latest fund drive met its goal and then some.

The greatest asset is already provided by the same people who created the No Ads project page -- namely the content. If Wikipedia turns into something its contributors don't like, Wikipedia will not stay alive for long.

Wikipedia will likely never have any ads, since the community as a whole generally opposes them on the project that they have donated thousands of hours to. Thankfully, if by some chance a consensus of Wikipedians decide to support ads, there is nothing to stop other contributors (or anyone else for that matter) from copying the full content and continue working on it in some other form (without ads).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[Baorc]

I think the bigger question is, can we edit the ads?

Well technically, if it was Google-style ads (text only, relevant to the content) then indirectly, yeah. But not arbitrarily.

That is of course if you wanted to take your joke to another level...

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, QB, how does this sound? You hit a stub? OK, go read another source or two and then fill it in on Wikipedia.

Permission to drive.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would propose that if one looks at this legally then it is an unfair trade practice. To bad I am not a lawyer."

Apparently that's not all your not. All that your Internet fee pays for is permission to drive on the Information Superhighway. It doesn't entitle you to stop at McDonalds and demand a free Make Me Happy meal.

Re:Permission to drive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Idjot!

Since when did this guy become an electron? For 99% of people surfing the net involves the delivery of content to their browsers. This is one reason ADSL modems were invented. The "A" stand for Asymetric! Ditto with cable modems!

Some people simply do not understand the concept that without content there wouldn't be any surfers "drivin" around! Telcos pay to access POP's so they can get access to content. ISP's pay Akimai for the same reason.

So the bottom line is that a lot of people are just cheepskates or stupid or both and they think the free lunch is going to continue forever. I doubt it! If webcontent is going to be paid for by advertizing then web site are going to try to stuff advertizing down people's throats.

This is why internet content has been dropping since the dotcom bust.

Story is flawed but not patently false

[demi]

As the press release states, some Answers.com software will be receiving "chartered placement" on a Wikipedia tools listing in return for compensating the foundation. I suppose you might say that doesn't constitute advertising (as the "clarification" states) but it's a distinction without a difference.

No big deal

[shutdown -p now]

The proposed scheme is really as unobtrusive as it can be. You don't get any ads as you browse the Wikipedia, not even in forms of a links. You have to go to the Tools page (the link is in the sidebar), download the software, and then use it to navigate so you get redirected to pages on answer.com, which have ads. Quite a lot of things to do before you see your first ad, so this is very much an opt-in scheme - and who ever had troubles with those?

But really, I don't mind seeing ads in wiki pages at all. Actually, I think that Google's context ads would fit the concept quite nicely - due to the nature of encyclopedic articles, there should be more than enough keywords to produce ads with very high degree of relevancy.

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that more dollars would result in fewer stubs?

That presumes that advertising revenue goes into recruiting some subject matter experts. That seems unlikely.

Much more likely is that funding would go on sysadmins and hardware to run the project.

I don't think adverts would bring more content - just *faster* content.

Because advertising is the only one that works

[s20451]

Many systems have been tried: subscription, passes, "free" registration, micropayments, and so on.

People have been well trained to expect a free flow of information on the internet, with no encumberances. Ironically, the least annoying revenue generator from the user's perspective is advertising, since most people are well trained to ignore ads anyway.

I am aware of only one other method that has not been completely supplanted by advertising, and that is merchandising-only sites (e.g., Homestar Runner). However, this is rare and is itself a form of advertising (don't you think it would be obnoxious if everyone started wearing t-shirts from their favorite web sites?).

because Marx was wrong and Smith was right

[Quadraginta]

I agree with the previous commenter who suggested advertising creeps into previously "free" services (like cable TV, or like the Web itself, if you can remember back to its pre-pop-up days) because folks can thereby delude themselves that they're still getting it for "free." (It never was free, of course -- it was only parasitizing one something else, e.g. the original Web was a parasite on government-sponsored research computing. But this is a secondary point.)

Problem is, advertising is not a permanent solution. Let us say users fall into three groups:

• Interested in the product and aware of it. These will buy with or without advertising, so money spent on advertising to them is wasted. Zero return on your ad dollar!
• Interested in the product but not aware of it. These will buy if you advertise -- so they provide a real return on an ad dollar. Initially these luscious targets may be plentiful, but as time goes by, the novelty of seeing ads in the new medium wears off, and ads by you and your competitors saturate the medium, they become very rare indeed, and you need larger and larger shotgun blasts of ads to hit one of these rara avis.
• Not interested in the product. Unfortunately, these form the majority, and while in the beginning they may tolerate the ads, in the end they will spend time and money to avoid them (cf. TiVO, the original cable TV, pop-up blockers, et cetera).

Alas, since folks in group #2, the existence of which is required for ads to be profitable, start disappearing as soon as the ads commence, the ads rapidly become less and less profitable, and the principle that "only a few non-intrusive ads will pay the bills" becomes less and less viable. Then ad bandwidth as a fraction of content bandwidth, and intrusiveness, start creeping higher and higher. This drives off the less thick-skinned people in group #3. Since these tend to be your more intelligent and thoughtful consumers, this tends to reduce the quality of your content (cf. the television), accelerating its degeneration into mindless trash, plus some of these folks may eventually become motivated enough to abandon the medium entirely for something else, e.g. the way smart people have largely abandoned the TV for the Internet, at least for now.

I think part of the problem is the blindness of folks, enraptured by the collectivist fantasy, to the plain ugly fact that high-quality things and services cost labor and capital to provide, and in any free system the people who use those things and services will ultimately have to bear the cost of that labor and capital, one way or another.

If you refuse to fully accept this reality, and try to delude yourself that you can get someone else to pay the cost of production and delivery, through taxes or the "tax" of an advertising stream, then you just end up with a broken system in which you still pay the cost (for example by spending time and effort sifting real value from acres of trash), but in a ridiculous convoluted way that only increases your final burden.

Hence, I would reluctantly predict that unless the Wikipedians figure out some way to directly charge the users of the product for the cost of providing that product, they are dooming themselves either to extinction or a descent into a low-quality product in which increasingly rare nuggets of real value compete with an increasing sea of valueless white noise.

Note: I surely wish reality was different, just like I wish the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't forbid perpetual motion machines so I could live forever, but I suspect it is not.

Whoops, sorry...

[kiddailey]

Angela didn't say that, Anthere did. Blah. Need more coffee.

Re:Wiki?

[hobbit]

this ain't Hawaii, it's America

Sometimes I think that Slashdot posts couldn't possibly get any dumber. But then people like you come along.

1 word:

[Anonymous Coward]

cockthirsty

Mission creep toward ads is inevitable

[Everyman]

Wikipedia, the most-scraped site on the planet, indirectly generates massive numbers of ads. It is inevitable that Jimmy Wales, already a rich man, will want to get richer.

It's primarily Google's fault, according to http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[boinger]

Your definition of "vast" differs from mine.

decentralize the costs

[aeoo]

It may be a good idea to start thinking how to take something like bittorrent and make it usable for interactive web sessions. This way the bandwidth cost may naturally be distributed among people.

Freenet is almost something like that, but the emphasis of freenet is privacy, whereas the emphasis might also be speed, efficiency and distributed interactivity.

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the page currently, Jimbo's notice is really oversimplifying things.

Wikipedia is going to be paid to provide a link to answers.com

Slash is getting into the spirit of things

[mcgroarty]

The original Slashdot article was sloppy and untrue and is being slowly refined.

Just like a real wiki!

I don't see why

[ZachPruckowski]

None of that information is biased towards Michael Moore. It's just that he has a fan who did a lot of research on him. Why don't you do a lot of research on Pat Robertson's or Rush Limbaugh's family, and see if something interesting turns up. If you discover that Rush Limbaugh's uncle was semi-important in an area, then try to get it into the article.

Re:I don't see why

[Kylere]

I think you just do not get it, I think Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are both the problem. Sigh, people cannot escape the two party thing for even a minute. Jon Stewart identified it as hurting American, and I agree. Wikipedia just allows this to happen with the pretense of fact.

Re:I don't see why

[ZachPruckowski]

No, I get that they are problematic, but they still need to be in Wikipedia, for the simple reason that you and I both can recognize them. I would like a current source of all knowledge to try to include personalities. I don't think either of them have a positive influence, but perhaps that's why we need them in the encyclopedia. I haven't read the rest of the Michael Moore article, and don't intend to, but I don't think his presence in Wikipedia should be problematic.

Re:I don't see why

[Kylere]

Ahh yes but not if he is referred to inacurately, this has been done for some reason since Roger and Me because it lends some sort of blue collar credential to someone who possessed none.

There IS a solution to this!

[linumax]

Hey folks, wazz all the fuss about?
Wikipedia goes ad-based?!! No problem @ all, just switch to Uncyclopedia
No more wikispams , just pure facts!

compensation for contribution

[pbhj]

The people behind it should be compensated for time...

The people behind it are people like me, who write articles and fix entries all the time. The money that Wikimedia gets (by donation or corporate alliance) never comes back to the people who do the work. In fact, we (the people who work on Wikipedia) don't want the money. We do this work because it's fun and/or we believe in the ideology of making information available to everyone.

Me, too. I'd agree I don't expect to be paid for the work - I've only done a little editting, but a few hours none-the-less. However, if someones raking in some cash for it I'd expect my share.

I've contribute based on the premise that the wikipedia is not about the financial gain of anyone. If that's not the case then I've been played. I don't like that.

Credibility

[QuestorTapes]

> why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to
> buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed
> to solve any financial woes?

Because most other revenue generation systems anyone has tried on the net take longer to produce revenue. Suppose they went to a subscription system: that takes time to get started, time to prove itself, time to determine how much money is going to come in, affecting spending plans. By contrast, advertising allows you to ramp up quickly with immediate revenue, and fairly predictable continuing revenue flow.

It ain't the best system, necessarily. But it's a known system where people are available right now to provide the dollars.

> I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations
> must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably
> (and less annoyingly)

Well, only -some- online businesses can find other ways to be compensated. The reality is there are a -lot- more websites out there than there are potential revenue dollars. Even if the dotcom boom has gone bust, the reality is there are still thousands of jerks out there trying to peddle garbage in a shiny box for every one person with a decent product. And a lot of the decent products are niche products, for which there will always be limited demand.

That doesn't stop them from gathering advertising dollars (at least in the short to medium run), but it does discourage other, more direct revenue streams from being tried.

> How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you
> access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two
> a month you have access to a wealth of information you are
> interested in.

A few objections:

- many people, myself included, would only be interested in at most a dozen sites of one certain type; but we would be interested in a dozen or more different types of sites. Still works out to similar numbers, just allocated differently, but you need flexilbility in the plan. One size never fits all.
- how do you convince the user that this is a decent deal? You need to have the right sites accepting this before selling it to the users, but it's hard to sell to the sites until you have the users; catch-22.
- since it's an uphill battle, you need -lots- of capital to get started; enough to run for at least 5 yearson a -large- deficit, and possibly 10 or more on a smaller deficit.
- how do you keep someone from "improving it" with advertising in -addition- to charging for it? Cable, DVDs, theaters, etc., for which we already pay, have been "improved" by adding advertising. The fact that the greedy bastards have done this before just increases the credibility gap in selling it to the user.

> Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to
> ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere
> down the line?

Some does, some doesn't. The advertisers are tightening up significantly. That's why the TV networks have been cancelling shows faster and faster each year.

What's new?

[h2d2]

Answers.com already has a Wikipedia clone... where's the news???

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[nelsonal]

When the next biggest catagory (besides savings which really isn't an expense) is almost 8 times smaller than the first, I think the adjective vast is fitting. I also do not see why google like targeted ads would not be fitting and could easily allow wiki to double their budget and service levels.
I'm surprised a hardware company has not donated $1 million or so worth of boxes that would be a pretty token effort for Apple, Dell, IBM, HP, or SUN would show immediate benefits and be a cool gesture in the eyes of likely buyers.

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[rm999]

There should never be ads in an information source that tries to be objective and fair. For example, if Britannica placed ads for iPods in an article about MP3s, I wouldn't want to use it. It only creates the possibility of bias. It's a very minor, subtle effect, but it is still detrimental to the cause.

Fortunetly wikipedia isn't adding advertisements, which I think would start its downfall

you mean consciously!?

[pbhj]

Part of the way advertising works is to register and enforce associations in our subconscious.

Derren Brown uses such tricks as part of his TV show. One stunt caused advertising execs to create a particular logo based on cues he'd provided along their route to his office. It's when you don't notice that your being sold to that it's hard to avoid the compulsion.

Try some links from http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=derren%20brown%20 advertising&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen- US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en

Re:Wiki?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's a state does not make it "America". Check out a map. It says "North America" on it. Notice how far away Hawaii is. Does it look like Hawaii is in North America to you?

Thsnk you for your support

[Quiet_Desperation]

I dunno. Sometimes I make a quip and it gets +5. Other times a similar quip gets modded to the Earth's core. There's no rhyme or reason some days.

You would think the over the topness would have made it obvious.

Offtopic?

[Quiet_Desperation]

The topic is advertising in Wiki, so I do a joke entry on the Linux entry sponsored by MS.

Did the hurricane blow away everyone's perceptual abilities today?

How will they make sure this links stays on top?

[Captain Perspicuous]

WP:TOOLS is a page like every other wiikipedia page. How do they make sure that this links stays on top if it's editable?

Heck, I could just go there and add this link now, why this partnership and press release?

Re: chicken (/.) little

[papastout]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Run run run!!!
Oh, wait! Nevermind

Short-sighted deal

[urdine]

Ok, after grokking all the info on this, it doesn't seem to be a particularly big deal at all. At best, this will bring Wikipedia a few K a year. I think this is a very bad business decision on the part of Wikipedia, not because the deal itself is bad, but because this is almost completely a PR deal, with very little financial incentive for either side. But on the PR side, this is positive for Answers and obviously a big negative for Wikipedia, so why would Wikipedia want to do it? The board seems to have judged it solely as a monetary deal, which was a mistake. Logically, the deal is fine, it makes sense to try it, there's not really anything at risk here. The reality is, Wikipedia has likely already lost more than it will make from this deal in lost donations from disenchanted contributors. A horrible, horrible deal. If you're going to do partnerships, make them big or don't make them at all. This is a PR nightmare for Wikipedia, and a minor win for Answers.com (which will lessen more and more over time unless they can expand this relationship).

Why does Answers.com want this deal? Not for revenue, but for the clout of saying they have a "partnership" with Wikipedia. They're trying to get bought out by a big player, and every relationship strengthens their easily-replicated product. That's why they have 50 trillion partnerships with Google and Opera and anyone else they can find. That's the entirety of their company approach.

Ad-free subscription or Adverts for the "free"?

[tuomas_kaikkonen]

Why not built a specific wiki link that tells the wiki that this link is an ADVERTISEMENT, and if the person logged on has PAID for a AD-FREE subscription, these links would be hidden?

In other news....

[sillybilly]

Server load on wikipedia is going up - who pays for that? On the other hand, the nice thing about wikipedia is that it doesn't quiver and shake and explode in your face, insulting your intelligence and dignity, like all the other advertising driven sites. Only Google ads are still and calm, I'd have no problem with those, if they get a small, designated ad section - but not like those news sites that blast a picture in the middle of some news story, and squeeze the text to a 5 letter wide column to accomodate the image. Or have a 20 sentence "content" in a thin column in the middle, and the whole page covered with about 200 sentence worth of ads. Check out www.tomshardware.com for instance. This site used to be a joy to read back in 1996-2000. Now it's way too commercialized, and probably lost a lot of its appeal because of it, including a lot of its audience. I used to go almost daily to www.tomshardware.com back then to see what's new. I was also a computer hardware enthusiast and up to date on the new things, on a daily basis. When tomshardware got excited about a recent development, I got excited too. Now I go maybe bimonthly, and I couldn't tell you what the best mobo/cpu/memory/harddisk deal today is, off the top of my head, like I used to be able to do. It's just too much crap to sift through with your eyes for it to be a pleasurable hobby. These days, instead of www.tomshardware.com, I go to wikipedia daily. When wikipedia - or, due to expenses, only its advertising supported sister site functioning properly - gets quivery full of flash ads, I'll probably stop visiting wikipedia too. It will not be very deliberate, spiteful, conscious decision to stop visiting it just because I protest or something, but it will simply lose its appeal that it currently has, just like www.tomshardware.com did.

Re:In other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

Server load?

Hrm. China seems to be helping in this regard by making wikipedia.org inaccessible :(

BLATANT KARMA WHORING

[njyoder]

This is Tim Starling's comment on the Wikimedia foundation: "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps."

And we're supposed to be surprised that they make unilateral moves like this? They didn't get any kind of consensus before doing this, in spite of that being the basic Wikipedia principle. Of course, Wikimedia principle's are to act unilaterally. I wonder if they'd really honor a trial run at all.

Yeah, sure, it's "not an advertisement" because they aren't contractually obligated to put an ad for the software on WP:TOOLS. However, they would have never added it without the deal, and, in fact, if the Wikipedians kept the link removed from the tools page the company would withdrawal its funding to Wikimedia. So in other words, Wikipedia is (or will be) hosting a link to a commercial product, w hich when removed, will remove a source of revenue for it. Sounds like an advertisement to me.

Also, it appears they don't need these profits to even run the servers. THat's right, they're mostly being funneled into random, unrelated charities. While some might consider this noble, the many Wikipedians who contributed their work don't consider it ethical to use their freely contributed work as a means to act as a cash cow for Wikimedia's personal pet charities without any consenus at all.

Re:BLATANT KARMA WHORING

[-kertrats-]

Wikipedia has never claimed to be a democracy. Vote totals have never been the determining factor in decisions-the discussion is only meant to advise, not decide.

Re:BLATANT KARMA WHORING

[njyoder]

Oddly, I never mentioned voting. Oddly, I did mention consensus, which Wikipedia IS based on, it says that ALL OVER WIKIPEDIA POLICY PAGES. You were trying to be smart by repeating an oft-quoted phrases ("Wikipedia is not a democracy"), but it appears you didn't actually read what I said. There was no consensus ever reached for this decision.

And even more oddly, vote totals have been the determining factors in things, namely votes for adminship, arbitration, AfD and other pages (with exceptions). Oh and incidentally, being based on consensus does make it a democracy. Ironically, Wikipedia even has an article on consensus democracies.

Re:BLATANT KARMA WHORING

[-kertrats-]

Consensus hasn't been reached for the decision because it was never decided. This is a proposal.

Re:BLATANT KARMA WHORING

[njyoder]

It's not a proposal, it's a trial run, that's a very different thing. A proposal is when you say "hey guys, maybe we should try this, what are your thoughts?" Instead they did "hey we're going to do this for a couple of months and see what happens."

I, for one, welcome...

[MisterBad]

...etc. etc. etc.

It's important to keep an air of perspective here. Open Source advocates -- myself included -- applaud donations and support by commercial entities to FLOSS software projects. When one of our favourite hackers gets a paying gig to keep doing what he loves, we get a little envious but mostly congratulatory.

My point is that any and all support for Wikipedia is a very good thing. It's an excellent project and a great reference, and creative methods of underwriting its huge resource requirements are really worth seeking out.

I hope that this new structure works out well and that those of us Wikiholics who curse bitterly when we get a .75-second delay loading a page get the infrastructure we need to keep making a really great piece of Open Content.

-Mr. Bad

Wikipedia != Socialism in any meaningful way

[birge]

What a crock, both on your part and on the part of the parent. Comparing Wiki to socialism is a complete straw man for either side. Nobody debates the notion that people should help other people, or that a group of people working towards a common goal without need for compensation is a noble thing, indeed. The central debate around socialism, as is all too often missed, is about the coercive aspects of it. Wikipedia is nothing like socialism in that sense. If everybody who used the internet were suddenly forced, at gunpoint in extreme cases, to pay for Wikipedia according not to how much they used it, but to how much they make in a year, THEN you'd have a fair comparison to socialism.

That some people here even think that the Wiki phenomenon somehow resembles socialism just goes to the serious discredit of their politics. You need more than smug self-righteousness to make a coherent politcal view, folks. We all (or most of us, Republican and Democrat alike) want to be good people and help others. Politics is about what the government does, however. Try to remember those aren't neccesarily the same thing. ALso, try to remember not every discussion about technology has to be diverted in service of a political agenda.

Maybe the GP is right that there is a socialist bias on Wikipedia. But let's not be fooled into thinking that it's because Wikipedia is, itself, a remotely socialist idea. It's just a good idea. Don't try to coopt it in furtherance of politics.

Re:Wikipedia != Socialism in any meaningful way

[Random832]

Yes, you'd have a fair comparison to "socialism" - _IF_ that were what "socialism" meant. ...which it's not. in case you weren't clear that that was the point i was trying to get across here.

Re:Wikipedia != Socialism in any meaningful way

[birge]

So, socialism involves voluntary cooperation? Sort of a "well, it would be NICE if you would give half your income to the poor, but seriously, only if you're up for it?" Shit, I'm a socialist, then.

Do I have this wrong? If so, maybe you could tell me where I'm wrong instead of just saying it.

Re:Wikipedia != Socialism in any meaningful way

[jp10558]

I think the idea is that with any governmental form other than anarchy, there will be certain things individuals are forced to do to remain part of the society. Taxes are like dues - the only out of paying a particular countries taxes is to leave.

Democracies choices as to what to force people to do are in a large sense voluntary - the populace as a whole can choose what they want to require as dues, be it money or service or something else.

But no society has individual level choice for the dues to that society - because individuals do not make up the society, the group does.

Re:Wikipedia != Socialism in any meaningful way

[birge]

I see what you're saying, and I know it's hard to say with certainty what is ok for society to force on individual members, but I think there is a fundamental difference to me being forced to pay for the roads we all drive on, and me being forced to pay for somebody else's personal health care, or me being forced against my will to participate in the government retirement system (which is actually a pyramid scheme, but that's another discussion).

All are democratically decided (sort of) but that doesn't make it right. As Bastiat figured out a long time ago, democracy only lasts until the majority realize that they can legally steal from the minority, and everybody jockys for position to get a piece of the legal plunder. I think that pretty aptly describes the situation we've got now, given that (the Democrats' rhetoric nothwithstanding) we have the top 20% paying for the majority of our government, with the top 50% paying for virtually everything (over 90% of the budget). That's not progressive, that's irresponsible.

Re:Wikipedia != Socialism in any meaningful way

[jp10558]

Well, the issue is, assuming we get what I would want, Universal Health care, is that you would be paying for the basic general level of health care. Like you currently pay for a basic general level of roads. Same with the retirement system. And you get equal use out of them, like the roads.

And even though the retirement system is bad, well so are the roads much of the time.

Now, I want to make sure that I'm clear - I'm not happy with the status quo either. And our current medicare/caid system isn't great, or fair. It's better than nothing, but far better would be equal access for everyone - universal healthcare. Then everyone gets the benefits equally, like the road system.

I also don't know if you read my link, but ensuring people aren't desperate because of medical or financial reasons helps you also. It lessens crime and disease spread, and lowers emergency room visits and so lowers hospital crowding. Read the link.

Mod parent down!

[Da_Biz]

I don't mind people repeating a comment. Not citing where you got your text from, however, is questionable:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&cid=138 23457

The text of the comment link above:
Re:Perhaps they need a team of paid editors
(Score:5, Interesting)
by theLOUDroom (556455) Alter Relationship on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13823457)
Jimbo started by trying paid editors

What wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.

Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button.

This has a number of advantages:

        * Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
        * Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
        * Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
        * (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[idokus]

Well... since you are looking for info, and considering you want that info bad enough to continue searching if wikipedia fails, why not let the public marvel at your generosity of spending your valuable time and your intellect for finding the info elsewhere.

That's how the wikipedia works, I think.;)

Darn straight!

[Bushido Hacks]

No ads on Wiki!
Even if they are the Google ads, which for some reason are losing their relevance.

Seconded

[tritonic]

Well spotted. It's incredible what people will do for karma these days.

Re:Seconded

[God! Awful 2]

Well spotted. It's incredible what people will do for karma these days.

These days?

I saw the same tactic being used by trolls several years ago.

-a

MOD ABUSE ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded the parent as 'troll'?

Is this what happens when someone points out that not all that is good is socialism and not all that is capitalism is bad?

How exactly is that trolling?

Evil as pure capitalism might be, it would still be a HELL of a lot better than socialism taken to its logical conclusion.
*shudder*

Wikipedia forms partnership with company producing

[wikinerd]

I wrote an article covering this news, here (and you can copy it under GNUFDL). Please let me copy-paste some paragraphs:

This means that the software is provided to the users in object code, or binary executable form, which only the computer can understand. Since the source code (which is human-readable) is not given, users of the software will not be free to "tinker" with it, and the utility is not free/libre open-source software (FLOSS). An example of closed-source software is the Microsoft Windows operating system, while a well-known free/open-source operating system is GNU/Linux.
A number of people in the free/libre software community feel that software should be free and have no owners. When FLOSS advocates say "free software" they refer to freedom, not price, as explained in Richard Stallman's essay The GNU GPL and the American Way: "The Free Software Movement was founded in 1984, but its inspiration comes from the ideals of 1776: freedom, community, and voluntary cooperation. This is what leads to free enterprise, to free speech, and to free software" (1776 refers to the US Declaration of Independence). In fact many corporations are selling free software and make a profit without denying the user to study, modify, and redistribute the software.
Wikipedia uses the GNU Free Documentation Licence (GFDL), a free documentation licence written by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for publishing software manuals and other literary works that readers can copy, modify, and redistribute under the same licence (a concept known as copyleft, also used in licences commonly used for free software, such as GPL). The open content and FLOSS (free/libre open-source software) movements are closely interelated and their philosophy is very similar. Although Answers Corporation has the legal right to not release its source code (given the current laws), one would expect Wikimedia Foundation to show greater support for free software or open source.
On 23 July 2005 Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales said in an mailing list email that "we must avoid file formats that can not be used by legal free software". This decision caused Wikipedians to publish their spoken articles in the Ogg Vorbis format, which is free of patents, unlike the MP3 format which is patented by Thomson SA. The free and open formats advocates share the same ideals with the free/libre open-source software and open content movements. One has to wonder why Wikipedia supported free formats but failed to support free software by dealing with a closed-source software producer. The deal has already generated intense discussion in Wikipedia, as well as a long discussion on Slashdot.

A Lesson In Argumentation!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, you can claim you were "only" saying that people who care, people who share, people who work together are more likely to be liberals, and that further there's a significant difference between that claim and the claim that "all people with non-monetary goals that care about the poor are liberals", but the point is, you have this deluded belief that your ideology "cares" more than other ideologies, or that there's something "anti-capitalistic" about having non-monetary goals. And that is totally off base. Until you realize it's off base, you will never understand the other side, and by extension, your own.

This, kids, is a variation of the Straw Man Argument. It takes this form:

Oh sure, you can claim x (which I can't/won't refute), but what you really mean is y, which is obviously false.

In this case, this deluded fuck has explained it as follows (paraphrased):

Oh sure, you can claim you were only claiming people who work together for causes without monetary gain tend to be leftists (which I can't/won't refute), but what you really mean is you think liberals care more about people, which is obviously false.

This kind of argument can be tricky, especially when the deluded fuck writes an unnecessarily long and complicated sentence to hide his true viewpoint. This makes the sentence more difficult to read and is done either to make the writer seem more intelligent, or to bore the reader into dozing off until the end of the sentence at which point no matter what they put no matter how poor the logic is, no matter what kind of jump is required to reach the conclusion, by the time you reach the conclusion you tend to agree with it because you dozed off like you did and it's then that you realize that this guy is a scumbag.

The key to spotting this technique in this particular argument is:

... but the point is, you have this deluded belief that ...

You'll note that the deluded fuck failed to provide any argument other than claiming that the speaker is deluded. This is called an ad-hominem attack, and is only used by deluded fucks like this one. Well, that's not entirely true, kids, and I wouldn't lie to you unlike this deluded fuck. He also implicitly suggests that he has some magical perception to see what people really feel. Since this can't be backed up at all, it is deemed completely invalid.

Usually scumsuckers only resort to these lines of argument when their stance is so ridiculously wrong and they need to believe it so much that they will resort to dirty tricks to try to convince people that they are right. (Remember, kids, winning an argument does NOT mean convincing people you're right!)

And that, kids, concludes our lesson for the day. Remember to stay away from this LeonGeeste (917243) character, because he's known to make bad arguments.

BONUS ACTIVITY! Can you spot any other bad forms of argument our deluded fuck here uses!

Re:A Lesson In Argumentation!

[LeonGeeste]

Damer, regarding the substantive point that you did bother to include in your post:

EnronH is claiming that people who "care" or pursue non-montary goals are more likely to be socialist. That believe is in error and betrays a poor understanding of the opposition's arguments. That was my point. I don't think I attributed to him any position that he does not either hold, or have expressed that he held.

Re:A Lesson In Argumentation!

[Anonymous Coward]

EnronH is claiming that people who "care" or pursue non-montary goals are more likely to be socialist. That believe is in error and betrays a poor understanding of the opposition's arguments. That was my point. I don't think I attributed to him any position that he does not either hold, or have expressed that he held.

That's queer, because I could have sworn you misattributed this little snippet of wonder to him:

you have this deluded belief that your ideology "cares" more than other ideologies, or that there's something "anti-capitalistic" about having non-monetary goals. And that is totally off base. Until you realize it's off base, you will never understand the other side, and by extension, your own.

See, if you read the posts you quoted, you'd note they said there was a correlation between collaborative production without monetary gains and socialism. If you'd like to refute that rationally, that would be fine, but it seems a safe thing to say since collaborative production without monetary gains is what socialism is all about. This is the x variable I spoke of earlier.

Instead you chose to try to make it seem as if people were saying their ideology "cares" more than others, or has "anti-capitalistic" goals whatever those terms mean. THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE SAID. This is the y variable I spoke of earlier.

Another Lesson: You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. The time has come to fold 'em, champ.

Re:A Lesson In Argumentation!

[LeonGeeste]

Again, filtering for substantive comments:

If you'd like to refute that rationally, that would be fine, but it seems a safe thing to say since collaborative production without monetary gains is what socialism is all about.

False. My point all along is that people collaborate without monetary gains all the time within capitalism. If you think that all that socialism refers to is, you know, helpin' people out, workin' together, not doin' it for money... you're in for an education. Socialism involves collective ownership of the so-called "means of production" ... that's a little further than, you know, working together and shit.

Instead you chose to try to make it seem as if people were saying their ideology "cares" more than others, or has "anti-capitalistic" goals whatever those terms mean.

That is precisely what EnronH was saying. See... any of my or his posts on this topic.

Re:A Lesson In Argumentation!

[Anonymous Coward]

False. My point all along is that people collaborate without monetary gains all the time within capitalism. If you think that all that socialism refers to is, you know, helpin' people out, workin' together, not doin' it for money... you're in for an education. Socialism involves collective ownership of the so-called "means of production" ... that's a little further than, you know, working together and shit.

Of course volunteering goes on within capitalism. Nobody claimed it didn't. The claim was that socialists would be more inclined to help something that fits their ideology. That doesn't mean capitalism is bad, or socialism is good. Fuck you must love straw.

"Helpin' people out, workin' together, not doin' it for money" is exactly what shared ownership of the means of production is with regards to Wikipedia. What are the means of production for Wikipedia? Oh, that's right, the editors. Editors around the world help out, work together, and don't do it for money. Effectively they are the means of production. They need nothing other than themselves to do it. Since they are free to fork Wikipedia whenever they want, effecively everyone owns it.

See? Now we're debating x. This is good.

Instead you chose to try to make it seem as if people were saying their ideology "cares" more than others, or has "anti-capitalistic" goals whatever those terms mean.

That is precisely what EnronH was saying. See... any of my or his posts on this topic.

No, you are dead wrong. His posts say that socialists are more inclined to help Wikipedia. Your posts say that means he thinks socialists "care more" about volunteering or something bizarre you've invented.

Re:A Lesson In Argumentation!

[LeonGeeste]

Again, sticking to Damer's substantive points:

Of course volunteering goes on within capitalism. Nobody claimed it didn't. The claim was that socialists would be more inclined to help something that fits their ideology.

False. The claim was that socialists are more likely to contribute to something with no monetary gain, which is false LET ME FINISH BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THAT If you were meaning to say that Wikipedia fits the socialist ideology better because it is contributing to something with no monetary gain, that's false, for the reasons given before in this thread and below.

"Helpin' people out, workin' together, not doin' it for money" is exactly what shared ownership of the means of production is with regards to Wikipedia.

Sorry, that's not socialism. Everyone helps people and works with others in some manner with no monetary gain. Does this make everyone socialist? I like it when words have meaning.

What are the means of production for Wikipedia? Oh, that's right, the editors.

You know, if you socialists would actually get your stories straight, you would see that, even according to the socialist Wikipedia, means of production are by definition non-human. Boy are you in for an education.

Since they are free to fork Wikipedia whenever they want, effecively everyone owns it.

Not really. Go read the rules behind Wikipedia. A group of higher-ups (hierarchy! eek!) has full veto power over what is added. They own it. They allow modifications, and are generally loose with who is allowed to add to it. That does not change that they are the ulimate owners. It just means they use their property in an unusual way - which in no way contradicts capitalist (in the political, not wealth-acquiring sense) ideology.

No, you are dead wrong. His posts say that socialists are more inclined to help Wikipedia. Your posts say that means he thinks socialists "care more" about volunteering or something bizarre you've invented.

Read the quotes I gathered again; I'm not going to keep holding your hand for you.

Re:A Lesson In Argumentation!

[Anonymous Coward]

False. The claim was that socialists are more likely to contribute to something with no monetary gain, which is false LET ME FINISH BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THAT If you were meaning to say that Wikipedia fits the socialist ideology better because it is contributing to something with no monetary gain, that's false, for the reasons given before in this thread and below.

Do you reply to each paragraph without reading the rest or something? I didn't say "Wikipedia fits the socialist ideology better because it is contributing to something with no monetary gain." That is just volunteering. I like when words mean things, too, and I know the difference between "volunteering" and "socialism." I said it better suits the socialist ideology because people contribute for free (which would just be volunteering), but also because they own the means of production and are free to fork.

Sorry, that's not socialism. Everyone helps people and works with others in some manner with no monetary gain. Does this make everyone socialist? I like it when words have meaning.

Except with Wikipedia it is open source. Ability to fork, etc.

You know, if you socialists would actually get your stories straight, you would see that, even according to the socialist Wikipedia, means of production are by definition non-human. Boy are you in for an education.

1. I am not a socialist. Thanks for the assumption, though, champ.
2. I meant, though you were right to call me on it, that the editors "own" the content. In fact, everyone owns the content, and can fork it if they please.

Not really. Go read the rules behind Wikipedia. A group of higher-ups (hierarchy! eek!) has full veto power over what is added. They own it. They allow modifications, and are generally loose with who is allowed to add to it. That does not change that they are the ulimate owners. It just means they use their property in an unusual way - which in no way contradicts capitalist (in the political, not wealth-acquiring sense) ideology.

Yes, really. Content is available under the GFDL License. I can take it and make my own encyclopedia site if I want.

Let me sum up my argument:
1. Wikipedia does not discourage capitalists from participating. It is not anti-capitalist. There is nothing about Wikipedia that goes against capitalism. Capitalists are welcome to volunteer without being hypocritical.
2. Wikipedia attracts socialists because it is collaborative, etc. We've been over this.

FWIW

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has read your articles.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wiki?

[hobbit]

The bit about Hawaii was only the half of it.

In case it has escaped your notice, this isn't America, it's the World Wide Web [emphasis mine].

Re:Wiki?

[Anonymous Coward]

In case it has escaped your notice, this isn't America, it's the World Wide Web [emphasis mine].

Sure. And it's the "World" Series, even thought that, as well, is American.

Fact is, America invented, designed, and governs the Internet (the WWW included). Everyone else is just
along for the ride.

Oh, and I almost forgot. The word 'wiki' still sounds as gay as a tribute to Bette Midler hosted by Ru Paul with by Liberace, sponsored by "Rough Trade" magazine.

Re:Who Cares? Can I just have my info?

[queenb**ch]

You see, the thing is that if I could find the info elsewhere, I wouldn't be browsing the Wikipeidia...

Re:Wiki?

[hobbit]

Sure. And it's the "World" Series, even thought that, as well, is American.

I rest my case. You guys need to get out a bit more.