In my school, Pizza Hut sells pizza. I don't see the problem here. If I want to opt out of revolting cafeteria food in exchange for food I normally eat outside school walls, why not?
"A higher standard of living, if you don't count Eastern Europe"
Not even that, the US has a higher median household income than every european country except Switzerland(by far), Lower unemployment, and higher rates of growth.
Wikipedia already gives tax breaks to those who donate. I fail to see how advertising keeps Wikipedia from being a "proper charitable organization", most charitable foundations use advertising to raise revenue.
That seems complicated, and opens up the possibility of influence by the corporations. Randomized text ads seem much more efficient, and would probably generate more money after you take overhead and opportunity cost into account.
We could confine the text ads to a 125*125 space though.
Don't you think private foundations and individuals would be better off donating to other causes? Wikipedia is a amazing resource that is worth propping up, but it does not need donations. Why not spend the money on UNICEF or building African Infrastructure or the OLPC project?
On an aside note, I fail to see how ads will "commercialize" Wikipedia. Plenty of Non-profits raise money through advertising, whether it is a college newspaper, NPR, or even an organization like UNICEF. The vision of Wikipedia one of the most noble of this century, and we should use every source of funds available to bring this to fruition.
This is a interesting argument in itself, but my particular point was with google text ads, so it is moot. Text ads are incapable of much else other than "Pogo stick- $29.99"
Re:Here is some "Elementary Economics"
on
Is Wikipedia Failing?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"That's a loss of the business, not of the consumer. Advertising harms the consumer."
No, it is a loss to society.
"The ad just increased the price of pogo-sticks for the rest of us."
Yes, by keeping knowledge of pogo-sticks secret. If the person is kept from buying his pogo-stick, then the economy is no longer Pareto-optimal. This is... unpleasant.
"As an industry produces more, the cost per item goes down, obviously. That doesn't mean that the price per item goes down; it just means that profit goes up. No rational business (and certainly not the market as a whole) will lower prices in the face of increased demand. Increased demand means: consumers are willing to buy more items at a given price. The rational (i.e. profit-maximizing) answer to increased demand is to increase price."
In a monopoly/oligopoly perhaps. But in a competitive market, increased demand will cause cost of production to decrease, which in turn will cause a increase in production. In the long term, the increase in production from every firm leads to higher supply and lower prices.
Not really, for industries showing economy of scale(Many of them), increased demand decreases price. Advertising is simply information transfer("In the mood for blueberry coke? You're in luck!").
Lack of information transfer leads to "dead weight loss" , which multiplies across the economy, having much worse effects than a "general tax".
I know that many here hate ads, but if I decide to research pogo sticks and I see a little unobtrusive text ad in the bottom quarter of the page, leading me to buy a pogo-stick, what is wrong with this?
"Advertising is immoral because it raises demand and therefore raises everybody's prices, even for those people who don't benefit from Wikipedia. I prefer that only people who like Wikipedia pay for it."
If they are using Google ads, then advertisers have no idea whether they are advertising on Wikipedia or not. Care to explain Google ads will compromise independence?
If they are using google ads, then advertisers have no idea whether they are advertising on wikipedia or not. Care to explain Google ads will comprimise indipendance?
Have you considered a 3rd option, turning this from a nation-building to a peace-keeping mission. Why not have our troops begin to build, defend, and maintain refugee camps.
Slashdot Mirror
If Wikipedia no longer needs donations, why care if no one donates anymore?
With randomized text ads, such as Google Adsense, I fail to see how this will be a problem.
In my school, Pizza Hut sells pizza. I don't see the problem here. If I want to opt out of revolting cafeteria food in exchange for food I normally eat outside school walls, why not?
Not even that, the US has a higher median household income than every european country except Switzerland(by far), Lower unemployment, and higher rates of growth.
Yes, but nearly every decent university in the country provides copious financial aid, the only ones paying $24,000 dollars are very rich.
Wikipedia already gives tax breaks to those who donate. I fail to see how advertising keeps Wikipedia from being a "proper charitable organization", most charitable foundations use advertising to raise revenue.
A world where Malaria vaccination is considered more important than an encyclopedia.
We could confine the text ads to a 125*125 space though.
As long as we use something completely random such as Google ads, I fail to see how this will be a problem.
On an aside note, I fail to see how ads will "commercialize" Wikipedia. Plenty of Non-profits raise money through advertising, whether it is a college newspaper, NPR, or even an organization like UNICEF. The vision of Wikipedia one of the most noble of this century, and we should use every source of funds available to bring this to fruition.
This is a interesting argument in itself, but my particular point was with google text ads, so it is moot. Text ads are incapable of much else other than "Pogo stick- $29.99"
No, it is a loss to society.
"The ad just increased the price of pogo-sticks for the rest of us."
Yes, by keeping knowledge of pogo-sticks secret. If the person is kept from buying his pogo-stick, then the economy is no longer Pareto-optimal. This is... unpleasant.
"As an industry produces more, the cost per item goes down, obviously. That doesn't mean that the price per item goes down; it just means that profit goes up. No rational business (and certainly not the market as a whole) will lower prices in the face of increased demand. Increased demand means: consumers are willing to buy more items at a given price. The rational (i.e. profit-maximizing) answer to increased demand is to increase price."
In a monopoly/oligopoly perhaps. But in a competitive market, increased demand will cause cost of production to decrease, which in turn will cause a increase in production. In the long term, the increase in production from every firm leads to higher supply and lower prices.
Lack of information transfer leads to "dead weight loss" , which multiplies across the economy, having much worse effects than a "general tax".
I know that many here hate ads, but if I decide to research pogo sticks and I see a little unobtrusive text ad in the bottom quarter of the page, leading me to buy a pogo-stick, what is wrong with this?
What you listed makes up almost all of the current budget.
How? As long as the profits are reinvested in the foundation their tax status would remain unchanged.
What are you talking about?
If they are using Google ads, then advertisers have no idea whether they are advertising on Wikipedia or not. Care to explain Google ads will compromise independence?
Yes, without any workers
If they are using google ads, then advertisers have no idea whether they are advertising on wikipedia or not. Care to explain Google ads will comprimise indipendance?
Sounds good. Though I'd prefer the surplus goes to educating Africa then funding a Firefox fork.
Adsense is simpler, articles change names and merge and separate all the time, that would complicate any per article system.
Google ads. That has the potential to raise millions of dollars per year.
Considering they just got off a major funding drive, four months.
I fail to see how that is related to refugees
Have you considered a 3rd option, turning this from a nation-building to a peace-keeping mission. Why not have our troops begin to build, defend, and maintain refugee camps.