User talk:NeilTarrant/PageAds

Very nicely done Neil... I think that the statement regarding editorial indepedence is good. One thing that might be worth considering, is to look at google's contracts regarding adsense pages. Probably google's current contract allows them to terminate the contract with the website for any reason whatsoever. This would, of course, make people very worried about editorial indepedence. If google might agree to some strong constraints with wikipedia (which might be possible given the potential revenue we might offer google), this might go a long way toward aleiviating people's concerns. Especially if the contract was published on wikipedia somwhere. Of course, you would probably want to talk to the board before approaching google. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but this was by no means my independent creation. In particular the editorial independence section. Its good to get the pespective of more people before we take any action. --Neo 12:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Adverts on search page and at nupedia.org instead

I'd instead like us to use the nupedia.org domain to serve as a static mirror of reader validated Wikipedia content. Readers could pay a membership fee to avoid the ads. The only adverts I would support on Wikipedia proper would be Google-styled contextual ads on search result pages. I think that would be a good compromise and be able, in time, to have a very significant positive influence on our revenue. The article validation feature needs to go live and at least several thousand articles need to be validated before anybody would bother going to nupedia.org though. We can have GoogleAds on search result pages fairly quick. If we do that, it might make sense to ditch MediaWiki's native search function and use Google's real time one instead. --mav 19:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That would work, or what about Wikipedia.com? There doesn't need to be any community involvement to do either since the foundation controls both of those domains. The interesting part would be could advertisements be shown on Wikipedia.com and still allow editing links to go back to Wikipedia.org. - Taxman ^Talk 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be a bit too confusing for most net users since they default to assuming everything is at a .com. --mav 16:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine, then those that are bothered by seeing ads can avoid them, and those that aren't default to the .com version. That way there is at least a distinction. I guess I cant see where confusion would be a major problem as long as it was made clear the .com version has the ads and the .org doesn't. But I'm fine with the Nupedia and search results idea too. - Taxman ^Talk 17:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ads positioning.png

Image:Ads positioning.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)