Even considering articles on all the islands, geographic features, and WWII battle sites in the central and north Pacific, it still seems like too many lights for that area. 143.46.96.73 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm all in for an opt-in for ads! Let the Stephen Chapmans get their ads they sought so after – targeted to the article content! 'Cause what are you reading Wikipedia articles when ads can tell you what you need and what you are looking for! Nageh (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ads are an awful idea, imo. And the author of that piece seems to be yet another reader misinterpreting "free" to mean "no cost" as opposed to free as in freedom. The English language is driving me nuts. --Yair rand (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements fundamentally compromise our integrity and our neutrality. If Wikipedia starts up with ads, hundreds of core editors will leave in disgust, myself included. Sven ManguardWha?02:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The world is swimming in advertising. It cheapens society and is quintessentially manipulative. Let WMF projects remain one of the few islands of commercial-free content. Tony(talk)06:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subscription model is a valid way to raise revenue and that is exactly what Wikipedia has. Its just its subscriptions are discretionary meaning there are no admin overheads to run it. With subscriptions we work to please the subscribers. With ads we work to please the advertisers who represent "Big Money". Lumos3 (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, nothing is free and the one who has money will pay for Wikipedia when the fundraiser run, our experience also show that lots of people are more than happy to pay for it, so no need to change model. Ulflarsen (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's note The Signpost's coverage of the Chapman article is a standard space-filler we run in the absence of any fundraiser-related story in a slow news week and should probably be treated as such. ;) Skomorokh15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean if more people were to write and submit "personal opinion pieces", there would be less need for standard space-fillers? (Possible conflict of interest disclosure: yes, I am working on an opinion piece, myself ;) -- llywrch (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch, absolutely. We've been short on opinion essays for the past two weeks and are always hungry for more. Drop a note at Opinion desk if you've got something, and tell your friends. Regards, Skomorokh14:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If advertisements are allowed, they should be limited to passive text or images. That is, the ads should not move or do anything unless the user clicks on the advertisement. Otherwise, my old computer would be overwhelmed. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us donate the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in time. If ads were added we would leave and the money raised would not be enough to rehire us. Ads would be a bad idea and a loss of "total value" for the site. The business world has such a narrow view on economics having no idea how to assign value to much of human existence and therefore ignores it completely.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a demographic that believes their Econ major, MBA, or business writer or management career provides them with a perspective on every aspect of the world superior to any other. These types are uninterested in the concept that increased advertising and consumerism is not always, in every possible situation, a net gain for society. Consumption may be the engine that fuels the global economy, and it may bring many benefits, but to put it in ways these types can perhaps understand: we receive diminishing returns and increasing costs from consumerism (past a certain threshold). Anyone interested in an in-depth discussion of the costs of the ubiquity of advertising and consumerism (in our private lives, in our ability to make decisions) might be interested in Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action or alternatively, any of Critical Theory.
Myself, I am tired of these Maslow's hammer business enthusiasts who tell the lie that somehow ads will be more "free" than donations. Advertising has many costs that come with its benefits. They are hidden costs that must be carried by society, and unlike a donation drive, are not finite. One of those costs which makes advertisements particularly unsuited for wikipedia is that they create a conflict-of-interest that would in time reduce freedom and neutrality.--Monk of the highest order(t)08:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would opt in to ads to see what it's like. The targeting might actually work here, to the point that I would want to click on an ad. Most ads I see aren't relevant enough to warrant clicking, so are just obtrusive annoyances, but I could imagine it being different here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO Wikipedia is going to include adds when the profits = contributions dry up. As long as people are willing to give their own money Jimbo can promote himself and Wikipedia as a noncommercial product. I have few doubts that he will change his mind when (and only when) the first financial losses begin to appear. Flamarande (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing cause and effect. Contributions dry up when Wikipedia is going to include ads, not the other way around. Nageh (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the news