Wikipedia talk:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements/Wikipedians against advertisements

message: Please consider the possibility of optional advertisements. For more info go here:
*:Category:Wikipedians for optional advertisements 
I think this is a way in which almost everyone could be happy. --Timeshifter 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional advertisements 

message: [I copied this here since the project page may soon be deleted. By the way, I did not ask that it be deleted.] --Timeshifter 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads]] 

message: Sign your name here if you promise to adhere to the above:
#
# - Ads are designed to mislead, as such, they conflict with the principles of wikipedia.
# - Yay, no Ads!
# - No to ads!!
# - Wikipedia has been sold out.
# - I support this wholeheartedly. I despise the idea of advertisements on Wikipedia, if the community can raise over $100,000 in donations in less than a month, Wikimedia can not be short of cash. 
# - I will boycott, if the ads stay after the trial, and nobody else forks, then I will. The board has betrayed the community. This is a travesty. There must be no compromise. NO ADS ON WIKIPEDIA, NOT NOW AND NOT EVER. 
# - Cmon Wikipedians. We cannot let this happen!
#
# I will fight to the death against advertisements. Whoever came up with this PATHETIC IDEA should be blocked for a thousand years.
# - No Ads! * This message sposored by the No Ads On Wikipedia Coalition.
# - No ads if possible, and this coming a few months after a fundraiser that raised this community over $200,000? Maybe if Wikipedia was a bit more conservative, money wouldn't be a problem? Does this money pay for cost of travel, cars, and etc. for the higher up Wikipedia people? Where can I find a log on where all the money is going here? Edit: My tone here was a little too harsh.
#
#
# - Ads are a terrible, terrible idea.  How could they ever be compatible with NPOV?
# - I have always contributed to Wikipedia knowing that Wikipedia would remain totally free from ads. Now there will be ads and Wikipedia's trademark will be sold. I cannot accept that and I wish I could retract all my contributions. It is time to fork.
#
#
# - This seems like it would obviously cause a huge conflict of interest. I hereby pledge to post negative (but factual and NPOV) information on the page of any company that advertises.
# - I'd rather pay for access than be shown adverts
# - From Wikipedia's own History of Wikipedia article: In August 2002, shortly after Jimbo Wales announced that he would never run commercial advertisements on Wikipedia, the URL of Wikipedia was changed from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org. Exactly which part of never is unclear to the people proposing selling out to advertisers? 
# - I am strongly opposed the advertisement in Wikipedia because I want that the Wikipedia will not became a commercial website.'
# - Answers.com is crud!
# - Ads are a hassle, and Wikipedia has too much of a reputation to sell out! This is not another Google AdSense puppet!
#
# - As much as I love this website, ads would turn it from a non profit medium to a corporation of sorts.  No, no, no, no!
# - See my comments at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject no ads#Summary
# - Absolutely not!  I will seriously look into retracting my contributions where possible if this goes through/continues.
# - There are less annoying ways to make money
# - Wikipedia + Ads = 666
# - I am in!
#
#
# (This user has left wikipedia Prodego talk 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants

message: I think that a boycott is not the way to go about this. Please list any alternative solutions you may have.
* A "smart" javascript that shows no banner. Instead, there would be a simple "click here to see ads on this space and support the project". Then it would set a cookie and every time the user came there again, ads are displayed. If the ads ever get intrusive, he simply click on the link below the ad to "stop seeing this ad."
:This could be done with Greasemonkey. If there are ever ads, I might consider writing a script to hide them. --Draicone (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Solutions

message: A generous helping of WikiLove and reason is warranted.  The saddest thing about this entire episode is how quickly myths spread, and how little Assume Good Faith some people (not most people, but a few) have been willing to display.  An alternative solution to freaking out and threatening a boycott might be to ask questions and raise concerns in a helpful and constructive way, knowing that we have a very very long tradition around here of consensus.  This is not the first time we've had a general WikiPanic over nothing, nor will it be the last.  So I ask people, humbly, to please relax a notch or two and realize that I'm here to help you.--Jimbo Wales 14:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Retracted my comment here based on proper information about the proceedings.) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think people on here are really freaking out. It's because of WikiLove that we're on this page. We love that Wikipedia is a free and open society. We love that Wikipedia is being packaged for use in charity work. We don't want to see Wikipedia's reputation and quality to be corrupted by ads in the future. We love the amazing community that has been built here. We're not threatening a real boycott so much as declaring that if Wikipedia starts "selling things," it has stopped being the equalizing educational tool we first came to use and love, and for that reason, we would leave. A lot of time was spent by a lot of us learning Wikietiquette and learning how the community works - I think we're just recommitting to the core values of Wikipedia, at a convenient point: I think few of us think the ads are going to show up tomorrow and take over the site or that you guys would be sneaky about it. :) Janet13 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo's response

message: *Google NL   Wiki:
*Google EN   Wiki 
*google ALL  Wiki 
*Answers.com Wiki  (biased results). Mion 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Search

message: The undersigned members promise: Should include Google and Yahoo as wel which are both Adsense. Mion 15:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion

message: [I copied this here since that talk page may soon be deleted along with the project page. By the way, I did not ask that it be deleted.] --Timeshifter 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject No ads]] 

message: Is this really necessary? Andre (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the ads really necessary?  Sorry to answer your question with another one, but some users really feel strongly about this.  At least I do.  -- Malo 01:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a legit tactic and a downside less harmful than some of the alturnatives.Geni 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Money isn't necessary, but without it things are difficult to pull off. Andre (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have they ever had a donation drive where they didn't meet the goal?  If the foundation needs more money, then they should ask for it.  -- Malo 01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they need more money than the drives bring in, lengthen the drive. If they want MORE, then allow me to remind you wikimedia is non-profit. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Look at this, aparently there is no claim of bugetary pressure.. only some vague special projects with no budgetary requirements attached. --Gmaxwell 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's saying it isn't necessary? 19:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessary?

message: From slippery slope: "However, the slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A. Otherwise the slippery slope scheme merely serves as a device of sophistry." silsor 02:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's a response. Reference.com now also has Wikipedia content. Let's say tomorrow they release an equivalent 1-click software program that is superior to Answers.com's and offer Wikimedia the exact same deal. If Wikimedia has no special relationship with Answers.com personally or contractually, how can they consistently turn it down? Tfine80 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we turn down more free money with no obligations?--Jimbo Wales 05:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Wikipedia obliged to provide a link to the system on the Wikipedia:Tools page? Gerrit CUTEDH 12:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Slippery slope?"

message: What the answers.com deal states is that Wikipedia receives money in exchange for displaying one of answers.com's trademarks. If that's not advertising, than what is? Zocky 03:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not getting money in return for the link on the Wikipedia:Tools page, but for clicks made by people who download this software and then go to Answers.com and click the Google ads there. Angela. 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia agrees to alter it's content to increase another company's profits? And then gets part of the proceeds? That's advertising. -- Colin Hill ⁄ talk ▪ 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad or not ad 

message: I just hope this boycott don't go though if it does it whould be disasterous to Wiki that many quality users leaving for 60 days. I have this feeling that if that falls through vandals are going to take advantage of this. --JAranda | watz sup 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they should rescind the ads. -- Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 03:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True and Fast because complete failure is coming if the boycott comes. --JAranda | watz sup 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough way to learn a lesson, but they have to learn it. -- Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 03:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got a good nickname for this Hell-On-Wheels --JAranda | watz sup 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Okay, it turns out the excess money is going to underdeveloped countries (see MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice). We are basically expanding ourselves as a charity, and we'll probably take some money for servers, speeding us up. Basically we'll have a link in our toolbox (<--- over there!) to WP:TOOLS. Okay, fine... Then at WP:TOOLS there will be a link to the answers.com pack, which could fairly have been listed there WITHOUT us making money, as it, I'll bet my reputation, will be a decent tool. Now, we have this tool but we actually make some money on it, what's the harm. As long as Wikipedia doesn't end dependant, and as long as we never get banner ads or popups (Jimbo assured me in IRC that these will never happen), I don't think the boycott will be necessary. Now let's stop this forking and boycott threats, and discuss this a bit more calmly. I think a lot of this wouldn't have happened if Angela said where the money was headed when she first typed up the announcement. On November 19th (when the trial comes into effect, though we may cancel mid-trial), I will be reinserting the notice of this on top of EVERY WIKIPEDIA page, and I have Jimbo's support for this. Now let's calm down and stop the schizm before it happens. What do you say? Redwolf24 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cooler heads are prevailing. Thank you, Redwolf. — Phil Welch 04:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Too bad, I say. I don't want to put up with Wikipedia selling out! -- Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not selling out unless Jimbo pockets the cash. Jimbo is not pocketing the cash, he's donating it to people who have lead filled water. I'll talk about this more tomorrow, but it's time for me to run. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also we already get investments, and somewhere there's a page where these investors are located, so wouldn't that be kinda like advertisements? Redwolf24 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they don't put their trademark all over Wikipedia. -- Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing going "all over Wikipedia" in this proposal is the WP:TOOLS link, which probably should be in the sidebar anyway. ~~ N (t/c) 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a charity.  The work of all the editors is begin hijacked for its commercial value and redirected to the WMF's pet projects.  Is this what we want? To be WMF's cash cow? I have no objection to giving WMF money for Wikipedia (I have indeed done so, both through direct donations and buying of shirts), but I think the curren situation is something different. --Maru  (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 04:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Wikipedia IS a charity. I wouldn't say it is if I didn't know it was. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why does it matter where the money is going? This is an argument based on emotion. Honestly, given what we have provided Answers.com in terms of content, they should be willing to help fund the project without asking this of us. We also still have absolutely no estimate of the monetary value of this deal. Mr. Wales and the board have plans to speak with charitable organizations about funding this goal, and I wish them the best in finding willing donors. As a believer in Wikipedia, I believe we can do this without being contractually obligated to alter Wikipedia's pages for a commercial company. Tfine80 04:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I pulled out 

message: In order for this project to be more than a knee-jerk reaction that ends in a route, we need to explain why we think that wikipedia is better without ads, as well as to justify why we think such a reaction is necessary. Here's some ideas. Do add more. Zocky 04:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The BCC would dissagree with you on that one.Geni 08:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be positive 

message: Here are some nice things we can say:
*Wikipedia is the only major website free of ads. This is what distinguishes us from other sites.
::The BCC would dissagree with you on that one.Geni 08:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: I know that Sr. Wales contact inforamation and phone numbers are on this site have you though about calling him?  If we all called him all the time letting him know our opininos he might revoke this idea.  Plus the Wikimedia is a corporation so the board of trustees info is public information, I think its is in Florid,a USA so you all can get tahta nd start calling them, writing to them repeateedly to let them know how you feel.  That is what I would do for starting.Wiki brah 05:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:Tools/1-Click Answers. The Board of Trustees (including our God-King) are responding to some of the comments there - though not nearly as much as they should be.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the person who usually answers the phone at the Wikimedia Foundation, I would ask you first to consider what the agreement actually says before you start calling to complain about things that are not contained in it. Danny 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatt we can do 

message: Although this is not the point, would I be right in assuming that I could take the tools link off the sidebar using my monobook.css like I have done with some of the other links there? --Celestianpower háblame 10:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you could do that. Angela. 09:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=26337277&oldid=26337007 ~~ N (t/c) 13:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently the community will be involved 

message: Don't forget this important guideline. 
... thanks, have a nice day! We'll miss your enthusiastic effervescence if you leave. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The right to withdraw you labour is a pretty basic one. We can't make people contribute.Geni 02:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Geni. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POINT]] 

message: Thanks again for the clarification. I should have kept a cooler head, but I love this place and want to defend it. If the participants portion is put back up, consider me out. I don't want ads on Wikipedia, but apparently that isn't the case regarding 1-click.Karmafist 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I wanted to share this with you all

message: I think a lot of this is caused by poor communication, so I'm going to try and summarize in an accessible way.
Answers.com is going to make a product that will use Wikipedia information, and would like to brand it with the wWikipedia name. Under the GFDL they could do this without asking us, but they want to use the Wikipedia name, logo and other trademarks, so they asked. This will be a separate program and/or web service available from their site, and will very likely occur with or without our support.
Answers.com is a for profit company and this product does have a business plan based on ad revenue. The GFDL does not stop people from using our content like this without paying Wikimedia at all. Answers.com has decided to partner with us so they can use our name and logo etc more visibly and as thanks are willing to share some of the revenue they would make in their product with us.
As a courtesy we are thinking about adding this new tool to a page that already exists (Wikipedia:Tools) to list outside tools related to wikipedia. It is very likely this software would have been listed here anyway, since it is relevant to the purpose of the page.
In addition the board is thinking about adding a link to this tools page in the toolbox sidebar. This is probably a good idea regardless, as the tools page is a useful link, and "tools" should probably be in the "toolbox".
I think of it like this: Answers.com is making some software that uses wikipedia data, and would like to donate some of their revenue to us. That is how this should be framed. Wikimedia is a non-profit. When a for profit company gives us money when they don't have to, why not call this a donation? Answers.com could use our data without asking like a million other websites do, but they decided to ask us and donate some of the money they make from the product. Sounds fine to me. - cohesion | talk 21:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I love it when people talk sensibly, rather than losing their heads and threatening to boycott.--Sean Black Talk 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to say that I fully support this project in spirit- WP should not contain ads, period. This however, is not really containing ads. Please read everything Jimbo said (and everything Cohesion wote above) before jumping to conclusions, okay?--Sean Black Talk 22:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote from cohesion's summary: Answers.com is making some software that uses wikipedia data, and would like to donate some of their revenue to us. That is how this should be framed.  The problem I see with framing it this way, is that an agreement has been made and a further agreement is in the works pending the trial period.  The issue of the agreement/partnership, what it entails, and why the WMF feels the need to enter into an agreement at all is entirely different than the issue of what it means in terms of changing Wiki-space, compromising ideals, usefulness of the software, etc.  Both are important, but I am addressing the first.  I am not an attorney, but I grew up with two of them, and to my ears, agreement equals contract.  If it does not, then it is meaningless (in general, and certainly to a corporation), simply hot-air-blowing p.r., and somewhat misleading.  Likewise, a trial period that is not followed by a decision about a definite change of some kind is meaningless.  If we are to take Jimbo's word (and I do) that Quote: There is no contractual agreement to alter any page of Wikipedia,  then we must conclude that the language of this whole affair (agreement, partnership, deal, trial period, etc.) is all meaningless.  I don't get it.  Psora 03:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you cohesion for a good summary. I was hesitant to commit myself before I understood what was going on, and both opponents and proponents have been rather unclear. However, it is now evident to me that I should join the opponents of the proposal. Having an additional tool on the WP:TOOLS page is not a problem. Accepting corporate contributions and acknowledging them appropriately is not an issue either. However, having what effectively amounts to an indirect link to a commercial web site on every Wikipedia page is severely disturbing to me and I will somewhat reluctantly add my name to the list. I believe the Board is making a serious error in judgment on this. This is not intended as a personal attack, as I have made many errors of judgment in my life and am maybe able to recognize them in others. I have also been on the board of a number of non-profit and charitable organizations and I know how gratitude for funding can spill over in inappropriate ways. I can just see the thinking: "Wow! They'll give us half the ad revenue generated by links from our site. That's really nice of them, we should acknowledge it. Why don't we make it easier for users to get at it. Plus it will make us even more money." That said, the board does not seem to be considering the long term implications of its decision to enter in some kind of "co-branding" business deal with a for-profit corporation and of adding a link that amounts to advertising on every page's tool box. What will the board do when other such proposals will come? And they will come. We have an extremely valuable brand in wikipedia, and the board needs to carefully consider what it will do with it. Before jumping into any deals, the board needs to establish a clear policy on the use of the Wikipedia brand by anyone else, especially commercial entities. The board also needs to establish a policy on what should be Wikipedia's relations with commercial entities who want to use us. I would like to respectfully suggest that the board can  the deal pending the development of a set of policies and guidelines on this kind of deal. Of course, the policy should be discussed and hopefully a consensus can be arrived at. Luigizanasi 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Why does this remind me so much of Slashdot...
I, for one, welcome our new 1-click advertisement overlords.
Anonymous Coward 23:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot 

message: Thank you all for completely cutting off discussion early without knowing any of the facts, and diverting any further discussion to this unimportant page. This entire WikiProject is founded on thin air. See the F.A.Q. at Wikipedia talk:Tools/1-Click Answers. Of course I'm against ads, but show me an ad. Reply here if you want, but I won't see it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-25 03:39
:You are being rather antagonistic.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incivil straw man argument. 1) Discussion is happening here, and many members of the WikiProject are actively discussing the issue on Wikipedia talk:Tools/1-Click Answers. 2) Based on the press releases from the Wikimedia board, a group we trust, and Answers.com, advertising was going to happen. Mate, if you're going to put up an argument, good or otherwise, kindly do it with courtesy. Your post is most unhelpful and does not aid the situation, serving only to insult and provoke. --Blackcap | talk 07:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: From all the discussion here, it seems that:
# the 1-click trial is not really an objectionable issue, and
# Wikipedia does not currently have advertisements.
Can we change our first condition from:
:# to boycott Wikipedia if the Answers.com 1-Click Trial takes place as described in the press release and as long as what we consider to be advertisements continue.
to the following?  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 20:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: # to boycott Wikipedia if the Wikimedia Foundation mandates advertisements anywhere in Wikipedia or its sister projects.
I'm not so sure we should limit our scope to a boycott (by the way, I would call it a "strike" rather than a "boycott", as we're withholding our labor rather than refusing to buy a good/service). There are other tactics worth considering such as community outreach, petition writing, organized editing of articles/pages containing links to advertisements, etc. Let's generalize this to a project dedicated to keeping ads of Wikipedia and fighting them if they do appear. --Bk0 (Talk) 21:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Second all Bk0's suggestions. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 22:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also still not convinced that the Answers.com trial is unobjectionable. As far as I understand, after asking Jimbo and the board repeatedly, the now superseded WP:TOOLS page will be resurrected and prominently linked for the purpose of this agreement, with a special section set aside for advertising products that earn Wikimedia money. I still fail to see how this is not advertising, and with this in mind, think this project should continue along its original lines. Ambi 01:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ambi, although strike is a better word than "boycott". Luigizanasi 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change of scope 

message: What's the problem? Is it the donations? Is it vanity articles? What is it? - Ekevu (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much vanity articles, but objections to possible corruption/selling out/co-option of Wikipedia by commercial interests, in general, with especialy ire directed towards the usability concerns inherent in any ads whatsoever. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 03:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me put it this way. Wikipedia are intending to sell my contiributions the same way Coca Cola sell their product by placing a vending machine inside the premises of another business. I object. Reyk 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess they are going to spring what the Answers.com program will look like in a few weeks. We still haven't received any more information about the text of the deal, the estimated revenue, or the nature of the ad. Maybe with all of the various controversies about Wikipedia, it will be toned down a bit. Especially because of the newly apparent liability issue. Tfine80 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't understand the project's goals... 

message: Any GNU lawyers here? May I suggest a template saying something to the effect of "If Wikipedia goes commercial, I hereby no withdraw all of my contributions and no longer allow them to be used by Wikipedia" or something to that effect? Daykart 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question. Knowing my luck, the answer's probably no. Reyk 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like this idea. I'm not a lawyer, but I think unfortunately that by contributing you automatically agree to license your works uner the GFDL ("Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL" below the editing window). I'm not sure if it's possible to revoke that license once given. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, in the Public domain article, one of the things it discusses is whether licenses granted without consideration (ie the GFDL, GPL, etc) are revokable. Apparently it is an open question. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 03:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The GFDL licence specifically allows commercial distribution. Text under a "non-commercial" license is incompatible with GFDL.  If you can't accept that, you do have the right to fork... but otherwise your stuck. ---J.S  (T/C) 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This might be a legal loophole! 

message: This WikiProject is a forum for advocacy, yet Wikipedia:WikiProject no anonymous editing is put up for deletion.  -- Zondor 16:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you mentioning this here? This is a project hostile to ads, not anonymous editors. --maru  (talk) Contribs 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am mentioning it because both are forums for advocacy, yes? But one is being deleted because it is inappropriate as a WikiProject. -- Zondor 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject appropriateness 

message: I think you guys might be interested in reading over Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Promotional use of edit summaries, where the issue of advertising assistive 3rd party software in edit summaries is discussed.  To me, they are ads...that appear in watchlists, no less. ¦ Reisio 15:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional edit summaries - a new threat? 

message: The flash demo available at answers shows an "easy" interface to wikipedia, so I'm guessing it'll have the ads there and not here. However I can't believe that nobody noticed before that:
*That site doesn't list the contributors of each article
*It doesn't mention the contributor of a GFDL image
*It doesn't identify the version of the article (date etc)
and I wonder which parts of GFDL are respected and which aren't. talk to +MATIA 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some thoughts 

message: Go and a have a read about wikipedia on answer.com.
From what is written on Answers a lot time and effort is spent on claiming how unreliable and inaccurate the unformation is. It also spends a lot time critizing the open edit format, expands a lot about vandalism and edit wars to extent of citing examples. At no stage does Answers say they source any information from wikipedia for other articles  It does refer to wikipedia as source for artciles on wikipedia and related sites. 
The article is segmentated such that it refers to copyright left and free but takes a long time before GNU is mentioned and doesnt even acknowledge GFDL.
So why does this company want to be associated with Wikipedia Gnangarra 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and they seem to be implementing a self-made "AnswerNotes" source, which one could easily see as an "answer" to Wikipedia. Interesting that one of their first "AnswerNotes" is a misleading and strange article about Wikipedia. Tfine80 03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why - answers.com 

message: The folowing moved from article space:
:It is worth noting, in the interest of honesty, that there is no contractual agreement to alter any Wikipedia page.  So this entire project is off on the wrong foot based on a misunderstanding. --Jimbo Wales 19:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  misplaced comment 

message: I'd really like to figure out why people are so vehement on this issue. The way I see it donations may conceivably (though certainly not for sure) be enough to keep the site running, but a lot of people are getting sick of constantly holding fund drives too. When you stop to think of the major purpose of the foundation to give free information to everyone in a language they can understand, then what if we could go much farther towards reaching that by choosing to have ads? Current estimates are that ad sense ads could bring in many millions of dollars a year based on Wikipedia's traffic. Choosing not to accept that is choosing not to allow many projects that could further reach the project's goals, such as hiring translators, developing country coordinators, printing books, audio versions, etc. So are you all saying you would really make that choice to give up those opportunities? If so, I'd really like to know why. My assumption is that many people have just never thought about all the opportunities that are available, but if people really are willing to give up those opportunities, what suggestions do you have for providing the funding necessary to better accomplish the project's goals? Due to the nature of the GFDL mirrors of Wikipedia content already serve ads and profit from our work, so that can't be the problem. The ads could be clearly delineated as such so as not to imply endorsement. Would people be willing to accept having opt-in only ads for example? Thanks for your consideration. - Taxman Talk 19:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is can the sale of advertising still enable NPOV. Would the advertisers practice agressive forms of advertising like hotspots with pop-up messaging. From a corporate POV I would expect such options where my money was paying for space.  Gnangarra 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From proposals I've heard people are mentioning text only or other non-highly obtrusive ads like adsense. And since NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, no influence would be our first condition. - Taxman Talk 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.' Direct quote from WP:NOT. Cynical 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent of that is to prevent the articles from being adverts. A GoogleAd on the side of the article, which is generated automatically and thus omits the possibility of POV influence in the editing process, would not turn the article into an ad unless we give up on NPOV. That said, I don't like the idea of having adverts on the side of articles at wikipedia.org for a simple reason: We'd have much more money than we can handle and anything in excess is a corrupting influence. See below for my proposal. --mav 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry 

message: I've posted this from Village pump for your amusement.  Firefox had a glitch earlier today producing ADS ON WIKIPEDIA! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusing Image Glitch creates ADS ON WIKIPEDIA 

message: This comment was sponsored by the following:
*Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia
*Google – Are you feeling lucky?
*Doubleclick – We would rather use flash
If a company pays you money to change the default font to one that they authored, is that an ad? Is it one that everyone here would oppose, or just the core of die-hard anti-ad folks? It's a silly example, but I think it makes an important point: we're so focused on the worst ads on the Net that no one is going to say, "that's a good idea." Still, there are forms of advertising that Wikipedia could engage in which would actually benefit the readers of Wikipedia. Here are some thoughts:
*Enact strict editorial standards with respect to ads (e.g. "Part of this complete breakfast," is a nonsequitor (a pretty sunset can be "part of this complete breakfast"), and should not be allowed). Such standards should be an official policy which the community develops in much the same way as any other policy.
*Ads should not be free-form. A product/company name which must link to the product/company article on Wikipedia, and a short phrase should be all that constitutes an ad. An ad's phrase should be held to the same standards of accuracy as articles.
*Every ad should have its own talk page which is protected only under the conditions that a typical page would be protected.
*Ads should only appear on article and image pages, never user pages; talk pages; templates; or other adminstrative areas of Wikipedia.
*Ads should appear in an area which is clearly marked for advertising purposes.
*And here's the million dollar kicker that will change the way advertisers think: ads must be released under the GFDL, just like any other content of Wikipedia (though the "template-like" page from which they are served will be locked by default).
Why does this have to be an all-or-nothing. Why can't we change the way advertising works while we're at it? Sure, if you enact these standards, there will be far fewer potential dollars from advertising, but the revenue would likely still be substantial, and would have the potential to change the way many companies think about advertising. -Harmil 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting idea.... hmmm.... --- RockMFR 04:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is an ad? 

message: What is the specific ad that is on Wikipedia and where does it come up? I just arrived at this talk page. Good friend100 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is none. It was a bunch of hype and panic, but nothing came of it. We have new developments though,see below.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ad 

message: User:MyWikiBiz and User:Thekosher are both confirmed accounts of MyWikiBiz.com, a firm that hires itself out to corporations to write Wikipedia articles on them. This makes editing from the NPOV nigh on impossible. Discuss.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed Corporate Advertising on Wikipedia 

message: The only ad that should be on Wikipedia is the one for people to donate to keep things running.
Tyson Moore. Tehehe! (Waiting for sig to be fixed) 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one ad. 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: :Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those from the other side of the debate 

message: I see that this project is focused on the deal with answers.com, but as we already know a lot of people, like me, do consider the yesterdays Virgin logo as a form of advertisement. That's why this project should be more in general against ads and not only focusing on the answers.com-deal. Can someone please change that.
Another thing is why not doing this on meta, so all international lcoal communities can easily join. Jeroenvrp 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has never fit will as project, so I'd certainly support change of some sort. A move to Meta is a reasonable suggestion, but one which I am ambivalent about. Such a move would deprive the cause of much attention. Perhaps an essay could replace this project?--cj | talk 19:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of project 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards