Wikipedia talk:Tools/1-Click Answers

message: Welcome visitors from Slashdot.  Please know that the story at Slashdot is completely false.  There is no proposal to have advertising in Wikipedia.  There is no contractual agreement to alter any page of Wikipedia.  What is happening here is that Answers.com is creating a co-branded version of their website which will show ads, and they will share the revenue with us.  This means, and let me be very very firm about this, that there is NO PROPOSAL TO HAVE ADVERTISING IN WIKIPEDIA. --Jimbo Wales 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Jimbo. Most people would consider a proposal which involves putting a link to their site and software on our Tool's page and getting paid as a result (and not getting paid if we reject the link) advertising in Wikipedia. It's not right to correct one oversimplification with another. --Gmaxwell 20:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We get paid either way.  This is not an advertising deal.  Period.--Jimbo Wales 12:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have made the comment if not for what the old FAQ stating it outright. The change had been standing long enough that I didn't realize that you were not the person who wrote it. --Gmaxwell 13:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll have to agree with Gmaxwell's post. There was some truth to the slashdot posting. dont say its completely false --anon 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome visitors from Slashdot

message: I have started a SourceForge project for OpenAnswers, an open source (GPL licensed) alternative to Answers.com's 1-Click Answers. Anyone who is interested in helping in any way is invited to go to the project page and register your interest in the forums (or email me: b_g at users dot sourceforge dot net). This project is currently in the planning stage, but I hope that it will eventually be of high enough quality to be considered as a replacement for Answers.com's closed source product as a Wikipedia partner. --BG 22:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Open source alternative

message: Is this "Wikipedia Edition" just going to be a mirror of Wikipedia, but with ads? I could see people worrying about where this could lead, down some sort of sloping, low-friction surface... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-20 20:57
:Answers.com already have a mirror of Wikipedia with ads. The software just lets you get there by alt-clicking a word anywhere on your screen. It takes some context from surrounding words, so should point you at Jordan River if you click that word Jordan, but at the country Jordan if you click that one. You can try out the software already, but it's not the "Wikipedia edition", which will be largely the same, but will place the Wikipedia content first on the page. Angela. 23:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue to consider is how current the articles displayed by Answers will be. At present, if you go to Answers, or use the 1-Click Answers/GuruNet client, the information from Wikipedia is a few months out-of-date. For example, compare Southport with Southport. I understand Answers downloads the database dumps, and I was led to believe this was to be done fairly regularly, but doesn't appear to have been done since early summer. -TonyW 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why their copy is so out of date. I thought they were paying us for a feed that meant they had no need to download the database, but I will check. Angela. 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've discovered an exception to this in a number of articles - for example, Answer's copy of Hurricane Wilma is very close to the current Wikipedia article on Hurricane Wilma. Whether it's because it's a current news event, I don't know, but that article seems more up to date than the majority Answers links to. Just thought I'd mention it. -TonyW 08:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Rosenschein, the CEO of the Answers Corporation, has replied to say there have been technical problems involved with receiving a usable dump, exacerbated by the recent upgrade of Wikipedia database formats. There have been serious problems with the OAI feed that they were beta testing for us, but they are "making steady headway with the API, which we hope will also benefit the greater Wikipedia community of users and developers." They have apparently been running scripts around the clock and by the time this is launched, they hope to go live with the API, and then the updates will be very up-to-date. Angela. 04:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: \*

message: One of the potential problems with encouraging software-based and third party uses of Wikipedia's content is that it could divert people from the site. I think Answers.com is a great resource, but we don't want it to overwhelm Wikipedia before the encyclopedia reaches some stage of maturity. Currently, Answers.com does not tell people that they can edit the various articles that they display. 
:It could also encourage people to come to Wikipedia more often since it is linked from there. Also, it will certainly encourage people to view Wikipedia information more often (since it will always be just one click away from any page in any application), even if they don't do it on our own site. A lack of link to the edit page, and also to the donations page, is a fair concern. I'll ask whether they'd consider implementing that, especially for the "Wikipedia version". Angela. 23:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure they would be happy to do it.  I'm not sure it is a good idea, though.  Do we really want hundreds of thousands of inexperienced users clicking on a link on another site, making edits, and being bewildered about where they are and what they're doing?  I think readers who don't edit are fine, and don't "overwhelm" us in the way that editors who don't read might. :-)--Jimbo Wales 13:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, we're not going to be linking to their dictionary definitions instead of Wiktionary. Their software does currently include non-Wiktionary content though. I'm not convinced Wiktionary is yet large enough to be a useful resource. It's really still at the stage of being a project to build a useful resource. Perhaps once it's a bit more mature, we could convince Answers.com to include Wiktionary content in their site. However, this doesn't affect which dictionary Wikipedia is going to link to. Angela. 23:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the question puzzling.  Why and in what way would we do that?--Jimbo Wales 13:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not directly through Wikipedia itself. But this venture will use the popular Wikipedia website to promote a research software program that uses non-free and commercial content. I don't think it's a big deal so long as it is simply a link to their software, but Answers.com's press release made it seem like a much more significant, albeit vague, "partnership" to generate some hype for their somewhat battered stock. And traders aren't sure exactly what to make of it... I personally have some concerns about Answers' long-term viability as a corporation--although I think it is a great resource--and I just think Wikimedia should be more clear about what this partnership represents. Unlike some of the other existing and potential sponsors with long-term goals about the nature of Internet content like Yahoo and Google etc., I imagine Answers is most interested in converting any relationship with Wikipedia into quick cash. Tfine80 17:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been told they intend to add a link to "Edit This Page" on their copy of all Wikipedia content by the end of this month. Angela. 04:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouraging the editing of Wikipedia pages

message: I am worried that if Wikipedia's fair use images show up on this site (a for profit venture), most of the fair use defense about use of the images for non profit purposes only will go out the window and images will have to be removed or there could be greater threat of copyright infringement proceedings --Nv8200p (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Images already show up so I don't think it'll be any different. -TonyW 18:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is why Jimbo has been trying to get us admins to try and fix the image problems. I would be extremely happy if we could disable uploading of photos so we can sort the photos out, but I also have no problems if my photos/flag drawings/drawings are used elsewhere. I personally want to see this work so I know what it does, but I am not going to leave over it. Zach (Sound Off) 01:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jimbo's concerns were more for Wikipedia itself than for third party users of our content. The liability the Answers Corporation have from using fair use images is the same as it was before this partnership, and they remain the ones liable for checking they are able to use these images. Angela. 04:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Will they be linking images

message: If this continues beyond the trial, I'm leaving, no questions asked, and I know I'm not the only one. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving 

message: I've been arguing for ads on Wikipedia for a long time. I think they would provide a great source of additional revenue. However, I don't think this is the way to go about it. There are a few things you need to do, to make this work:
#Allow registered users to turn the ads off in preferences
#Have the ads be genuinely useful (e.g. Google AdSense)
#Clearly label them "ADVERTISEMENT"
There are probably other considerations, but these are the ones that come to mind. Andre (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the better solution is the reverse.  By that I mean, make advertisements OPT-IN for wikipedia users, as a sidebar box or something.  This one-click idea is peanuts for $ for wikipedia, the real gain is the boost Answers.com gets in reputation and clout, already proven by their stock bump.  The actual rev. will be minimal at best, unless the deal changes over time, which is the slippery slope everyone is concerned about.  Why not have an AdSense-style system that will only show with &ad=1 in the url?  Ads could be bought and sold as normal, and even deleted by users if they are irrelevant (but not edited).  The strength of Wikipedia is its goodwill; the only way to maintain that is to give users full control over advertising.  I don't think the site needs to be ad-free, I think it needs to be ad-optional.
12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, having clear ads for non logged in users (google adsense for example) is fine. Having this weird pseudo-ad, where it's not clear what wikipedia's obligations are to this company, draws into question our objectivity in a way normal text ads do not. I would be very disappointed to see us get into any partnerships with for-profit companies that aren't very well defined. While this plan may seem well-defined to the board, it is really only the end user that is important. When someone comes to wikipedia from an external site and sees a link to this company, they will not be aware of the deal's specifics and will assume vaguely that wikipedia and answers are in some partnership. This is unacceptable from an objectivity point of view. - cohesion | talk 01:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's nothing wrong with discreet, helpful ads in my opinion. However, this is adware, not advertising. It's even worse than having banners throughout the text, or whatever other ad nightmare you could think of invading wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, free from for-profit companies and their adware. Airline 03:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, i have changed my mind on learning more about this proposal, it's really more of a donation by this company of part of the profits of a product they will make regardless. I don't see anything wrong with that. Also, I didn't realize the link would be to Wikipedia:Tools I was thinking it would be specifically to the answer.com product on every page, which would be unacceptable. As long as wikipedia has enough money I don't think there should be ads. If a company wants to donate some of their money why not let them. - cohesion | talk 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. This is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, and ads fundamentally compromise our integrity as a reliable source of encyclopedic information. Also, having that difference between logged-in and anonymous users is un-wiki. When people come here, they want information. They don't want some bugger asking them to buy something, relevant or otherwise. When I search the net using Google, I don't mind the ads so much because they might take me somewhere that will give me more information on the topic. The big differences: 1) I don't rely on Google to keep any standards of reliability, accuracy, NPOV, etc. 2) Google is not an encyclopedia, and it couldn't matter less to them who pays them or who's on their site, as long as it's someone. With WP, if I see a link here, it has to add to the article, be relevant, be encyclopedic, and be informative, amongst other concerns. Ads fail criterions 1 and 3, and usually 4. This is a bad idea. You'll notice that the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have "relevant text ads" in the margins, nor will any other important, reliable source of information (such as the Oxford English Dictionary, the Exploratorium, or the Smithsonian Institution. Scientific dissertations, books, and tomes have no ads. The Constitution has no ads asking you to buy "Adult Sex Proposals" (which is what Google's highly intelligent AdSense came up with when I searched for said document. Look for yourself: . The second time I searched, I got an ad for "Free Pics of Local Girls Adult Sex Personals: Get Laid 20+ Million Members. Free Join AdultFriendFinder.com." Brilliant. Just what I always wanted when I'm looking for America's most important text). If we want to live up to these standards, then we'd better face the music and get our funding elsewhere. --Blackcap | talk 03:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackcap's arguments do have merit, but I'm not particularly swayed by them.  Remember that a large proportion of our readers already view our content with ads, often without so much as lip-service paid to the GFDL.  Our license is so poorly enforced that it's functionally identical to public domain, and this is part of the reason I only perform maintenance instead of writing new content.  Given the choice, I'd rather we were in control of this ourselves. —Cryptic (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather be hung by the hangman then put the noose around my own neck. Wikipedia itself had no ads; its mirrors are irrelevant. I'll dance the Hempen jig another day. See you all in in a wee bit (hopefully), --Blackcap | talk 04:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As a regular "user" (having only ever edited a couple of pages and just signed up for a new login to post here), I appreciate the efforts of wikipedians.  If I don't have the time to show this appreciation directly by contributing, then dealing with a couple of adds is the least I can do. Sure Britanica don't have them (at the moment), but then they have an established revenue model - which may or may not work into the future.  The space under the toolbox seems like an easy place to put an advert without affecting layout. Doing it yourselves is probably better. Do it uniquely by making add selection community driven.  An entry might have an editable list refering to several add-categories. Add-categories might have an editable list advertisers or ad-supplier-categories.  It should be okay to have a link to some.adulttoystore.com for an entry on condoms. Make the third-party-publishers of wikimedia display your adds. Don't allow the adds to be stripped out.  Wikimedia pays of portion of collected revenue to third-party-publishers, rather than the other way around.  btw, what stops an advertiser editing entries directly to point to themselves anyway?  Give advertisers the option of adding themselves to an approved location.  Don't have adds for account holders, which might encourage people to on the edge of signing up to do so. --203.59.122.244 00:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: Posted also to wikien-l and foundation -l
To the board,
I just wanted to let you know how stunnded and disappointed I was to hear that the board with very little input made this deal to advertise on wikipedia. I feel that this is a sellout and a betrayal of the trust that us the users place in the board and I urge you all to terminate this deal as soon as possible.  I understand that it would be nice to have an extra income source for misc.projects however that too is unecessary since there is most likely a better way.  I'd also like to point out that the community has expressed overall disapproval for the idea and is as well disappointed in the board for this at Wikipedia TAlk:Tools/1-Click_Answers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/1-Click_Answers#I.27m_sorry.2C_but_I_don.27t_see_the_point>. I urge you all to reconsider this before you alienate and isolate many of the good editors and contributors that Wikipedia has.
Respectfully,
User:Jtkiefer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtkiefer>
*Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am still somewhat dissapointed at how this was handled, implying that the board did something wrong is out of line. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 06:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  open letter to the board 

message: I will be among the users boycotting wikipedia here. I encourage others to join. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An advertisement of my own

message: #The profit to the community in a non-profit organization from my or anybodies contribution should not go any further than the contribution itself. 
#:I do not write on wikipedia to earn money from it. I am here for a noble cause: a better free encyclopedia.
#:This isn't like McDonalds donating a portion of their profit to Red Cross. 
#:This is like McDonalds selling their burgers slightly more expensive and donatting the increase hence making regular profit by abusing peoples goodwill.
#::Before anyone asks I chose McDonalds at random.
#Next thing you know we will start supporting POV of companies based on how much they donate.
#:Advertisements of any kind on wikipedia hence should not be welcome in the light of this. If they want to mirror us they should perhaps donate us. 
#::Why do we need advertisements? Didn't we raise $200,000 in a matter of 2 weeks recently? And that was leftovers from Katrina disaster. Do you know any other non-profit organisation that makes $200,000 in 2 weeks without even advertising it. All we did was attach a notice on top of the screen on wikipedia only.
#:We make the internet not suck after all. Jimmy Wales declared us as a non-profit organisation on national TV and he is right as far as I recall. This partnership in my view conflicts that statement.
#::Google and Yahoo seeks that Internet or "International Network of Information" degraded from its original intention, thats why wikipedia exists to correct the inbalance of nonsense/information on the net.
#Additionaly why do I have to take the word of Softpedia if this is malicious or not (adware, spyware, virus). It is a closed source code, it could be anything.
:: --Cool Cat Talk 02:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still dont like this... much. --Cool Cat Talk 23:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Cool Cat]]s view, feel free to endorse/oppose after my first sig

message: The page assures us that the closed source one click wikipedia edition software is not adware, but the current edition sure looks like it would fit what most people call adware.. It runs on your computer and pops up 'helpful information' along with ads. 
The terms of use of the software are pretty typical adware crud, and bring up questions about Answer.com's GFDL compliance. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
"Answers provides its Content to you, subject to the following TOU, which may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you." "You also understand and agree that in addition to the Content, Answers may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for Answers to provide the Content." "You are only permitted view and/or browse the Content, and/or make limited copies of portions of the Content as fall within the "fair use" provisions of the United States Copyright Act" ... "you may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Content or documentation, including without limitation, translation, customization or localization;" "The Content, the Web Site and the Software remain solely the property of Answers or of Answers Content providers at all times, and their use is subject to copyright as defined in our copyright statement that may be found at here." "The Content may provide, or third parties may provide, links to other World Wide Web sites or resources. Because Answers has no control over such sites and resources, you acknowledge and agree that Answers is not responsible for the availability of such external sites or resources, and does not endorse and is not responsible or liable for any Content," (I.e. it's not spyware, it only loads spyware-gm) 
Looks pretty suspect to me, ... I would have expected the Wikimedia Foundation to clear up some issues completely before getting anywhere near a trial. --Gmaxwell 02:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also pretty cruddy that we weren't consulted before the foundation made a deal to advertise a closed source product that is suspect at best. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 02:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Although I am still somewhat dissapointed at how this was handled implying that the board did something wrong is out of line. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 06:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There are ads on the Answers site, but the program itself doesn't contain ads or spyware. Upon alt-clicking a word or phrase in any application, the 1-Click Answers client opens up a browser linking to a page containing information on the alt-clicked word/phrase. There maybe ads there, there maybe not. Sometimes there are just in-house links to other parts of their site. Veteran users of the GuruNet client see none of this, however. -TonyW 11:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not adware?

message: As a major contributor to our article on spyware and as a security technician, I haven't been able to find any evidence that Answers.com's software is spyware in the usual sense. It is clearly adware in the sense of advertising-supported software -- like the Opera Web browser or the Eudora email client. However, I haven't seen any evidence that it:
* gets installed without user consent,
* hides from the user what it is doing,
* reports user behavior back to its master,
* displays ads when the user isn't using it (pop-ups), or 
* disrupts other computer functions.
If anyone does have any evidence that it does these things, or does anything else hostile, please speak up!
That it is non-free software -- and closed-source, so we can't verify its behavior -- is certainly worrisome. I haven't been able to ascertain whether it contains a self-upgrading feature or the ability to download and run additional programs on a computer. (A self-upgrading feature could be used to replace an "innocent" version with an "evil" one later.)
All in all, this move seems to be unnecessary -- we don't need the funds; our fund-raisers seem to consistently exceed expectations. Moreover, it is obviously a disruptive move, given the amount of uproar and bad feeling that has just been created. Anything that gets dozens of contributors actively planning to boycott or fork the project is thereby a bad idea.
Moreover, it is currently a substantial struggle to deal with spam of various sorts on Wikipedia -- people promoting themselves, their companies, or whatnot through extraneous links or vanity articles. Endorsing any kind of systematic advertisement here is likely to act as a justification to others to post their own ads here. The "public restroom principle" applies. (People are more likely to litter or make a dirty mess in a public restroom that is already somewhat dirty, than in one which is notably clean.) Any addition of advertisement to Wikipedia will have a marginal effect encouraging others to post advertisements here. --FOo 04:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ads on the Answers site, but the program itself doesn't contain ads or spyware. Upon alt-clicking a word or phrase in any application, the 1-Click Answers client opens up a browser linking to a page containing information on the alt-clicked word/phrase. There maybe ads there, there maybe not. Sometimes there are just in-house links to other parts of their site. Veteran users of the GuruNet client see none of this, however. -TonyW 11:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't seem to be spyware; still not a good idea 

message: I'm kind of confused right now. Angela, would you mind clarifying the agreement to me? Am I correct that this is what the deal covers: 1) A "Tools" link in the sidebar to Wikipedia:Tools 2) A link to Answers.com in WP:TOOLS 3) A version of 1-click software, where the user can click anywhere and it will link to a Wikipedia article content under Answers.com. Is this correct? Also, people are mentioned this as advertising. I'm under the impression that the agreement states that the only thing different actually on Wikipedia would be the new link on the sidebar and the prominent link to answers.com on Wikipedia:Tools. Is my impression correct? If so, does that mean that a normal article page would be unaffected, except by the new link in the sidebar? Thanks a lot for the clarifications. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. The only link to this would be on the Wikipedia:Tools page, not on any article or any other page. Point 3 isn't entirely correct; people with this software enabled can alt-click anywhere and get to a version of answers.com that has the Wikipedia article first (their current site tends to list Wikipedia at the bottom). Angela. 04:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are people saying that this Tools page link is contractually mandated and people saying that it is not (most notably Jimbo, unless I misread him.) Just to clarify, the link does NOT have to be there? 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what Jimbo told me. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Wikipedia:Wikiproject_no_ads. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 02:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For ALL who oppose: 

message: Please don't do this. I don't really care about the actual link one way or the other, but it looks like a large number of important contributors will leave if you do this. If you want more money to enable a new project, just have more/longer fundraising drives. ~~ N (t/c) 02:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An impassioned plea 

message: I will withdraw all and any support for the Wikipedia if this satanic project continues. It is unnecessary and evil and I will not give it the time of day.
--Fred 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan 

message: I wonder if this will also tardy the reputation of the Wikipedia project as a whole, this will be at the least implying that the project supports this search software, which violates the strict NPOV basis that this wonderful encycopledia was built upon. --TagarSpinebreak 20:28, 23 October 2005 (Pacific time)
Has the WikiVatican started selling indulgences? I don't like where this is going... Youngamerican 03:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical issues 

message: Making a profit using Wikipedia content is exactly the freedom you grant others by releasing contributions under the GFDL — read this essay. Answers.com is already doing this.
What I regret is that this application is not free/open source software. If it only generates revenues using Google ads, why not? This wouldn't put Wikipedia in the dubious position of endorsing proprietary software.
Another benefit of having this tool as free/open source software would be that WikiMedia could continue a 1-Click Something if Answers.com would decide to pull out of this. squell 03:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point there, ... If it's an actually useful tool it should be something free. I am willing and able to fund the creation of a similar tool, GPLed and cross platform, if there really is interest. The biggest problem would be the information feed: Wikipedia itself isn't fast enough currently for this sort of application, it would have to use mirrors. --Gmaxwell 03:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea, but missed opportunity 

message: I personally don't really care about Wikipedia's ideological purity. I'm here first and foremost to work on an encyclopedia, not participate in some idealistic experiment. In my view if something improves the encyclopedia it should be done, even if it runs counter to anti-commercialism, open source, or the "wiki way". If the board feels extra avenues of funding are needed, I'm quite prepared to believe them. To me it is pretty obvious that Wikipedia needs a fair amount of money to operate, and that Wikimedia can't forever be such a makeshift operation. That said losing half the community, wouldn't help the encyclopedia, so I hope the board carefully considers this decision. - SimonP 03:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it improve the encyclopedia? 

message: If Answers.com wants to develop a piece of propriety software designed to search Wikipedia that its customers can download, fine; if it's truly a useful piece of software, presumably the community editors will at some point list it on Wikipedia:Tools, along with all the other items there. What I don't like is the "charter placement" being accorded here; if I (or any other editor) happen to reorganize the page in a way that diminishes that pride of placement, will we be reverted on the basis of this agreement? If so that sounds like a bad precedent for cessation of editorial control. The efforts of viral marketers to circumvent the fact that Wikipedia is not a repository of external links are surely enough of an issue as it is; I'm not clear why we would want to send mixed messages by implying that a partnership with the foundation might be one way to circumvent the normal community vetting process in order to secure link placement.
Finally, if the Board is going to defer to the secrecy concerns of a third party in negotiating an proposal as contentious as this before springing it on the community, I would hope that they would impress upon that party the proposed nature of the plan, pending the Wikipedia community's agreement. As other people have indicated, Answers.com's press release pretty strongly implies that this is a done deal.
— MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip —  08:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts 

message: #The deal is not finalized. Nothing is "struck" or required.
#Nobody is forced to use the software.
#There are no ads/adware/spyware in the software.
#*Yet.Geni 11:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to F.A.Q.

message: Thanks for the clarification, Angela (somewhere way above this post). I just wanted to let all the board members, such as Angela and Anthere, and Jimbo, know that I have full confidence in all of you and will support (and have supported) whatever decision you'll make (and have made). All of you have long since earned my trust and highest respect, and I'm sure that whatever decision the Board and Jimbo make will be for the betterment of Wikipedia. You all have been sounding frustrated over the past few days, and I just wanted to remind you that your efforts are greatly appreciated here. I'm sure that all of the community shares my view as well, especially since most of the board is comprised of unpaid volunteers. I'll stand by the board and support whatever choices they make. Regards, Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  21:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.--Sean Black Talk 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The infamous: me too --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I appreciate your comments. Angela. 08:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts 

message: While I believe that everyone involved was and is acting in good faith, both the Wikimedia Foundation Board and Answers.com have lost so much credbility in the process of announcing this deal that it should be dropped for at least 6 months. This will give both the Board and Answers.com time to restore their credibility with the community.
The fundamental offense was the implication that the Board would dictate the content of an editable page.  The original posting stated "to add a link in the sidebar of the English Wikipedia to the Wikipedia:Tools page. That page will highlight the "1-Click Answers, Wikipedia Edition" software." and "The Board have signed up to a 60-day trial of this".  Answers.com's press release repeats these illegitimate and incorrect claims: "Wikipedia will create a Tools page on its English-language site to promote useful tools that access Wikipedia, and 1-Click Answers, Wikipedia Edition, will receive charter placement on that page."
While the Board now says they will not enforce the content of any pages, even implying that they would (as they clearly did above), is deeply damaging to the their credibility.  The Board should not make any promises regarding the content or format of editable pages without first contacting the community.  The community - i.e. anyone who wants to edit a page and does not behave badly - is the sole and only arbitrator of all editable pages.  This control applies not only the factual content of article pages, but the content and formatting of any editable page, including Wikipedia:Tools.  JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of credibility 

message: I think a lot of this is caused by poor communication, so I'm going to try and summarize in an accessible way. I posted this at the no ads page but thought it should go here also.
Anwers.com is going to make a product that will use wikipedia information, and would like to brand it with the wikipedia 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 21:48, 24 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 06:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "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." - JesseW, this line is so far from reality that I'm afraid I have to ask you to go back and carefully read what is happening rather than jumping to conclusions.  There will be no "link to a commercial web site on every Wikipedia page", direct or indirect.  --Jimbo Wales 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment was mine, not JesseW’s. It is evident to me that proposing that: "It is my intention that we will link to the tools page from the sidebar, and that the tools page itself will prominently and appropriately link to the Answers.com tool. What I propose is that we lead off with a section of tools that bring revenue to the foundation, and then have a list of tools which do not bring revenue to the foundation." (Jimbo Wales) is, in effect, putting an indirect link to a commercial web site on every Wikipedia page and covert (or overt?) advertising for Answers.com. In any case, we can agree to disagree on the interpretation and meaning; I don’t want to get into a “Yes it is!” — “No it isn’t” argument. You can have the last word on that, if you choose. ;-)  More importantly, a response to my question as to whether the board is prepared to can or postpone the deal pending development of a policy would be appreciated. Not that I expect an immediate response, as that is something that the Board needs to discuss first and you may not want to respond before consulting your fellow board member and examine the implications of what you have already agreed to with Answers.com. -- Luigizanasi 23:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: I'm terribly confused about point 8 in the FAQ ("... this will stop Wikimedia from receiving additional funds.").  Does this mean (as some people seem to be suggesting) that the agreement is cancelled if the link is removed (in that case, what happens if it is removed and later added back)?  Or, alternately, is this merely a statement of fact (no link → nobody using the software → no ad revenue → no money for Wikimedia)?  The second option seems much less like an advertising deal and much more like an obvious consequence of the way the tool works. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this point: Or, alternately, is this merely a statement of fact (no link → nobody using the software → no ad revenue → no money for Wikimedia)? - no-one has to use the software if they don't want. You can easily go to www.answers.com, enter your search query, and you'll still see Wikipedia content depending on the choice of enquiry. The software allows one to alt-click any word/phrase in any application without first visiting the site. The program being discussed here will be a modified version allowing Wikipedia content to be uppermost instead at the bottom of the page as is now. That seems to be the only difference, but as I said previously, one does not need to download the software if they don't want to. -TonyW 00:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  I was actually referring to the fact that, unless Answers.com goes out of its way to advertise the modified version on its own, the only way anyone would know of its existence (and therefore be in a position to use it) would be through links from us. Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy has said that the agreement is not "struck" yet, so it's too soon to know what the situation would be regarding payment if the link was removed. Personally, I would expect that if people are finding the Wikipedia edition of 1-click elsewhere, then we would still get revenue from that, but I don't know if that would be the case. It's not something that has been discussed with the Answers Corporation as far as I know. Angela. 08:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have spoken with Bob to make sure that his understanding is the same as mine.  If for some deranged reason (and yes, I would regard this as deranged and therefore unlikely in the extreme) the community decided that it's perfectly fine to have links to proprietary software on the tools page, so long as the companies which make it do not give anything back to the community, and to boycott the one ethical reuser of our work as a punishment for the offense of giving us money, then we would still get revenue, although the amount of the revenue would of course naturally be quite small since we would be refusing to tell anyone about the possibility.  Frankly, in such a situation, I would be so ashamed of our behavior that I would likely terminate the agreement with an apology to them for our irrationality. :-) --Jimbo Wales 12:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on payment for link 

message: Suppose a software company declared outright that if Wikipedia had an article on their software they would donate some substantial amount of money to the foundation.  Suppose that company was borderline notable but most people agree they would probably have kept an article on Wikipedia with or without the pledge.  Should we accept the money?  Should we take down their article?  If community consensus decided to leave the page up, would you leave the project?
I ask because I take this situation to be analogous.  As I understand the circumstance, we are still in control of WP:TOOLS like we always were.  If we decide to remove the 1-Click software from there, we can.  We would be sacrificing donations to the foundation, but we are still in control.  I take the 1-Click software to be borderline for inclusion on WP:TOOLS, but it likely would have been listed there without this deal and probably left up.
I'm not trying to pass judgment on anyone who chooses any answer to the above questions.  I'm just suggesting this as an alternative situation which might not be so charged and might help people think about the issue with a little less emotion. --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a very different scenario to me. Linking a tool on a tools page isn't the same as keeping or deleting an article and allowing money to influence the actual encyclopedia content in a negative way. Personally, I would not want Wikimedia to accept money to keep or delete an article. Angela. 09:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking a tool on a tools page, as I understand it, is not the issue. If I'm not mistaken, this plan includes a) highlighting the relatively obscure tools page on the sidebar precisely because of the Answers link, and b) giving them a particularly visible space on that page. Am I mistaken? Ambi 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the link is useful regardless of Answers.com, but the proposal from them is obviously what made me realise that, so yes, it's likely the link would not have been proposed right now without this, though it may well have been proposed in future for unrelated reasons. If you see my answer above to the question about "charter placement" (#Late to the discussion and wanting clarification...), you'll see I never expected any special placement for this link, but that may have been because I misunderstood the word charter. Angela. 11:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "... we are still in control of WP:TOOLS like we always were. If we decide to remove the 1-Click software from there, we can. We would be sacrificing donations to the foundation, but we are still in control." - False.  This is not an advertising deal.  I don't know how many times, nor in how many ways I can say that.--Jimbo Wales 12:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo - sorry I was misled by the old FAQ.  I thought it was written by someone in the know about the deal.  If we get the money either way, I can't imagine what the problem is.  P.S.  Let me say, I understand how frustrating this must be for you. I really appreciate your time going through the comments and keeping your head about you.  I applaud your efforts!  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question for the community 

message: I use 1-Click_Answers quite a time by installing the software on my PC and I hav e only to make a mouse click on a word I like to know. So it is not nessecary at all to make a link in the Wikipedia and I will strongly suggest not to do so. Rasbak 19:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... How does your second statement follow from your first? ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Availability of the tool

message: There used to be that there were "no ads in Wikipedia" now there will be one. I have always contributed knowing full well that private companies can take advantage of my work and make money of it due to the GFDL. But they couldn't profit from Wikipedia and the wiki spirit, now they will. Answers.com will get to name their product "1-Click answers, Wikipedia edition" I don't know how much money the Wikimedia foundation gets, but I know that the Wikipedia trademark is likely valued at hundreds of millions of dollars and that thousands of companies would want to use it. That is damaging the wiki spirit and the Wikipedia concept. The new decree, that there now may be payed for content within Wikipedia, is destroying its integrity. 
I'm also disappointed with answers.com being an Israeli company as Tfine80 stated above. This does not sit well with me. I personally believe doing business with Israel currently is unethical because you are indirectly funding a harsh military occuption. That's why I avoid buying oranges, tomatoes, hygiene products or other Israeli merchandise when shopping. With this deal, my contributions will support something I 100% oppose. It is unacceptable. All these reasons makes it so that for me, if Wikipedia goes through with the deal, it has lost all spiritual, ethical and moral values it previously had. I will leave and many others with me I suspect. Eric B. and Rakim 02:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis that taken to it's logical conclusion (the US is a major donor to israel) you would be unable to contribute the wikipedia I don't think objecting to the companies country of orogin makes much sense.Geni 04:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extremely disappointing

message: Now that it's been established that the community is free to not link or link the browser, and that the company will give Wikimedia the funds regardless of whether the link is anywhere on Wikipedia, should we have a separate vote, or, more sensibly, a showing of consensus, solely for allowing them to use the Wikipedia trademark in the browser, for the reason that some people disagree with that aspect of the deal, for reasons described above? I'd say no on the trademark issue. Toothpaste 12:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Whether or not this goes through, WP:TOOLS would still be useful in the sidebar.  Help frame the theoretical answers.com link by cleaning up and building WP:TOOLS. (trust me, it needs it)  ∴ here…♠ 06:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up [[WP:TOOLS]]