Wikipedia talk:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements

message: This topic has been raised again in the Strategy discussion, Sept 2009. See strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funding_Ideas and strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Users_Can_Choose_to_Take_Advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.212.125 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 25 September 2009 
:See strategy:Category:Proposals on funding through advertising. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy discussion, Sept 2009 

message: How about putting links to buy a book on Amazon on all the book pages, Amazon pays for every person you send to the site, and if someone's reading about a book then there's a high chance they want to buy the book.  Discuss. Mark Swingle I (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon links 

message: Listed here because I've had no response at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) --Pretty Green (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see meta:Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback/Archive_2#Craigslist advert --Timeshifter (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Craigslist]] advert

message: If adverts start showing up everywhere on Wikipedia, you can kiss this user goodbye. Savie Kumara (and Nini Kastoa) 05:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodbye! <smooch> Tisane (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am against advertisement on Wikipedia. 

message: Advertising is already on Wikipedia, and here's an example. If the employees of these companies didn't make that article that way, then someone else did their work for them.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Too late?

message: Is the need for an integrated watchlist really a legitimate justification for advertising? It seems to me that, while implementing this capability will probably be a pain in the neck, it shouldn't take a truly massive amount of resources. Tisane (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Developers are needed. More money to hire them. There are many features awaiting developer time. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be better to state that more general need? I'm not sure the multi-wiki watchlist is even something the paid developers are all that interested in, judging by their lack of comments at bug 3525. It may have to be fixed by volunteers. Tisane (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of interest. Look at all the duplicate bugs. There just aren't enough developers. One of the paid Wikia staff told me that the number of paid technical staff is not enough due to budget constraints. See also the many discussions linked from WP:Integrated watchlists. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-wiki watchlist 

message: All right, since the pledge drives are becoming more obtrusive than advertising would be, it's obvious Wikipedia needs ads.
What you could do is mark some articles as part of the "expanded" Wikipedia. This would basically be for minor pop culture articles. For example, a popular episode of The Simpsons would qualify for the core Wikipedia, but articles less culture-impacting would be part of the expanded Wikipedia instead. Any article on a heavy subject would automatically be part of the core Wikipedia no matter how obscure (for example, ANY article regarding ANY war).
How do you draw that line? Same arbitrary way administrators draw the line at what deserves an article at all (I believe it's formally known as "user consensus").
After a reasonable number of articles are marked, Expanded Wikipedia articles start running ads, while core wikipedia articles are left untouched. I think this would be much better than the current system of having a half-screen ad on every page 
The only fear is that advertisers would have some control over their articles. Well, since anyone can edit a page, that would only be true if you had corrupt administrators.
Actually, it looks like the framework is up for this already. Perhaps "low-importance articles" would be a good target for ads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Low-importance_articles
--Headcase (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just revising the NPOV policy slightly? Instead of taking a strictly neutral point of view, articles could be biased a little bit towards organizations that give Wikipedia money! Naturally, to maintain the overall lack of bias and encourage donations, organizations that don't give money could have there articles skewed slightly negative. --Ashenai (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia Expanded" 

message: I found this page by a link on a news site, and had an idea of non-advertising method for raising funds, but this page is all about ads. Where is the discussion page about all funding methods?
Any way, my idea is to make an IPhone/Android app that will help search Wwikipedia. It will cost the user around $1. It is also possible to make such a Chrome App (again, will cost the user around $1). There are some free such apps, so these apps need to have some special features in them, perhaps features based on closed API.
Just a thought.
Itai.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.146.149 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Village Pump --Timeshifter (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the discussion about other funding options for Wikipedia? (+Idea) 

message: Why cant you have a very small ad. This would be more than enough to pay for whats needed and the extra money could go to different charities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.230.110 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a small ad would probably be enough to pay for the current yearly budget and more. If the ad only showed up on pages viewed by users who approve of ads, then I think it would work out fine. No pain for anybody since no offense to those who dislike ads. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me. What ever happened to non-profit?GTAjaxoxo 07:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Money goes to Charity 

message: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors
Scroll down to Sustaining Corporate Donors section. Those are just plain text-link ads. Linking to things like online casinos, herpes doctors, coupon sites with optimized anchor text to help manipulate Google rankings. I contend that these are in fact ads. 99% of the websites linked there only donated to Wikimedia to get that link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daamsie (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the benefactor backlinks be considered as advertising?  

message: Wikiversity, Wikinews, and more. See this discussion commented on by Jimbo Wales and others:
*Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 4#Need semi-for-profit Wikiversity-like organizations as Benefit Corporations under Wikimedia Foundation control. 
See also: Benefit Corporation and Social Enterprise. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiversity, Wikinews, etc. as Benefit Corporations, or other semi-for-profit organizations 

message: I know that Wikipedia currently doesn't use ads, but I'm just curious: have any companies ever approached us with an offer? In that case, do we just turn them down? --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  company offers? 

message: When I browse Wikipedia, I newly see a large number of green double-underline intellitext ads on some pages.  All the research I've done says that these ads are placed server-side by the website displaying the ads, but I don't see anything in the article-edit text, and this page still says wikipedia doesn't use ads.  Is this something I've picked up, or is it possible that some pages are showing this now?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.27.59 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at the pages from a different computer. Leave some links here too. I am fairly sure I will not be seeing the Intellitext links from my PC. You might want to run a full scan with Microsoft Security Essentials. It is free. If all else fails you might need to reinstall your system software. Anybody can copy Wikipedia pages, and put ads on them. I am assuming that the URLs of the pages you are talking about are Wikipedia URLs. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellitext 

message: 1) The against adverts section appears before the arguments in favour of adverts. It is the case that being in favour of adverts is the change that is being argued for here and that the consequences of this difference to the status-quo needs to be understood before they are criticized ( we know the status quo and don't know the changed version and must understand that through the arguments for it which also explain what it might be like and how it could work before understanding the criticisms of it) and therefore it is those arguments and that section which ought to be made and heard before their criticisms are given. I feel that this would be the neutral and logic structure for this article to take.   
Doing it in alphabetical order with "against" being before "for" is arbitrary depending on the terms used which are used and is at the discretion of the authors of the article. I could think of terms such as "opposing arguments" which would change that order if you see what i mean. It is not usually the case on Wikipedia that this alphabetic ordering is used to decide section order. 
2) Poor construction of the for adverts section without the numbering, use of bold and concise arguments. It is just one big bunch of paragraphs (frankly its a mess) and will therefore get read less frequently. 
This article seems quite biased against adverts to anybody reading it I am sure and should be made more neutral. I am sure that this 
is difficult with very strong feelings both ways on this topic. It does feel like one one of Wikipedias more biased articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.202.41 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't an article so Neutral point of view does not apply. This is a page in Wikipedia space where those who support and oppose the case for advertising have summed up their arguments, if you support the case for advertising and want to rewrite that section then boldly go do so - one tack would be to try and include a rebuttal for each of the major arguments against advertising. I'm tempted to add that the depth and quality of the case against is symptomatic of one of the arguments against advertising, a large proportion of the community care deeply about this issue and even if you think we are wrong it makes sense to ask yourself "are the other advantages of advertising so great that you can afford to lose a large part of the community?". ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   bias against adverts  

message: Wikipedia Zero has some banners on the bottom of the page and to test that it is caused by no malware I tested with a few online services that takes snapsots of the pages current status. Here is an example:
Mavromatis (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Zero Ads 

message: If you look at websites like youtube, their content policies say:
"You'll find examples of content not suitable for ads, and will result in a "limited or no ads" monetization state. 
Here are all the main topics that are not advertiser-friendly:
    Inappropriate language
    Violence
    Adult content
    Harmful or dangerous acts
    Hateful content
    Incendiary and demeaning
	
    Recreational drugs and drug-related content
    Tobacco-related content
    Firearms-related content
    Controversial issues and sensitive events
    Adult themes in family content
"
If wikipedia allowed ads, wikipedia might eventually adopt a similar policy which would, in the long run, eventually result in wikipedia removing/censoring certain articles to appease advertisers - much like how youtube seemingly does this.
My 2c--Disoff (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose to ads 

message: wiki had ads for “give money” and donation… many ads already and this makes no sense!!! Buttfractal (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki has a lot of ads