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)

[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)

Some Wikipedians have formed a project to petition against ads on Wikipedia. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.

For more information on WikiProjects, please see anyone who gives a crap Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices.

WikiProject on No Ads

Wikipedia is an amazing project by any measure. It has brought together millions of people around the world of all nationalities and creeds to work toward a single goal. But its foundation is fragile. We believe that Wikipedia's neutrality and strictly non-commercial philosophy--existing as it does in a sea of commercialism on the Internet-—have underpinned the passion of its contributors. People have voluntarily created millions of dollars' worth of content; while this amount is difficult to quantify, it dwarfs the cash costs of maintaining the servers. While the GFDL license permits use according to certain terms by third-parties, to motivate the project's work there also is a need for a neutral repository altogether clear of commercial advertising. Third parties who have already earned substantial sums from Wikipedia content should be willing to donate without any quid pro quo. Other corporate sponsors should be willing to donate without expecting that Wikimedia will create the equivalent of advertisments for their brands.

The Wikimedia Foundation has made a series of actions which threaten its neutral and noncommercial reputation:

• During the most recent fundraising round, corporate logos were installed at the top of every Wikimedia page as part of a "matched donations" program.
• Wikimedia signed an agreement with Answers.com to install a privileged link to commercial software on the Wikipedia:Tools page.
• Some users see that Wikipedia and its reputation are increasingly used, directly and indirectly, to support the growth of the for-profit start-up company, Wikia.

While there may be no clear bright-line as to what constitutes an "advertisement," contractually agreeing to alter a Wikipedia page offends the core values of the Wikipedia project. The Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation press release states it has been established the link "will receive charter placement" and it is hard to imagine this would have been agreed without any money involved. The agreement may also set a precedent that could eventually lead to more overt forms of advertising.

The undersigned members promise:

1. to withhold contributions to Wikipedia if the Answers.com 1-Click Trial takes place as originally described in the press release and as long as what we consider to be advertisements continue.
2. to insist the Wikimedia board conduct its operations more openly in the future.

Some participants and associates may be willing to change their stance if more specific information about the deal and Wikipedia's future licensing policy is provided by the Wikimedia board.

Participants

Sign your name here if you promise to adhere to the above:

1. firefoxman (talk · contribs)
2. Alan.ca (talk · contribs) - Ads are designed to mislead, as such, they conflict with the principles of wikipedia.
3. Leon (talk · contribs) - Yay, no Ads!
4. Adamshappy (talk · contribs) - No to ads!!
5. AlbertR (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia has been sold out.
6. Bk0 (talk · contribs) - 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.
7. CAPS LOCK (talk · contribs) - 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.
8. codergeek42 (talk · contribs) - Cmon Wikipedians. We cannot let this happen!
9. Cool Cat (talk · contribs)
10. Corporal Punishment (talk · contribs) I will fight to the death against advertisements. Whoever came up with this PATHETIC IDEA should be blocked for a thousand years.
11. Daykart (talk · contribs) - No Ads! * This message sposored by the No Ads On Wikipedia Coalition.
12. Depakote (talk · contribs) - 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.
13. Dr.alf (talk · contribs)
14. Eagleamn (talk · contribs)
15. Eequor (talk · contribs) - Ads are a terrible, terrible idea. How could they ever be compatible with NPOV?
16. Eric B. and Rakim (talk · contribs) - 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.
17. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (talk · contribs)
18. Evilphoenix (talk · contribs)
19. FluteyFlakes88 (talk · contribs) - 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.
20. Intimidated (talk · contribs) - I'd rather pay for access than be shown adverts
21. J'raxis (talk · contribs) - 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?
22. Joseph Solis in Australia (talk · contribs) - I am strongly opposed the advertisement in Wikipedia because I want that the Wikipedia will not became a commercial website.'
23. KingTT (talk · contribs) - Answers.com is crud!
24. Kinneyboy90 (talk · contribs) - Ads are a hassle, and Wikipedia has too much of a reputation to sell out! This is not another Google AdSense puppet!
25. Kmf164 (talk · contribs)
26. Kntrabssi (talk · contribs) - 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!
27. Luigizanasi (talk · contribs) - See my comments at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject no ads#Summary
28. Marudubshinki (talk · contribs) - Absolutely not! I will seriously look into retracting my contributions where possible if this goes through/continues.
29. Maxim Razin (talk · contribs) - There are less annoying ways to make money
30. Messedrocker (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia + Ads = 666
31. Oblivious (talk · contribs) - I am in!
32. Osmodiar (talk · contribs)
33. Prashanthns (talk · contribs)
34. Purplefeltangel (talk · contribs) (This user has left wikipedia Prodego ^talk 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
35. quercus robur (Just found this and I'm shocked at the suggestion. Advertsing on wikipedia becomes acceptable on the same day that editors get paid for their contributions. And I would expect this to be the going rate for anyone else that writes for a professoional encyclopedia)
36. Rebug (talk · contribs)
37. Rob T Firefly (talk · contribs)
38. Sarge Baldy (talk · contribs)
39. SFGiants (talk · contribs)
40. Tfine80 (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia is a very fragile project and needs to stay spotlessly independent. This is a recipe for disaster. Wikipedia is at a critical crossroads and if this sad threat has to be made, so be it.
41. Tomnason1010 (talk · contribs)
42. Toothpaste (talk · contribs)
43. Vidarlo (talk · contribs)
44. Vilerage (talk · contribs) Wikipedia does not need ads!
45. Voice of All(MTG) (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia cannot lose its soul! But I am too addicted to leave
46. White Wolf (talk · contribs) Wikipedia doesn't need ads, and should be free of them.
47. WikiFanatic (talk · contribs)
48. Zondor (talk · contribs) - Selling out is not a good thing.'
49. Rogue 9 (talk · contribs) Ads shmads, why are we putting closed source software on what's supposedly an open source project? I'm in.
50. gunman47 (talk · contribs) - I feel ads on Wikipedia would be irritating and would make Wikipedia not so attractive anymore, and I believe that there are better ways of getting money.
51. Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs)
52. Cynical (talk · contribs) Might just be me, but I'm sure that my title bar says 'Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' - not 'Wikipedia, the ad-prostituted encyclopedia'
53. zachjones4 (talk · contribs)
54. Michkalas (talk · contribs)- No ads; or else why participate?
55. Gnangarra (talk · contribs) - one cannot be expected to release copyright under GDFL then have have it sold to another party for profit
56. Spaceman85 (talk · contribs) - Ads are a disgusting defacement of any web site.
57. nhoj1991 (talk · contribs) - NO-ADS
58. Worldmaster0 (talk · contribs) - This site is too big and important to stoop to ads.
59. Infinity0 (talk · contribs) - Open source, not source of profit.
60. Kinneyboy90 (talk · contribs) - I hate obtrusive ads.
61. Colle (talk · contribs) - If someone is making money off this place, it better be me
62. DrIdiot (talk · contribs)
63. Bertilvidet (talk · contribs) I am sharing knowledge here for the world community, not for the profit of some investors!
64. Mitsukai (talk · contribs) - As someone who could stand to benefit from "advertising" on Wikipedia, I vehemently choose not to. When in a role as a Wikieditor, I have to do what's best for WP, and I expect others - the board included - to do the same.
65. TJDay (talk · contribs)
66. Urthogie (talk · contribs)
67. Orannis (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia is a wonderful place full of endless stores of knowledge that can be given to you in any way possible. Of the foul things that plague it, Wikipedia has managed to avoid annoying advertisements. If commercials became commonplace in Wikipedia, it be lowered from the rank of "Best Web Site that Could Ever Exist" to "Oh, Come On, You Could Do Better Than That."
68. Trident13 (talk · contribs) - I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia - not Yellow Pages! Let us bring and debate the facts, not get confused and disintegrated by the SPIN
69. Actown (talk · contribs) - Ads are lame and slow some sites down. Wikipedia is to good for ads.
70. Kitsumiti (talk · contribs)
71. Emmett5 (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia must not permit itself to open up to advirtisement. As much as I hate the idea of leaving Wikipedia, I'm afraid I'll have to leave if ads appear. Ads are very annoying to the public and therefore should be banned.
72. IntrigueBlue (talk · contribs) - While I understand that Wikipedia may be in dire need of cash, ads are not the way to go. Try a donate now link and see how much you raise, and how fast.
73. Chili14 (talk · contribs)
74. SandBoxer (talk · contribs)
75. Scienceman123 (talk · contribs) - Ads are unacceptable on a project such as Wikipedia. No compromises!
76. Tony1 (talk · contribs)—Our lives are becoming increasingly dominated by commercial push. Advertising typically involves an element of deception. The under-regulation of advertising worldwide has a cheapening effect on the quality of our lives. Wikipedia is one of the few escapes from it.
77. L33th4x0r (talk · contribs) - NO ADS!!! PERIOD!!!
78. Shanequinlan01 (talk · contribs) - We must not allow a channel of pure knowledge and wisdom to become tainted with the virus of commercialism.
79. Alexf (talk · contribs) - If I wanted ads I'd be watching TV instead. Seriously, ads compromise integrity and NPOV.
80. Gwern (talk · contribs)
81. Dylan Lake (talk · contribs)
82. Good friend100 (talk · contribs) - Definitely no ads. Theres so much irony and hyprocricy when Wikipedia has ads in it. Good friend100 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
83. Michaelas10 (talk · contribs)} - Wikipedia can' posstbly turn out to be like YouTube.
84. ChaosR (talk · contribs) - The great free, but cash generating with ads, Wikipedia, err... I hope I will never have to see something like that
85. Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) - I object to any form of ads on Wikipedia. Any form of agreement with a corporate interest would be totally contrary to maintaining a neutral position and would reflect a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's volunteers did not build this site to bring in ad revenue.
86. weirdoactor (talk · contribs) - Agreed!
87. PoorLeno (talk · contribs) - Everyone's a sell-out these days. Wikipedia is too great to be in control of few financially motivated people. The idea wasn't that good. The content was created by the community for no profit use. The constant whine that the servers are too pricy, despite frequent community donations and this latest sellout make me say - No, thank you. Wikipedia should become a world organization with no "one" in charge.
88. Samuel 69105 (talk · contribs) - R5-1a (that's a wrong way sign)!!!!! I have forks in my kitchen, and I'm willing to use them! This is worse then Houston, Texas, Atlantic Yards, the rents in Honolulu, Microsoft Windows, the congestion on H-1, the Cuyahoga River, and the Trans-Texas Corridor! Who in their right mind would let this happen? Wikipedia was never hosted on Geocities, and shouldn't look like that! There IS such a thing as cheap servers! The first words that came to my mind when I read this were along the lines of sell-out and boondoggle.
89. algebra man (talk · contribs) - Down with ads!
90. MikeLeeds (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia is only what it is becouse of the lack of advertising and commercialism.
91. Sparkiplasma (talk · contribs) - If Wikipedia starts selling ads, it begins the slippery slope to commercailism and pay-to-play service, robbing it of its greatest asset and its defining quality: its freedom! We will fight this nonsense until it dies!
92. Hamedog (talk · contribs) - What is the deal with Virgin Unite? I am leaving because of that.
93. AxelBoldt (talk · contribs) - See my statement against ads in Wikipedia.

Associates

Sign your name here if you do not adhere to the above but would still like to be associated with the project:

1. Asher Heimermann 01:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC) - I support this project, but I can not help at this time. Go Wikipedia!
2. 131.111.8.101 (talk · contribs) - I'll try and contribute what I can to any no-ads wikipedia. As far as boycotting goes, wouldn't the most effective method be to keep reading but not edit articles?
3. Adbabypenguin (talk · contribs) - It's very sad. Wikipedia resorting to ads..what next? The premium version?
4. Airline (talk · contribs) - Let's turn Wikipedia into a for-profit, paid encyclopedia! Ads everywhere! Programs using wikipedia for profit and giving some back to wikipedia! Seriously though, I don't know if a boycott is the best idea: there are always more folks to replace you.
5. Alphax (talk · contribs)
6. Zorkmid (talk · contribs) - I've always seen Wikipeida as the site that doesn't adhere what a website necisarilly has to be. If Wikipedia needs money, start a fundraiser. Don't sell out, Wikipedia.
7. Aranda56 (talk · contribs) - Depending if Pop-Ups are included I will go to the oppose group
8. Audacity (talk · contribs)
9. Canderson7 (talk · contribs) - I do not believe that the Foundation should ever use as a source of revenue advertisements placed alongside Wikipedia content, whether they are located on this site or elsewhere. Nor should it agree to alter this site in any way as part of an agreement with another corporation.
10. Colin Hill (talk · contribs) - It's sad that the board would even want to do this. Wikipedia should not contain ads, of any kind, ever.
11. Cyberjunkie (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia to me is like Aunty to Australians: if ads were ever allowed, there'd be a coup d'etat.
12. DarthBinky (talk · contribs)
13. Delirium (talk · contribs)
14. *drew (talk · contribs) - I hate ads, but boycotting Wikipedia will only do more harm.
15. Eric Shalov (talk · contribs) - The world is watching. If nothing else, this scandal has revealed serious flaws in the very non-democratic, non-consensus-based way the Board works. Ready to fork.
16. EWS23 (talk · contribs) - I'm opposed to almost any policy that causes people to leave Wikipedia en masse (with one exception being the policy against vandalism). I think Wikipedia should be free from advertising; if money is currently an issue, then I'd sooner support a more prominent "donate to the Wikipedia project" link, or a Wikipedia merchandise link. That being said, I don't know where I stand on this answers.com thing. I think some people are overreacting a bit, but I understand the concerns, which is why I'm signing my name here. I hope everything turns out for the best and that we don't lose any contributors. As for me, as long as I believe in the project, I will continue to be here.
17. FrancisTyers (talk · contribs) - I support the aims and may partake of ad-disruption.
18. I.M. Rich (talk · contribs)
19. Karmafist (talk · contribs) - I oppose ads on Wikimedia run sites, but as long as the ads stay off Wikimedia run sites, i'm fine.(see talk page)
20. Merovingian (talk · contribs) - I'd like to take a step back. It seems that I've forgotten the intentions of the Wikimedia Foundation, and I'd like to apologize for my anger. I still oppose ads, but I don't think I should leave.
21. Metasquares (talk · contribs) - I may not totally boycott Wikipedia, as I feel that I have certain duties as a member of the AMA.
22. Michaelgabrielsen (talk · contribs) - Ads are a joke. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, even though an fairly unorthodox one. Completely unwarranted. I'd prefer they took up Google's offer of free server space before selling us out.
23. Niallj (talk · contribs) - The wikipedia is about people working together, to show the whole of our collective knowledge. What'll come after this, creating a premium service without ads?
24. NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs) - I think this is a true travesty, this advertising idea, since it is the beginning of a slippery slope onto much worse - imagine how much easier it would be to justify a nice big "Powered by Answers.com" logo at the top of every page if they implement this plan, or (worse) more heavy link advertising elsewhere on the site, such as search integration. The future possibilities are horridly endless. I shall not leave Wikipedia, since I feel that would be to admit defeat; instead, I vow to do my best to obstruct the institution of such adverts, and would even be tempted to remove them myself if they were added.
25. NSLE (talk · contribs) - Ads? Ahhh! Will never boycott though.
26. Patman2648 (talk · contribs) The Answers deal is already done, if you go to www.answers.com and randomly type in something, it will have the wikipedia article!!!! and ads!!!! I'm angry about that because people go there instead of wikipedia and they make money off our contributions but it allows Wikipedia to make money off ads but not have ads on the site. But if wikipedia has ads on its website then I will boycott for sure, till then just angry.
27. Philwelch (talk · contribs) - I'm not against the Answers.com deal, I just think everyone who is against it should put their money where their mouth is. Pledge donations on the condition that the deal be dropped. If there's enough real support for this, then you might outbid Answers.com, making this a win-win.
28. Psora (talk · contribs) - This whole thing is horribly frightening, but I'm not going to 'take my toys and go home' (yet). I still have hope that the WMF will be swayed to sanity by all the excellent arguments against ever even flirting with the remotest possibility of advertising.
29. Randy Johnston (talk · contribs)
30. Reyk (talk · contribs)
31. Rubinstein (talk · contribs)
32. Spinboy (talk · contribs)
33. SPUI (talk · contribs) - I'd love to, but I'm too damn addicted to railcruft.
34. Sum0 (talk · contribs) - I can't make any promises, but this is a worthy cause and I fully support it. This sort of partnership just isn't what Wikipedia is about.
35. sungo (talk · contribs)
36. TagarSpinebreak (talk · contribs) - I think this is a horrid idea, and I'd love to boycott the site, but I have to use it for too many things. I therefore sign my name as an associate, in the hopes that we can stop ads from becoming a part of Wikipedia.
37. TDS (talk · contribs) - Depends on the scope of the ads.
38. Titoxd (talk · contribs) - I'm opposed to the idea of having commercial ads on-Wiki. However, I've read all the discussion, and all Wikimedia is doing is adding a link to the Wikipedia:Tools page, which might be useful in ways we haven't thought and which are completely unrelated to advertising. That doesn't seem particularily chaotic, so I'm not going to do anything crazy like boycott Wikipedia. However, I agree with the no-ad spirit, so here I am. And this suddenly became much longer than I had expected...
39. Uncke Herb (talk · contribs) - Down with the ads, but not Wikipedia.
40. whywhywhy (talk · contribs) -just keep it clean and make money other ways
41. Zocky (talk · contribs) - Will join when the text of the project is changed to have some hope of success. See talk.
42. Xaosflux (talk · contribs)
43. Bronks (talk · contribs)
44. Solidusspriggan (talk · contribs) Ads on wikipedia is a terrible idea and will only promote biased bourgeois articles. I'll only continue to contribute to counter such capitalist contributions.
45. David.Filkins (talk · contribs) - The line between propaganda/soliciting and education must be drawn somwhere. This is that place.
46. Valmi (talk · contribs)
47. OldakQuill (talk · contribs)
48. Tuohirulla (talk · contribs) If there will be ads in Wikipedia I promise to boycott English wikipedia, wikimedia commons (photos, drawings), and Wikinews. I will also not create any more interwiki links. But it's important to me to support my native language so I would still propably modify Finnish wikipedia until its bigger than Swedish wikipedia
49. Sycthos (talk · contribs) I do not want any ads on any open-content encyclopedia. The sight of them, though I have an ad blocker, seriously sickens me and all of those who do see the ad. I will not withhold my contributions if ads appear, but I will still support this project.
50. Pain (talk · contribs) I will oppose with all my strengths to any form of advertisement in a free Æncyclopedia. Enough said.
51. WhyBeNormal (talk · contribs) I am against any adverts on Wikimedia sites, but I don't think the Answers.com deal is an advertisment. People seem to be over-reacting, in my humble opinion.
52. SoM (talk · contribs)
53. Quarl (talk · contribs)
54. helohe (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
55. Mirlen (talk · contribs)
56. Besednjak (talk · contribs)
57. JK the unwise.
58. Driken 10:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
59. TonySt (talk · contribs)
60. Adrian (talk · contribs) I wouldn't walk away over introduction of advertising, but I'd have strong feelings about it.
61. - Mike Beckham I cant keep away from wikipedia for 5 seconds so leaving is not possible but ads are a big NO NO for a encyclopedia.
62. Piotrus (talk · contribs) - ads kill wiki. Nuff said.
63. nameme (talk · contribs) - how about user boxes endorsing softdrinks or fast food? Nameme 16:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Chaos Reaver (talk · contribs) No ads please... Isn't wikipedia all about the NPOV and allowing people to learn and understand through their own opinion? To those who haven't understood yet, ADS ARE PROPAGANDA! They're meant to make us buy cheesy crap that won't do us any good... and that DESTROYS the purpose of wikipedia! It would be shameful to have Wikipedia disgraced with ads...so, once again I say, NO ADS! (if ads appear, I might join boycotts. Or hire hackers. Who knows?)
65. KsprayDad (talk · contribs)...I feel that ads on the individual pages are inappropriate and may lead to inappropriate ads appearing in sensitive article areas (Like Walmart placeing Planet of the Ape ads on the Martin Luther King DVD page!!). If Wiki wants to have a 'sponsor' on their MAIN page only I would be ok with that.
66. Wizardman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia is a great site. They don't need to resort to ads to make money; it would be easy to get donations. Boycotting would hurt wikipedia just as much as ads, though.
67. Covington (talk · contribs) Ads go against what Wikipedia stands for. You can't have ads an a neutral point of view at the same time.
68. nathanrdotcom (talk · contribs) There has got to be a better way.
69. GeorgeMoney (talk · contribs) I hate ads.
70. Bur372 (talk · contribs) Infomation should be free
71. Anaconda89 (talk · contribs) Advertisements are distracting and a waste of bandwidth and page space. Wikipedia is free to use and edit, so therefore SHOULD NOT have advertisements. Advertisements suck
72. Blackmissionary (talk · contribs) I'm not for a boycott, but still stand firmly against the idea of any advertisements on wikipedia.
73. Gsingh (talk · contribs) per above
74. Kitty the Random (talk · contribs) My ex-favorite site, Neopets, drenched itself in ads - please don't become like Neopets, stay ad-free.
75. N-true (talk · contribs) A different solution has to be found!
76. Tene (talk · contribs)
77. Shinku Hisaki (talk · contribs) Boycotting is not the answer, nor is allowing the advertisements. So many great minds coming together in one place ought to find a better solution.
78. Msikma (talk · contribs) Commercialism is step number one. I do not know what step number two is, but step number three is the usage of Wikipedia as propaganda outlet, both for commercial and political purposes. That should never happen.
79. Jumping cheese (talk · contribs) Ads = Spam
80. Caleb09 (talk · contribs) I hate adds! But I like Wikipedia too much too stop contributing if this happens!
81. MrBoo (talk · contribs)
82. Saintlink (talk · contribs) - If we add advertisements it would make one question the NPOV standards of this site. As soon as you're endorsing a product or service, would this not go out the window? If we need money I suggest that we request funding from members, corporate sponsors or federal funding. I wouldn't even mind the corporate sponsors so much, as long they didn't have ads on each page. Just a nice recognition page or two might do.
83. Blouis79 (talk · contribs) - I'd prefer no ads, but I see there is a Wikipedia template for product advertising and commercial companies are using them in wikipedia articles. I deleted one and a few days later, they put it back. is there a policy preventing people from writing pages in which they have a commercial interest???
84. konako (talk · contribs) - I really don't want ads on Wikipedia. The last thing I want is Wikipedia to be full of ads and pop-ups asking you to go premium.
85. wholikespotatoes (talk · contribs)Yeah, why not.
86. Janet13 (talk · contribs)
87. Storkk -- I agree that WP should be entirely ad-free... (if only you could see my {{db}} noms), but i believe this has been blown a little out of proportion, and I will not boycott wikipedia at all unless it starts putting ads on WP itself. (23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
88. Black-Velvet -- I am completely anti-advertising. However, I will not boycott Wikipedia - I will set up a team of faithfuls and we will hack Wikipedia to pieces until they remove the advertising. 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
89. Samiilia No ads in wikipedia!!!!!!!!!
90. Paj.meister (talk · contribs) Ditto.
91. Redlock 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
92. EdBoy (talk · contribs) I would, but I can't really help. But still, ads would make Wikipedia suck. We don't want that.
93. Ed (talk · contribs)I don't like ads anywhere on Wikimedia projects--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
94. Paul August (talk · contribs) I want to see Wikipedia remain ad-free.
95. Jeroenvrp 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC) - At first I will stay on Wikipedia when there will be ads, to educate the people why we don't must have ads - at a later time I will properly boycott and join a "save the wikimedia content"-group or such.
96. Leif (talk · contribs) I think that selling brand equity at the top of the page is clearly advertising, and the repeated insistence to the contrary that I've seen today (in the FAQ and elsewhere) is a fine example of why such commercial activity here is completely unacceptable. I am extremely disappointed in the Wikimedia Foundation for taking this course of action, and I will not donate money (or significant amounts of time) again until they have acknowledged the mistake and established a clear advertising policy (something along the lines of, say, not selling any). 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
97. Denial 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) To have money, and to have contractual obligations that you cannot easily get out of, is to become a target for lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise. There are a lot of lawsuits that are currently not being pursued only because winning against the wiki is not worth anything. I'd rather see (and support) a $1.000.000 wiki that is practically invincible, than a $100.000.000 wiki that spends most of its money on lawyers and damages.
98. Fifo (talk · contribs) no ads on wikipedia!
99. Oska (talk · contribs)
100. The Giant Puffin (talk · contribs) Down to ads!

I am completely against advertising on Wikipedia including logos and branding appearing linked to large donations by corporations or trust funds.

Any donation by people or corporations should be credited simply as text on a page that has to be purposefully navigated to.

I feel advertising does the project much more harm than good. The spirit of vounteering and trust in the integrity of the project is damaged by advertising appearing (ppl feel the project has been 'cheapened') and this is far more of a minus on the balance sheet than any possible financial gain.

I think the project should grow within the limits of un-advertised donations made mostly by users of the project. Wikimedia should be wary of a spirit of ambitious over-reach that seduces them into treacherous funding arrangements.

1. To convince the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation that Wikipedia shouldn't contain ads.
2. To show the Wikimedia Foundation that the Wikipedia community wishes to be consulted before major shifts in policy are launched.
3. To use this unfortunate and disagreeable situation to prompt the community to consider how Wikipedia should finance its future expansion. While we are against advertisements on Wikipedia itself, we need to help and encourage the Board to create a presentation that can enable larger charitable donations from major foundations and endowments.

See Wikipedia:Wikiproject no ads/Projects for developmental discussion.

• {{User:Audacity/Userboxes/No ads}} - original userbox
• {{User Noads-alt}} - alternative userbox
• {{[[Template::Audacity/Userboxes/No ads-banner|:Audacity/Userboxes/No ads-banner]]}} - userpage awareness banner

VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: This user is opposed to ads on Wikipedia.

{{Advertising-section}}

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)

• I think an idea is, people should only allow ads in the event they register for them. "Ads on" shouldn't be a default either, it should be if the user wants to give money to the foundation by seeing (and hopefully clicking) ads. --Depakote 05:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ads on for anons? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "Ads off" as the default is the same as not having any ads at all. The percentage of people that will go out of their way to turn on ads will be so small as to be inconsequential. I think ads for anons is a good compromise, but I'm not opposed to ads in general ($200,000 goes mighty fast when you have to pay for as many servers and as much bandwidth as Wikipedia does) Guspaz 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Post negative (but factually verifiable) information on the pages of companies that advertise here, making it not in there interest to continue to support the project. --FluteyFlakes88 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Specifically focusing on negative things would be having a POV. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 04:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not the case. Presenting negative opinions without presenting counterbalancing opinions is have a POV, adding information regarding controversies surrounding a company or its products is full within the NPOV. --FluteyFlakes88 05:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's true. It sounded like you wanted to focus on negative things. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 19:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's okay to show ads on a very high bandwidth read-only mirror providing links to original articles. But it shouldn't be context-sensitive. MvR 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a template saying something like: "This company advertises on Wikipedia and articles related to it may be biased" should be placed on the article pages of companies that advertise here. Emmett5 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Make a page called WikiAds with lots of ads in it, for those that like advertising ;) and all profit that Wikipedia makes, goes to charity :D. ChaosR 20:50, 15 Oktober 2006 (UTC)
• Make it clear that the ad revenue will be used for charity, as in this simulated screensot. --Skrapion 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I've always thought that wikipedia.ORG could remain ad-free, while wikipedia.COM could be set up to use ads. Maybe wikipedia.COM could be read-only, while wikipedia.ORG remains the editable copy. In that way, you can generate some revenue, while still accommodating the contributors who created content under the assumption there would never be ads. Perhaps this could be a workable compromise for people?

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)

(Retracted my comment here based on proper information about the proceedings.) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

If the board can't make trivial decisions w/o the communities direct approval, what can they do? The short answer is they are here to make decisions such as this, and the did so in a proper manner. Sam Spade 23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is a 'solution' strike a 'deal' with one of the media powerhouses (yahoo or google, or microsoft) and run basically a 'seamless' mirror of wikipedia for them that is 'rebranded' and 'promoted' by they as their own 'online dictionary' which Does have ads, but is database linked to the real 'wikipedia' which remains ad free. since they use a shared database, that would avoid either one becoming 'obsolete' the only question is would it be 'worth it' for google to have a 'googlepedia' that is just an identical ad supported, database linked version of the 'ad free' wikipedia? considering that they could get googlepedia integrated into firefox/opera as a feature maybe just maybe..

The Yahoo cluster - To operate correctly, MediaWiki needs read/write access to the local database, and read-only access to the commonswiki database. To achieve this, henbane is set up as a slave from the florida master, replicating commons only.Mion 23:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Google NL Wiki:[1]
• Google EN Wiki [2]
• google ALL Wiki [3]
• Answers.com Wiki [4] (biased results). Mion 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The orginal problem:

• The entry from internet into Wiki:
• Still, in its very nature a search engine will shift results on transparency (in this case) on basis of payed contributions and a mix of Wiki entries, personal, corporate websites or other sources (which is logical).
• As a result there shall be 1 or 2 lines (or none) on the first page of the searchengine on wiki transparency. following these links you have a change of 1 in 20 or 1 in 40 (at the moment) to end up in the right article about transparency.
• See there the need for Disambiguation pages and backlinks, or in the future Wiktionary, to find the right article.
• (Next to the internal Wiki search engine, listings and Categories).
• And of course there is the own internal Wiki Search engine.

The new situation created:

• 1. Answers.com will shift results based on ADS importance and relevance to the search term.
  2. By granting the 2 major search engines, the possibility to do the same in the future, changes arise that users of these search engines won't be aware that the results might be biased.
  3. And secondly users wont be aware that by choosing another search engine, without these privileges, this problem doesn't arise.
• The assumption now is that the 2 commercially driven companies wont shift the results, let's say, assume good faith. --Mion 15:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The chosen option of mirroring the database itself is a good choice, if the results of what is going on are not in line, with Wikipedia , there is the option to stop the mirroring. The question off course, is there any control ?

• So, the question wasn't would Wikipedia contain ADS?
• It was, do we allow search engines to mix up results on a commercial basis?
• The answer could be: create an external wikisearch (engine) for Internet users. Maybe one that can be integrated in browsers.
• If every browser would contain the function Wikisearch, the problem is solved. --Mion 16:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Like: Wikimedia-Search search the realtime index for every project with suggest function

Mion 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Secondly:
There was an option about why should we turn this offer down without obligation? (for money). In January there was a donation request round, which was more than enough, to cover all the costs.
Referring to: why should we turn money down?
So: there is enough money based on the donations.
Why: is there a Win-Win situation getting money from people who donate for the pubic domain/open source and asking money from our commercial friends?

If you're complaining about biased web search, you can always use other search engines, can't you? Like ask.com and altavista.~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The combination of ultra-low overheads and massive readership would excite any media executive. And while the site does not carry any advertising, Wales admits it might. "There is a great deal of resistance to the idea, both from the community and from me. But at some point questions are going to be raised over the amount of money we are turning down," he says.

Blakely, Rhys (2005-12-30). "Identity question for world's encyclopaedia". Times Online. Times Newspapers. Retrieved 2005-12-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

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

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine (referring to the advertisements) and Category:Wikipedians against advertisements
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads and Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising
• Virgin logo on sitenotices

---

---

---

[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)

Is this really necessary? Andre (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

It's a legit tactic and a downside less harmful than some of the alturnatives.Geni 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Money isn't necessary, but without it things are difficult to pull off. Andre (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Please, look at that http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget/2005 and please avoid saying money is not necessary. Anthere 09:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's saying it isn't necessary? 19:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why would we turn down more free money with no obligations?--Jimbo Wales 05:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia obliged to provide a link to the system on the Wikipedia:Tools page? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My comments were shockingly removed the project page itself, so I'm repeating them here. Angela. 02:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We propose to boycott Wikipedia during the Answers.com 1-Click Trial and as long as these advertisements continue.

What ads? Is linking a tool in Wikipedia:Tools an advert? Are all the existing tools there adverts? Angela

There is a simple question that can resolve if this is an ad or not. Would the board have contractually agreed to link to this software if no money were involved? The other tools links can all be edited and do not promote software that will redirect the user away from Wikipedia to a for-profit mirror. Tfine80 02:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We consider advertisements to be contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia project, and feel this was sprung on us without choice or warning

There was a 3 month warning on 2 mailing lists, the village pump and the Foundation's main page. This 3 month period will be followed by a two month trial. Where is the lack of warning? Angela

The link will be on a single page, with no obligation to anyone to use the Answers.com software. Where is the lack of choice? Angela

We feel that it is a slippery slope to banner ads and external link advertisements.

No, it isn't. Strawman argument. Angela

So, going from --> no ads ---> one ad for 60 days ---> that ad being permament (after the trial period; the press release seems unclear on this point) ---> ? Certainly looks to me like enough steps to justify worries of a slippery slope. What assurances do we have that the board, having broken the precedent of no ads whatsoever will scruple at additional steps? --Maru (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We would like to remind the Board of Trustees what happened when .Es introduced advertisements to its wiki.

There were never adverts on the Spanish wiki. Angela

And why not? Oh, that's right, the editors revolted and forked. --Maru (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 02:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Spanish fork was about much more than a discussion about advertising (and it was just a discussion - there were never actually plans made to put up ads on the Spanish Wikipedia). Angela. 05:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We are also insulted and offended that the Board conducted this deal in secret without community support.

Deals with external companies will often have to be carried out in secret. This is why you elect a Board of Trustees so you can trust them to make these decisions. Angela

Hmm. No vote? No rfc? Oh yes, that's right, Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Maru (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 02:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Comments before the launch, and during the trial period are very welcome." Is that not an RFC? ~~ N (t/c) 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Therefore we, the undersigned participants, will not participate in any Wikipedia-related activities for as long as the advertisements remain on the site.

• I was the one to remove them, sorry about that. Comments inline with the scope make it hard to read so I reverted it. I left a note in the edit summary but in retrospect that was sort of dumb and it would have been better merely to post a message on your user page without actively editing the scope section. CAPS LOCK 03:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then they should rescind the ads. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 03:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

True and Fast because complete failure is coming if the boycott comes. --JAranda | watz sup 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Tough way to learn a lesson, but they have to learn it. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 03:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I got a good nickname for this Hell-On-Wheels --JAranda | watz sup 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Cooler heads are prevailing. Thank you, Redwolf. — Phil Welch 04:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Too bad, I say. I don't want to put up with Wikipedia selling out! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

No, they don't put their trademark all over Wikipedia. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Redwolf, would you be willing to sign under "Associates", to show that you don't support ads on WP?-Sean Black ^Talk 04:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed my name. I've done this based on the new information from Jimbo on Wikipedia talk:Tools/1-Click Answers at the top of the page (the FAQ), some talk page posts between him and Merovingian, and what he's said below. I utterly agree that Wikipedia should not have ads, however it is beginning to appear to me as though some heavy misinformation is essentially what we recieved, and this response is unwarranted. There was, as is now apparent, a great deal of concern and respect for the community and its feelings in the deal, and there doesn't even really seem to be any advertising. Our (the community's) support is wanted, and without it, there won't be a link on WP:TOOLS. I apologize for my quick anger and lack of faith in the Board; hopefully that's understandable under the circumstances. I urge all of you to take a good look at the FAQ on the 1-Click Answers talk page, and also to read the main page again, which has some new information. What I hope comes of this is all of us, especially myself, getting the straight facts before exploding, and a wee bit more on the assume good faith side. --Blackcap | talk 17:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Stuff

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)

• Wikipedia is one of the few major sources of information not to be commonly associated with a corporation.

Some arguments we can make:

• The deduction that the 1-click-answer deal constitutes advertising
• People have edited for years on the agreement that there will never be any ads on wikipedia.
• Increase from 0 ads to 1 ad is an infinite change. Any further ads will be much easier to justify if this trial goes through.
• We are about to sell the control of a part of our page for an unknown amount of money.
• Ads will harm Wikipedia's academic value and reputation.
• Having the appearance of a privileged association with a single firm and user of Wikipedia content may discourage other potential donors.
• There is no mechanism to measure the revenue provided by this program without relying on Answers.
• Google Ads through Answers.com have not yet proven to be an efficient business model capable of providing significant funding.
• There is a danger that Answers.com may confuse readers about the independent nature of Wikipedia through their publicity, as perhaps already seen in the press release.

Watch out for:

• Explanations that this is not advertising, but rather a creative application of some other concept.

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)

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)

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)

I think that this is a fine and noble project in spirit, but that the page as currently written contains a great deal of hysteria and misinformation. I am currently seeking permission from Bob to release more details about what Answers.com is doing, and when I do, I think you will see what I mean. (And just to be clear, there is nothing in the agreement with Answers.com which requires me to seek permission from them before releasing more details; I am merely waiting as a courtesy to them.)

There is nothing about this deal which in any way necessitates changes to anything that we are doing. Full stop. I don't know how more clear I can be. --Jimbo Wales 05:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot of hype, but that largely has to do with the way the community has come to know about this proposed partnership and the scarcity of details about it. This, of course, doesn’t excuse the rash calls for boycotts and mass departures, but it hasn’t helped. Whatever the outcome, this whole saga will be a learning curve for all involved.

Every Wikipedian has a responsibility to keep themselves informed, and this is what I hope WikiProject No Ads will assist in. Our scope should be beyond just 1-Click and our aim should be preventing commercialisation of Wikipedia now and into the future. We should examine the 1-Click deal to ensure it does not constitute commercialisation, then make our pronouncements. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of hype, certainly. The only solution I can see to that is to give some more information—as it stands, there's a lot of conflicting bits and it'd really be best to get the information straight from you to clarify things. If we're panicking, it's only because we love the project and want it to soar, and some of what we're hearing is very distressing. --Blackcap | talk 08:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is about taking money for product placement. Obviously, Answers.com could have edited the WP:TOOLS article themselves. But they aren't doing that. They want Wikipedia to do it for them, in return for money. aka, advertising. -- Colin Hill ⁄ talk ▪ 19:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The announcement didn't show any details. How the product is going to be advertised, where it will be advertised, what that page will say, etc. Is there some sort of preview of what Wikipedia will look like in January 2006? --ajdlinux 19:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is completely up to the community to decide. Wikipedia:Tools is an openly editable page. Angela. 09:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Yes, you could do that. Angela. 09:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

The right to withdraw you labour is a pretty basic one. We can't make people contribute.Geni 02:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Geni. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

karmafist Hi, I was just curious what the deal was with the 1-click idea

jwales ok

jwales what did you want to know?

jwales is at your service.

karmafist Basically why it's happening. Is Wikimedia short for cash? You've got a loyal following on there that would scrounge to raise the money

karmafist Wow, I've never heard the leader of any organization worth anything say they were "at my service", that in itself goes a long way to explain the cults that seem to pop up around you on WP

karmafist I guess

jwales *laugh*

jwales Well, first of all I think there needs to be some clarity about _what_ is happening

karmafist This is true
jwales because that hasn't been so clear to everyone
jwales First, this is *not* an advertising deal
jwales There is no pay for placement on wikipedia
jwales there is no obligation for us at all
jwales it is best considered as a trademark licensing deal
karmafist how so?
jwales how so?
jwales ask a more specific question?
karmafist yes, what trademark is being licensed?
jwales they are creating a "co-branded" version of Answers.com and their 1-Click tool
jwales to be named '1-Click Answers.com, Wikipedia edition'
karmafist The biggest thing i'm concerned with is someone will go to an article on, I don't know, say "Viagra" and then see something on the screen talking about a buying a product for penis enlargement
karmafist Ok, so it's a separate project altogether
jwales well it's nothing like that at all
jwales right
jwales there are already ads on answers.com
jwales there is already a 1-click tool
karmafist That's good, because I thought people would see that and think "How can I trust this information, if they're selling me a related product here?
karmafist ""
jwales this will just be a version that takes people to a version of answers.com with wikipedia at the top of each page
jwales well, I don't think people would think that, but anyway, that isn't what this is about at all
jwales Now, given all that, as to why it is happening...
jwales We have a very grand global vision of what we're trying to do
karmafist That is incredibly fair it seems. Do you mind if I share this conversation with others to help build some clarity?
jwales To distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet, in their own language...
karmafist And that costs money
jwales And we are very hampered at the moment by having virtually no formal organization
jwales We can't even apply for grants properly because we're not professional and organized
jwales right
jwales Even so, there are certain principles I think we should adhere to in our fundraising efforts
jwales like, not too much support from any one source
jwales to maintain our independence
karmafist So, making a for profit mirror will help the non-profit core is what you're saying?
jwales right, but we aren't making a for-profit mirror (though maybe we should)
jwales rather, answers.com, which already exists, is donating money to us *if* people use their site through this tool

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've placed a notice in the "Scope" section proposing a reconsideration. Given that much more information has come to light since that section was written, I think it is appropriate to consider whether it still applies in full. Specifically, I don't think it's necessary to make the 1-Click proposal the core of this Project, especially when our understanding of it has changed dramatically. However, I do think we should try to offer users an analysis of it from the stand-point of "no ads!". So, any suggestions for a new scope? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should wait until a few questions are answered.

1. We still not have seen the text of the agreement. Why is this not feasible?

2. We don't have a response as to why Answers.com wrote in the press release that it was agreed there would be a link with "charter placement" on the tools page. Although I also attach good faith to the Board and agree they now have clarified the situation regarding community input on the link satisfactorily, the answers on this previous question have been somewhat ambiguous and evolving.

3. We don't have a coherent list of the standards that Wikipedia will use to license its brand name in a commercial fashion in the future. Does Answers.com have some sort of special access? Why is this a wise use of the Wikipedia brand? Why is it in our interest to promote a program that will redirect readers away from the Wikipedia website to a mirrored version with ads?

4. We don't have any sort of estimate of the potential revenue stream this licensing agreement would accomplish. Although the trial may give a better idea, Answers.com must have some estimate based on their existing 1-click software and click-through rates. It seems odd to have made such a major step with absolutely no idea of the size of the potential revenue.

I'm also a bit disturbed to see that some of the board members would describe the members of this project as hysterical and rash. Regardless of whether this is now considered an advertisement or not, our hard work and the traffic we create will now be used much more directly to benefit a commercial company. Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a neutral repository of our writings if it will redirect the traffic we generate to a commercial mirror as individuals we will not profit from. This is a unique situation from the third-party uses we consent to under the GFDL. Tfine80 17:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I second all of these concerns. It should be noted that this project's response was entirely justified given the content of the original press release. Miscommunication between the Wikimedia Board and the community (including lack of transparency) is a problem that needs to be addressed. --Bk0 17:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I third these, and would dearly like to see some answers from Jimbo and the board. Ambi 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No. 4 here. Well put Tfine80, my concerns exactly. Luigizanasi 06:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I share some of these concerns as well, but would observe that ample proof of rash hysteria may be found on this talk page and its associated wikiproject. — Dan | Talk 06:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

An attempt at some answers to the questions, although I'm doing this on my own and do not represent anyone, certainly not the Board or the Foundation.

1. As with many contracts, there may not be a single document that defines the "agreement". I would guess that the proposal gradually developed by an exchange of emails (and possibly unwritten phone conversations or other communications). At some point, people signed off and said, "Let's give this a try." Releasing all communications is not practical, would require not just the Wikimedia Foundation but also Answers.com to disclose internal discussions, and would provide even more grist for people that are taking things out of context, misunderstanding its meaning, and getting hysterical. Instead, I recommend that you take the Board at its word regarding the nature of the agreement. If it emerges that the Board has misrepresented the agreement, you may of course hold them responsible for this.
2. To get its press release picked up and turned into media coverage, it's to be expected that Answers.com would describe things for maximum impact. Given this, it's not surprising that they used impressive-sounding but non-specific phrases like "charter placement". Beyond that, you would need to ask Answers.com why they said what they did.
3. I think the basic principles being used can be gleaned from comments that have already been made, even if they haven't been compiled into a formal list (if you're interested, feel free to develop ideas on meta). Those principles would be primarily 1) Full compliance with the license governing Wikipedia content, and 2) Support for Wikimedia's fundamental mission of making knowledge freely available to everyone. Generally reputable business practices, as opposed to the dubious SEO devices of some mirrors, would also be a consideration. Answers.com has an established relationship with us (they sponsored Wikimania), but this is not a special deal for them - other organizations could make similar arrangements with us. About redirecting readers to mirrors, well, nothing here forces any reader to one place or another, but readers who use mirrors do reduce the load on our servers (there has also been discussion of Answers.com adding an edit link directly to Wikipedia, in case you're worried about hooking readers into editing).
4. Well, that's Answers.com's proprietary information that they're not obligated to release, and I expect they might decline to do so except possibly under a non-disclosure agreement. As you say, this is exactly the purpose of having a trial.

Hope this helps. --Michael Snow 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think those are all fair and reasonable responses. Anthere and Jimbo have both indicated there is a written agreement and a "structured" deal. I think posting it for the community would be the only way to make this reaction completely dissolve and resolve all uncertainties and questions. But if they are reluctant to do this, I hope that the response of the community, even if rather dramatic, has served its purpose in ensuring that any future commercial relationships will be better communicated, scrutinized, and clarified. The very same licensing deal could have been agreed to without the fairly trivial but potent issue of the link from Wikipedia. This ruckus occurred mainly because of Answers.com's vague and misleading press release and the Board's confusing answers about this "contracted" link for several days until this project was created and then linked from Slashdot. I never approved of the "boycott" language exactly, but I do feel that if this agreement ultimately represents a Wikimedia attempt to shift readers to these external, ad-supported mirrors, I will be more reluctant to contribute content. Reducing the load on the servers should not be a justification in my mind. Tfine80 20:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I am to late for this as I know some want to boycott and if I am to late about a descision towards you all. I just saw an template on a user's page that told me about this project, and I just have one question. I am not for ads or anything but what is wrong with seeing one or two ads when you visit Wikipedia? I mean really. Do you realize what you are saying? Boycotting Wikipedia just so you cant see an advertisment. Everyone sees ads all the time, weather it be on the internet, on the TV, or any place you go. I'm not saying names or anything but wouldn't it be stupid to leave because of an ad? Most of the people listed as a "participant" wouldn't even boycott if it ever happened (see their comments). If you guys were actually going to boycott because of a stupid advertisment the only thing youre going to hurt is Wikipedia and yourself. — Moe ε 00:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's two things. Andre (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how one sees Wikipedia. Is it simply a Wiki that we can all use for fun to put up our writings? Or is it non-profit website that has agreed to accept our writings without using them to promote private ventures or attaching direct or indirect ads to them? I understood it as the latter and if it is not, I and it seems others would prefer to publish them ourselves or perhaps place them somewhere else. I think this distinction is only going to grow more and more critical as Wikipedia expands, especially in its international components and as it expands to books and curriculum as Jimbo has stated. Tfine80 03:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

But why Boycott over something so insignificant as an ad? Besides, it might not accomplish ANYTHING boycotting. — Moe ε 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Because we do not consider advertisements insignificant. In fact, I personally feel that any advertisements utterly and completely undermine the mission of Wikipedia and fatally compromise the goal of making information freely available to everyone ("free" means not having to sell your attention to advertisers). You are of course free to disagree. --Bk0 23:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I do disagree. It's pointless to try and fight against something you can't win. I dont think Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation are going to overturn any descision they may have made by what is determined about this project. But the point I am trying to make is are you really going to boycott over it? — Moe ε 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If our work is being sold at a profit through advertisements, and we as authors receive nothing in compensation, then, yes, it is reasonable to stop working for someone else's private profit. --Bk0 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What do hope to gain out of boycotting though? — Moe ε 02:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's making a profit and nobody's selling your work. These theoretical advertisements would generate revenue to pay for servers and other Wikipedia projects, not for profit. Wikimedia is a non-profit organization. Andre (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

a well organised boycott would force the foundation to back down particularly if it included a large number of regulars. Without thier work wikipedia would colapse within days

From all the discussion here, it seems that:

1. the 1-click trial is not really an objectionable issue, and
2. Wikipedia does not currently have advertisements.

Can we change our first condition from:

1. 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? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1. 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)

Second all Bk0's suggestions. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

I agree with Ambi, although strike is a better word than "boycott". Luigizanasi 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody remember them? Turn your blocker off and you will. I had heard that this a non commercial site. If that is about to happen I'm not much into it. I thought Wikipedia made the internet not suck.

What's the problem? Is it the donations? Is it vanity articles? What is it? - Ekevu (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Okay... I somewhat understand the problem but still can't see where it is. Can you give some example of this happening to Wikipedia? - Ekevu (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Interesting question. Knowing my luck, the answer's probably no. Reyk 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Most of my past attempts at creating templates have turned out to be horrible messes; but if someone would assist me, I'd like to open a path to challenging the trustees on legal grounds. Additionally, a friend of mine has suggested forming some kind of contributors' union for leveraging power. Daykart 08:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

This WikiProject is a forum for advocacy, yet Wikipedia:WikiProject no anonymous editing is put up for deletion. [5] -- Zondor 16:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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) So there seems to be some sort of double standard. -- Zondor 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.' Direct quote from WP:NOT. Cynical 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'd instead like us to use the nupedia.org domain to serve as a static mirror of reader validated Wikipedia content. Readers could pay a membership fee to avoid the ads. The only adverts I would support on Wikipedia proper would be Google-styled contextual ads on search result pages. I think that would be a good compromise and be able, in time, to have a very significant positive influence on our revenue. The article validation feature needs to go live and at least several thousand articles need to be validated before anybody would bother going to nupedia.org though. We can have GoogleAds on search result pages fairly quick. If we do that, it might make sense to ditch MediaWiki's native search function and use Google's real time one instead. --mav 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is an interesting idea.... hmmm.... --- RockMFR 04:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, is anyone else seeing the 'virgin unite' advert at the top of the page in the fundraising drive box. This is clearly just an ad, it is rather surprising --Ehouk1 01:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not an advert; it is a mention and link of a matching partner; no product and no service is mentioned in any way and no quid-pro-quo has been made in regards to Virgin-related articles. This is called a sponsorship and is VERY common for U.S. non-profits. That parnter, btw, is also a non-profit. --mav 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't like the use of the Virgin Unite logo, especially considering it is a derivation of the logo of a for-profit. However, it is a necessary evil. That little banner is going to bring in a shitload of money today. --- RockMFR 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about US non profits but I don't see how it is not an ad, it is the placement of a logo and a name in exchange for money. Also whilst Virgin Unite is a non profit, I don't think that this idea is exclusive to non profits, and virgin unite surely exists, in part, to raise the brand profile of Virgin Group, it would be different if it were 'The Unite Foundation' or similar. I DO think it would be a lot better if it did not have the logo (just text), as it would be less intrusive. When I was going though the live list of donations before, I saw that many of the comments were positive comments about the lack of adverts in Wikipedia. This may be a necessary evil and is probably effective at raising cash, however it would of been nice to see more debate about this as well as other methods for money raising (such as Wikimedia membership), especially seeing as many feel ads are wrong for Wikipedia for many reasons.--Ehouk1 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of the corporate logo or even thanking a corporate sponsor on content pages is clearly an advert and active participation in corporate branding. If wikipedia had included advertising at the start, no money in the world could have build Wkipedia to the goodwill project that it is today. Moreover, no money in the world will be able to buy back public confidence or restore its reputation when it starts to be viewed as a platform for corporate promotion.

Can someone please tell me where it is? I looked and looked and can't find it. Anomo 08:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not longer there. Each day a different company/organization is sponsoring. Virgin Unite was sponsoring the matching program on the 28th. Their logo no longer appears as they are no longer matching donations.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple hours ago there was a donation banner, but nothing of Virgin Unite on it. Anomo 10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was only there for 24 hours from midnight December 28 (UTC). Angela. 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Solutions

OK, the Virgin ad is gone (hopefully for good) but no doubt more ads will appear later. So perhaps we can use this section as a brainstormer for doing what this Wikiproject is actually for - opposing the use of ads on Wikipedia. Possible ideas:

1. Write a Greasemonkey script to automatically remove the ad banner
2. Avoid donating on days where ads are shown
3. Vote against supporters of the ads at WMF board elections etc.

Anyone have any other ideas? Remember WP:NOT a battleground, and WP:POINT so no disruptive behaviour. Cynical 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the 2nd two ideas, the problem with the 'Greasemonkey script' from what i am guessing it is will only work on the small amount of Wikipedia viewers who would download it- not the general public.

I certainly think we should not donate on the days when such an ad is shown, perhaps make a point of donating on days when it says 'donations will be matched by an anonymous contributor'. And write in the donation comment your opposition to ads.

also perhaps more people need to be aware.--Ehouk1 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing we could do is to promote the userbox of this project, and thus raise the profile of this project. If every project member or associate puts one on his/her personal page, the project would get a lot more attention. Does every project member know of this projectbox? TeunSpaans 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A second thing we might do is ask for alternatives in the village pump. We did so in the Dutch village pump and collected about 10 ideas. No doubt the much larger community here can come up with many more ideas. TeunSpaans 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)