Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

--- On Sun, 7/11/10, John Vandenberg wrote: > It is > appropriate that journals expect that researchers provide > information > to _them_ about potential conflict of interests, so it can > be > available for peer-reviewers both before and after > publishing.  In case this was not clear to you,

Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

John, by your rationale, every scholarly journal that follows defined ethics guidelines *requiring* that the funding be disclosed impugns the authors' integrity. Does it really? There is a difference between transparency and assumption of wrongdoing; and history is full of people who resisted

Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

By flagging a piece of research as 'funding by ACME Big Pharma', we suggest that the research is somehow flawed, without clearly saying it, without any evidence, and without sources that support our suggestion. This is akin to adding categories which are not unambiguously supported by prose and re

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

Michael Peel wrote: > Erm... how many people actually know what an interwiki is? I doubt it's a > significant number. Combine that with how many people would think about of > that particular usage of Special:Search, and I suspect that you're talking > very small numbers. Certainly, I've never thoug

Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table

On 11/6/2010 4:19 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: >> An'n 05.11.2010 23:44, hett Fred Bauder schreven: >>> How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the >>> table each year? >>> >>> Fred >> According to alexa.com Facebook has a 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

Does not work for me,, because it unreasonably implies that references without it are not so funded. On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:56 AM, FT2 wrote: > Works for me. > > FT2 > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> > I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to d

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: >>> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >>> >>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident >> >> That's not a problem with a

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: >> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >> >> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident > > That's not a problem with adverts. It

Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > An'n 05.11.2010 23:44, hett Fred Bauder schreven: >> How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the >> table each year? >> >> Fred > > According to alexa.com Facebook has a 3-month global pageview share of > 4.74010%. Wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 11/7/10, Michael Peel wrote: > > On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:54, MZMcBride wrote: > >> Liam Wyatt wrote: >>> Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including >>> advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's >>> opinions towards ads would be different if g

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:54, MZMcBride wrote: > Liam Wyatt wrote: >> Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including >> advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's >> opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be >> incorporated ON

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including > advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's > opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be > incorporated ONLY on the Search page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: >> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >> >> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident > > That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility > between Google's policie

Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion

> Hoi, > As the "A" word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to > talk > instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to > discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that > we > so beautifully formulated in our strategy.. > > To star

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 06/11/2010 17:43, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt wrote: >> ads there would be able >> to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the >> term being searched for) > > That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example, we should not > b

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 6 November 2010 20:54, MZMcBride wrote: > Liam Wyatt wrote: > > Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including > > advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's > > opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be > > incorporat

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

Liam Wyatt wrote: > Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including > advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's > opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be > incorporated ONLY on the Search page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Hello, > > Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust. > They also create confusion. Not long ago I lent my computer to a 15 year-old family friend who did not have Internet access at home and who wanted to search online for a Sum

Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion

On 6 Nov 2010, at 17:46, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 6 November 2010 17:43, Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> Hoi, >> I just checked it again. It is cc-by-sa. > > I don't know what you checked, but that image is released under ND, > not SA. Check the link near the top of this page (that you link to): >

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 6 Nov 2010, at 17:43, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt wrote: >> ads there would be able >> to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the >> term being searched for) > > That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example, we should

Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion

On 6 November 2010 17:43, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I just checked it again. It is cc-by-sa. I don't know what you checked, but that image is released under ND, not SA. Check the link near the top of this page (that you link to): http://www.flickr.com/photos/hikingartist/4897593340/sizes/o

Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion

Hoi, I just checked it again. It is cc-by-sa. The point of the article is that we need to get our message out. Pointing out that I have the license wrong does not contribute to the conversation I hope for... or is that our message? Thanks, GerardM On 6 November 2010 18:02, wrote: >

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt wrote: > ads there would be able > to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the > term being searched for) That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example, we should not be showing adverts for either Coca-cola or Pepsi to p

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be incorporated ONLY on the Search page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search in the wh

Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion

On 06/11/2010 16:22, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > To start it off, I have blogged some of my sentiments. > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/annual-wikipedia-argument-about.html You have the license on that image wrong it CC-BY-ND not CC-BY-SA : just saying. _

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: > ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: > > http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility between Google's policies and the

[Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion

Hoi, As the "A" word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to talk instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that we so beautifully formulated in our strategy.. To start it off, I have

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

Actually, Wikipedia articles link to a lot of pages that have adverts. So what. :-) Kind regards Ziko 2010/11/6 Arlen Beiler : > I don't think I could stand it if we picked up advertising. I hate the way > wikia looks, and therefore have an aversion to contributing in any way to > its progress. Ca

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available

Veronique Kessler, 26/10/2010 17:40: > I am pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's audited > financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are > available on the Foundation wiki Thank you. I see (p. 5, 11): *Special event revenue, net: 11,995/0 (2009/2010) *Specia

Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

Works for me. FT2 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it > > in > > the rest of the way. > > >> > >> These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable > >> knowledge to readers. This is one o

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

You might want to look at this link from ACSI(American Customer Satisfaction Index) which introduced indexing of social sites this year: "Satisfaction is measured with four social media websites—Facebook, MySpace, Wik

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

I don't think I could stand it if we picked up advertising. I hate the way wikia looks, and therefore have an aversion to contributing in any way to its progress. Can you imagine! We actually link to Wikia sites and give them traffic (though I guess that is better than filling up wikibooks and wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:38, Peter Coombe wrote: > No, we don't *need* ads. But think how much we could improve our > infrastructure and software with that money. Think how much content we > could help to free. And think how much more international we could > become. Personally I think the sacrif

Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table

On 6 November 2010 10:56, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Anyway, here's some analysis of this very question done back in 2006. >> Estimates for annual revenue from adverts ranged from $42 billion to >> $100 billion, and that's without accounting for our growth since then. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table

> Anyway, here's some analysis of this very question done back in 2006. > Estimates for annual revenue from adverts ranged from $42 billion to > $100 billion, and that's without accounting for our growth since then. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-30/Wikipedia_v

Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table

On 6 November 2010 03:43, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 00:53, Marcus Buck wrote: >> An'n 05.11.2010 23:44, hett Fred Bauder schreven: >>> How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the >>> table each year? >>> >>> Fred >> >> According to alexa.com Facebook h