-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was sent this. I don't know what to do of it.
* * *
"Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to
the list but would rather not subscribe to i
One reason more why not to depend on ad providers, like Google is:
"The popular wiki TV Tropes, a site dedicated to the discussion of
various tropes, clichés and other common devices in fiction has
suddenly decided to put various of its pages behind a 'possibly
family-unsafe' content warning, appa
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was
> Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22
> On 7 November 2010 12:26, David
> Gerard
> wrote:
> > That naming funding sources is in fact *st
On 11/7/2010 4:09 PM, geni wrote:
> As for tweak algorithmic factors firstly it's already happened at
> least once (there was a noticeable drop in wikipedia's Google SERPS
> positions a few years back). Secondly since both bing and yahoo rank
> wikipedia highly (in fact while I haven't checked rec
> I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of
> our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly
> believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors
> is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that
> over ti
I haven't heard the word "eventuate" before.
My comment addresses the plain meaning of the words - namely that if
sourcing style was followed editors would have to disclose funding sources
too. The wiki process means that editors (even grossly biased ones) are not
creators of novel views. Their ed
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 wrote:
> Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create
> them.
>
> A user writing "X said Y" is not verifying that Y is true. They are
> verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third
> party can check, why
Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create
them.
A user writing "X said Y" is not verifying that Y is true. They are
verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third
party can check, why they believe "X said Y" is true.
Once that's done, the
On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard wrote:
> That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in the field* is,
> however, something that strongly suggests we should not deliberately
> withhold such information from the reader.
Err we don't. They are free to consult the source.
However the fi
On 6 November 2010 01:20, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> Nobody knows, because the unknown factor in such calculations
> is whether Google would continue to bless Wikipedia so heavily if it
> started running ads. You cannot assume that the current dominance in
> search ranking would be maintaine
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, wrote:
> If there were a system created, where all the *effort* were off loaded to
> the payer, not the pay...ed, then you'd gain that financial benefit.
> The creation of such a system however, involves the effort of a much higher
> level of paid employee :)
>
> S
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Between the
>> lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles
>> that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I
>> don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites.
>
> Yes, revenue would hav
In a message dated 11/7/2010 3:19:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
> Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to
> appear on? Is that "manual", or "automagic"? Would letting the
> advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be "manual",
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wrote:
>> I'm also skeptical that manually placed and
>> manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of
>> the worker.
>>
>> This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well.
>
> Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wrote:
> I'm also skeptical that manually placed and
> manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the
> worker.
>
> This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well.
Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which se
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:35 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/2010 2:03:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jay...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> > I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to
>> see
>> > ads will be very productive. I'm also skeptical that manually placed
>> and
> In a message dated 11/7/2010 8:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
>> want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us
>> revenue and not actually buying, which advertisers
> On 7 November 2010 16:21, Anthony wrote:
>> 1) Why the huge assumption of bad faith? Â I don't think you're correct
>> that people would sign up for ads who don't want ads. Â As you
>> correctly point out, there would actually be no long-term benefit to
>> anyone for doing so.
>> 2) If the payme
In a message dated 11/7/2010 2:03:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
> > I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to
> see
> > ads will be very productive. I'm also skeptical that manually placed
> and
> > manually monitored, internet advertising e
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:07 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/2010 8:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
>> want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us
>> revenue an
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote:
>>> I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in
>>> to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules).
>>> I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit
In a message dated 11/7/2010 8:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
> They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
> want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us
> revenue and not actually buying, which advertisers stopped
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wrote:
>> It can save a step. Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better
>> screened than Google's ads.
>
> Going to Wikipedia seems to be adding a step, not removing one.
In some cases. Not all though.
On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>> They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
>>> want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
>> want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us
>> revenue and not actually buying, which advert
On 7 November 2010 16:21, Anthony wrote:
> 1) Why the huge assumption of bad faith? I don't think you're correct
> that people would sign up for ads who don't want ads. As you
> correctly point out, there would actually be no long-term benefit to
> anyone for doing so.
> 2) If the payment isn't
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>> On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder wrote:
We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
to c
On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
>>> to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
>> to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating
>> products, you will.
>
> The click-through rate
On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder wrote:
> We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
> to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating
> products, you will.
The click-through rate would be tiny and therefore so would the revenue.
___
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote:
>> I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in
>> to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules).
>> I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture
>> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote:
>>> 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
> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote:
>> 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.T
On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote:
> 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.TheGoogl
On 7 November 2010 02:18, John Vandenberg wrote:
> 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.
That naming funding sources
Papers are used to back up specific statements, not entire articles - often
many papers are used to back up an article. We assume an ability to make
thoughtful assessments of cites by our readers - that's exactly why we cite
and why we attribute (apart from copyright reasons). It seems inconsisten
36 matches
Mail list logo
