Thats a nice proposall, which can rise WMF´s funds, but I think it will not be agreed by Wikimedia Community.--Juan de Vojníkov 07:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I for one wholly disagree with this idea; I find it not only against the principles of the Foundation but in really really bad taste. It would further erode our credibility, caste doubt on our NPOV, and just look really tacky. Advertisements are not encyclopedic at all and I know I will personally not volunteer to benefit a site that undermines itself with commercial ads. I doubt it will draw more traffic to the site, and will drive away contributors, leaving the project at an even greater deficit in editors. No amount of additional funds can counterbalance a radical change such as this. Themfromspace 03:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the ethical issue - this is a voluntarily written non commercial project and advertising would change the deal under which we all joined; Advertising has its down sides - neutral point of view is hard to maintain or convince people you are maintaining when some car companies are advertising on your pages, let alone porn, medicine, tourism agencies and so forth. How do we agree a policy as to what ads we do and don't take and where we place them? In a commercial organisation like a magazine you can have a fairly simple code as to what ads you do or don't accept, but in a mass volunteer organisation that will be complex. Being international adds greatly to the complexity, there are products that are considered acceptable in some cultures but unethical elsewhere - and we have to think internationally. And of course once you start taking ads you then have finance and advertising sales people internally whose job requires them to keep the advertisers sweet. Yes I'd rather have ads than switch off the servers, but hopefully thats a long way off. WereSpielChequers 01:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
How about charging search engines for showing wikipedia links in their search results? Assuming search engines cant afford to omit wikipedia from their search results, as it would affect the quality of search in terms of relevance of contents shown on the first page of search results which is crucial to the popularity of any search engine and also because it can have and indirect effect on the traffic of search engines in the sense that omission of wikipedia from search results would cause a fraction of the traffic to directly log on to wikipedia than through a search engine, this can be a viable option,provided Wikipedia has freedom to delist itself from search results. The rates that Wikipedia charges can be the key to the success of this idea if it is considered. I beleive it is rightful on part of wikipedia to claim a share of income that others indirectly earn of wikipedia. -General
Just on the main page?
If we are going to have advertisements, should they just be on the main page, so that they don't obstruct all other pages.
Open Directory Project
No advertisements on any pages
Advertisements will affect the content, introducing bias. This is not a good idea. --FocalPoint 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)