I'm on a dynamic IP address, and I haven't bothered to merge my Wikipedia account across to Wikimedia. So I'll add here, assuming this proposal doesn't get me banned-for-life, that I'm normally PaulxSA. Since I'll have a different IP next time. -- 184.108.40.206 (PaulxSA) 10:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- A sincere thanks for taking the time to write this proposal. It gives me the opportunity to declare my opposition to ads and get an understanding about how other editors feel about ads. Pknkly 05:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Microsoft (to pick a classic much-hated company) might buy pages for "Microsoft", "Windows", "Bing", "X-Box 360" and so on, at ten grand a pop. Why would Microsoft pay this when all the articles for these already directly link to Microsoft's own website, where they can do, and say, anything they want at no additional cost? --220.127.116.11 16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some time ago, there were companies setting up virtual HQ's in Second Life. There was no conceivable use, the marketing depts just saw a new "medium" and had to do something to be involved. Even now, how many companies' own websites are little more than glorified banner ads? Again serving no useful purpose, just there to be "on teh interwebz". I can't see you'd have any trouble attracting companies to get the market-fu of Wikipedia. (The reason I set such high dollar amount as an example is because I would expect you'd be beating them off with a stick.) -- 18.104.22.168 (PaulxSA) 12:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some time ago we had a discussion in our company about creating a company article within Wikipedia. I know that this is not allowed if one takes the Wikipedia literally . But on the other hand, a direct business rivals (e.g. Zemax) have their page in (English) wikipedia. So this proposal would be a good way to solve the dilemma. By the way, 10000$ would be much too much money for us, the fee should scale some how with the size of the company (we are just a small company). --Torsch 09:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, I can't believe I misspelled corporate in the friggin' article name. <sigh> -- 22.214.171.124 10:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No. This would undermine the wikiprojects and lead to an immediate fork.
There is no evidence that Wikimedia is having trouble getting money so the need for this change is minimal. The cost in lost credibility with readers and editors would however be IMHO disastrous. Even the monetary cost in terms of lost donations would probably exceed to benefit.Filceolaire 13:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Opposed - elimination of fund raising is a bad argument
Strong opposition to this proposal. The concern I gave for the Basic Questions had to do with Wikipedia surviving the next five years in its current form. This proposal directly threatens that survival. Also, for this proposal an assumption seems to be that fund raising would be a good thing to eliminate. I disagree with that assumption as well as to any shift toward allowing the running of ads by Wikipedia organizations. Please look at the proposal for using interns (see Proposal:Wikimedia Internship. They could be used for fund raising. Knowing how much I abhor ads, I am confident that I would not contribute a minute of my time if Wikipedia ran ads. Pknkly 05:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- When someone suggests ads on Wikipedia, they always mean banner ads, or side-bar ads, or some such standard print-media nonsense. Even you use that kind of language, of Wikipedia "running ads" as if it was a TV station. Wikipedia is an free unlimited-page public encyclopaedia, not a newspaper/magazine/TV-network. I want companies writing detailed encyclopaedic articles about their company and products, about their history, etc. Just not in the mainspace.
- How much corporate history is undocumented, because secrecy is default behaviour? How many WP articles have [Citation Needed] next to facts that are well known within the industry but not documented anywhere. How many photo's (video/audio/etc) are provided on a company's website, for PR purposes, and yet are locked behind copyright? Because the legal side of the company lives in a different world to the marketing side. But get the company to create it's own advert-article, and they are releasing more material than we can use, all nice and legal.
- You'll never get them to do it out of the public good, and you don't want them screwing around in the main article space, so this creates the illusion of "advertising" for something that is really just about getting them in the habit of providing information, in a way that's sandboxed from the rest of the Wikipedia. I think it is a good thing to encourage information. -- 126.96.36.199 (PaulxSA) 12:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Will they buy this space?
If the link can only be placed from the existing notable article, the company already has such article in Wikipedia, so why to pay money of another one? After all, such article always contains a link to the company's website where they can write anything they want for free. The real thing that the company for sure will want and will pay a hell of money is to get exclusive rights to modify existing Wikipedia article. Yet this is likely the worst thing can ever happen to Wikipedia neutrality so maybe better not to. Audriusa 13:59, 30 August 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 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Most users are pretty much used on advertisements in their screens. Google does it, Yahoo, Bing. Actually, who does not? Yes, WP for the moment. If all the huge 'big blue' companies pay for infuence on their WP-pages makes fund raising in my opinion a 'piece of cake' Patio 11:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
A Very Valuable Compromise
We can have our cake and eat it too. That is, we can get Advertising Revenue, and lots of it, if we let the individual user decide if they want to receive ads or not, and tailor what kind of ads they receive. Those who don't want ads won't get any! But if I, and millions more, choose to support Wikipedia by allowing Ads to get through to us, then why not. Someone has to make the decision on Ads. Why not let each user make the decision, instead of a constant "war" amongtsdt the top level decision makers.
The only way forward
We are sitting on valuable property here, but as a contributor I don't wish to pay hard cash to keep wiki afloat on top of my voluntary time and effort. Commercial wiki pages for corporates are the right way to go, suitably identified as advertorial content. Excalibur 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
What the proposer suggests doesn't sound like offering advertisement to me. Advertisement agencies and advertisement departments would probably not endorse this kind of interference with their intended message. A similar scheme might be possible if the commissioner was the corporate social responsibility representative or department of a company instead (See: Wiki ESP).
The assignment would be to document, publish and verify adherence to published policies. Wikinews might be able to provide investigative journalism in order to support the work of documenting company policies and Wikiversity might be able to provide a curriculum for investigative journalism, which would invite schools to contribute to the scheme. The company policies of interested companies would, of course, have to allow for investigation and verification of policies. --Fasten (Wikinews: Aktion Deutschland Hilft asks for donations after the earthquake in Indonesia) 14:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia aims to provide knowledge, which obviously implicitly assumes truth. That is a ultimate goal, but so far Wikipedia's editing model has done a good job in providing unbiased information. At least on Wikipedia (if nowhere else) readers can naturally expect to see the two (or more) sides of the issues. To keep with the Microsoft example, we can easily find criticisms to the company on its Wikipedia article, but not on the official Microsoft page. In a sense, we could say that Wikipedia is the best approximation to the truth among easily accessible sources (or the best compromise between truth and accessibility). If truth is the goal, then there should be a single Wikipedia article for each entry, a single truth. Simultaneously having a main page and a corporate page is the same as supporting a two-truth ideology, which is contrary to Wikipedia's goals. What if the corporate page starts competing with the main page and therefore misleading users who seek unbiased info? One thing is to make Wikipedia more complete by requesting content contributions from companies (such as logo images or corporate info); quite another thing is to kill the Wikipedia model by allowing companies to write whatever they want. It is misleading, unfair to those who do not have the money, and contrary to Wikipedia's goals. Danilo128 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)