Proposal talk:The german Wikipedia should remain advertisement-free

From Strategic Planning
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The proposal rants about "Bertelsmann ... will publish a printed shortcut of the german wikipedia". Yup - that is exactly what Wikipedia is about both with the old GFDL license and the new CC-BY-SA license: all content is freely licensed, others are explitly allowed and even encouraged to reuse all our content, for any purpose, including commercial use. In case you don't like others using your contribution and even use it for commercial purposes than don't hit the submit button or words to that effect warn you on the edit form. Dedalus 12:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the shortcut published by Bertelsmann was, that the german chapter has allowed Bertelsmann to use the Wikipedia-logo. Just using the content would have been okay and i am not worried about the content although Bertelsmann turned out to ve unable to work according to the license, but the absoulte majority of the community was against the cooperation between the german chapter and Bertelsmann, a company which works against those things Wikipedia stands for. This cooperation has already been stopped (by Bertelsmann, the cooperation turned out to be unprofitable), but this project had the same problems like the advertisment-plans. The german chapter acts without representing the community or asking the community, if it is in their interest. If they worry about not having money, its their fault. They are unable to deal with money. The have hired a press-speaker we dont need and have spent horrendous amounts of money for strange uses. Save the german Wikipedia from the german chapter. -- 18:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

{{citation needed|the absoulte majority of the community was against the cooperation between the german chapter and Bertelsmann}}. That would surprise me a lot. Nemo 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bertelsmann Foundation

Maybe the proposer can elaborate how the criticism applies to the Bertelsmann Foundation? The Bertelsmann Foundation is, for instance, involved in the project independent school, which doesn't appear to be "against those things Wikipedia stands for". --Fasten (Wikinews: Aktion Deutschland Hilft asks for donations after the earthquake in Indonesia) 08:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Main page

“We have had the amusement of finding out, that the german chapter will sell space on the main page to sponsors”

Qualitätsjournalismus … The German chapter can't sell space for ads on, it can only sell space on Said that, the German Wikipedia will remain advertisement-free even without your bogus proposal. --32X 17:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The quoted statement really detracted from what I thought was and may be a serious proposal. I hope the originator changes some of the statements so the proposal has a good faith tone. I would not be a contributing editor if Wikipedia ran ads. I'm sure other editors would also be driven away. I am opposed to any trend or movement toward Wikipedia organizations running ads. If the current policy about Wikipedia organizations running ads is inadequate, I hope this proposal could be refined to affirm a no-ad position. Pknkly 04:29, 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 00:17, 3 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.

See Proposal:Users Can Choose to Take Advertising