Proposal talk:WikiWords - A way to advertise wikipedia in other websites

From Strategic Planning
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The wikimedia sites have become the fifth most visited site on the web without any of this. Maybe the commercial advertisers should be learning something from us.

What is this proposal aiming to achieve that we have not already achieved without ads?81.187.181.168 13:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer to the above query from the author of the proposal:

This proposal is not meant to take away anything that wikipedia or any other wikimedia site does today, this is in addition. I certainly believe that with an additional channel thats used almost by all commercial websites, we might be able to take penetration/reach to a higher level. Its not so much about who learns from whom, but its about everyone adopting the best of everything. I do believe that there is a lot for commercial advertisers to learn from us, but at the same time there is something we can learn from them too, moreover we are not going to take the idea as it is, we need to tweak it, we are not going to pay the websites that put our content up, this way we dont end up in wrong places, only people with the intent of spreading knowledge would involve us. S K Vignesh 04:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think as the author of the page, I have the right and responsibility to revert any category changes that are done here without a discussion.

Actually, no. Any author of a page has a direct interest to generate as much publicity as he can. The natural impulse of the author is to spam as many categories as possible. Thus the only person who is disqualified from objectively assessing the categories in which a proposal is to be included is the author. - Brya 07:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An issue that is not addressed

An issue that is not addressed here is quality. This proposal boldly states "The meagre fact that there are wikipedia articles linked to a page would make any page more valuable and hence more attractive", which speaks of a grandiose arrogance. In reality, pages on Wikipedia range in quality from very good indeed to not worth spitting on. Also, pages on the www are very variable in quality, with the best pages easily (and by definition) better than the best on Wikipedia. Thus no general statement is possible on what the effect of linking to Wikipedia would be.

It would not be an overstatement to say that there are pages on the www that would disqualify themselves if they were to link to the corresponding Wikipedia pages. - Brya 07:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The natural answer to this issue is that, if someone feels that adding wiki ads to their page does not add value, they will just not add it. As much as adding google ads offer a way to earn, adding wiki ads would offer a way to learn, not to the author of the page but to the visitors of the page, since the benefit accruing from these are to the users, it would certainly add to the attraction of the page and thats the reason there is a mention of

"The meagre fact that there are wikipedia articles linked to a page would make any page more valuable and hence more attractive"

Talking of the quality of the articles in itself, thats another issue that we need to work on, we are assuming again here that we are the fourth most popular website because of our quality, good or bad, so we need to market what we have in such a way that it will help more people than it is today.

Collaboration talk thread moved from article

I've moved the following discussion from the proposal page to talk as its clearly a discussion. WereSpielChequers 10:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Any changes to the page, other than creative / additional suggestions can be done only with a discussion. This proposal requires colloboration with other websites and so outreach colloboration is a valid category for this page.

Actually, no. Any author of a page has a direct interest to generate as much publicity as he can. The natural impulse of the author is to spam as many categories as possible. Thus the only person who is disqualified from objectively assessing the categories in which a proposal is to be included is the author. The author may select the ONE category that best characterizes his proposal, maybe two if the proposal really applies to more than one field. The category "outreach colloboration" does not look like a valid category here, as no collaboration is being proposed (who is being invited to collaborate on adding content in Wikipedia here? Well, nobody). What is being proposed is "advertising and outreach", and it is in that category. - Brya 07:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a new project that is being called for, if developing a new programming module that will help creating this boxes is not a new project, then I think we need to discuss and decide what is a new project as in, starting a new wikipedia or a new wikimedia branch like this strategic wiki is only a new project??

Secondly I think that its sheer arrogance to say "who is being invited to collaborate on adding content in Wikipedia here?" is the only meaning and scope of the word colloboration, colloboration according to our own wikipedia means, "a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together in an intersection of common goals" Here I have proposed that wikipedia and the third party are going to work together towards the common goal of making each other's website more popular. I reqiest all future editors of this page to please not decide the meaning of words for themselves.

This is great misconception. A category is not defined by its name. Its name is only a label, not a description to be intrepreted. If a proposal does not aim to invite a partner organization to collaborate on content then it does not belong in that category. Period. - Brya 14:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You just mentioned

not a description to be intrepreted

The next sentence goes on to say

If a proposal does not aim to invite a partner organization to collaborate on content then it does not belong in that category

May I ask you ask to what the second sentence does other than interpreting the description and that too a wrong interpretation at that?

Please avoid showing arrogance by quoting your opinion and stating the word "period" this is a discussion and no party here can put a "period" to this discussion.

The "second sentence" describes the category and its function. It does not interpret its name. I understand your desire to spam your proposal as widely as possible, but spam is unwanted. - Brya 16:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)