Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cenarium (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 28 March 2008 (→Adoption Program: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Advertisements

The last fund raising campaign did not give the desired result. Neither the unified login nor approved versions are in production use yet. Let alone the WYSIWYG feature or other MediaWiki improvements that could make the life of Wikipedians so much easier. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages is stuck in a stalemate. On the other hand, if advertisements were radically introduced, Misplaced Pages would lose many editors; the little advertisement in one of the earlier fund raising campaigns was not received well. But what about a less radical attempt? Perhaps Misplaced Pages could start with an advertisement only on the main page and gain some experience with that. Such a conservative attempt would not face the NPOV issues that have been put forward as the main argument against ads, at least not in the same way. I know that I am certainly not the first user to suggest this, but given the stagnating state of the project, I think that things need to be reconsidered. I find it strange that the Misplaced Pages:Advertisements article does not mention such a moderate, tentative solution but only radical attempts to introduce advertisements in all articles (be it optional or not). Also, it doesn't give crucial arguments such as the possibility to use parts of the money to buy copyrights and put the associated works into the public domain. If people see that they get something back for the advertisements, tolerance would perhaps increase even for putting them into regular articles. --rtc (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Misplaced Pages, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals.

Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Misplaced Pages's tin-cup approach wears thin http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wikipedia10mar10,1,6437552.story. I fail to see what would be the *problem* for allowing, for example, a couple of text Google adwords, as a subsection of the external links sections on articles. With the number of page views Misplaced Pages has today, allowing such ads for a couple of months a year, will generate enough income to support the project for that year, and expand and explore new uses of Misplaced Pages that cannot be considered today for lack of funding. Why would such activity be considered "commercialization of Misplaced Pages"? Unless there is an issue with the 501(c)(3) status , which I doubt, why not to openly explore this? A vigorous debate may be needed about this, but I think it is time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the search results page, another place to consider the placement of text ads would be anything marked as a stub. We're already admitting that these are pages where we don't have as much information about the topic as we should, and that further information is (supposedly) easy to find. When we consider all that could be done with the project if there were even a small amount of cash infused (paying more coders, getting graphic designers involved, commissioning articles on topics that are embarrassingly sparse (e.g., dance history)), we need to find a compromise between the all or nothing approach. Adding stub articles to the list of ad-supported pages would greatly increase the number of funding sources without greatly altering the feel of Misplaced Pages. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Advertisements#Income from search tools on[REDACTED] pages. Concerning the search box (for Special:Search) on nearly all[REDACTED] pages, it has been estimated that millions of dollars a year could be raised solely from ads on search result pages. See: . To the right is a userbox I created in support of this.

Another option is to add a search toolbar with a dropdown menu for search engines from Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon.com, etc, and to charge them for searches sent their way. The Mozilla Foundation raises millions of dollars a year this way through the search toolbar at the top of the Firefox browser. See Mozilla Foundation#Financing. The Firefox browser comes with a search toolbar with several search engines set up in its dropdown menu. The user can add more search engines easily by clicking "Manage Search Engines" in the dropdown menu. Any, or all, of the search engines can be removed by the user. In 2006 the Mozilla Foundation received US$66.8 million in revenues, of which 61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties". See: Independent Auditor's Report and Consolidated Financial Statements. The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. A footnote in Mozilla's 2006 financial report states "Mozilla has a contract with a search engine provider for royalties. The contract originally expired in November 2006 but was renewed for two years and expires in November 2008. Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract.", this equates to approximately US$56.8 million.--Timeshifter (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And here's another option..

Because most of us don't want our Misplaced Pages cluttered with Viagra ads, even if it is on Viagra. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 10:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I support on/off buttons for opt-in ads on a nonprofit Misplaced Pages for all readers (via cookies).

None of the ads on search result pages would be on[REDACTED] pages themselves. And there is no reason these ads could not be user-optional on wikipedia's search pages. Most of us wouldn't mind ads on search result pages. Also, there is money to be made by allowing Google to put a searchbar on[REDACTED] pages. You already use Google to search for stuff, and usually a[REDACTED] page is near the top. So, I doubt that most people get apoplectic (look it up) over the viagra ads on Google result pages. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The userbox is quite ambiguous, do you mean optional with the default being that users see the ads, or do you mean users would have to open their preferences and check some option before they can see ads? I think that the latter would not be successful and few people would do it. Can we move this discussion to some place where more people can get involved? I think merely stating positions is not enough, we need to debate them, collect the ideas and arguments, and, if possible, come to a conclusion or a compromise or something that a large part of the community can support. This could then be sent to the foundation as a petition. That is how I understand Jimbo's message – that the community has to actively find consensus on ads and request them from the foundation. --rtc (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The default setting would be no ads. Click the link in the userbox for more info and discussion. I think a lot of people would allow ads. Even if only a small percentage of people allowed ads a lot of money would be raised yearly. A button on the search page, or on[REDACTED] pages, would turn ads on and off. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this approach would not raise a lot of money, contrary to what you you predict. But I'd certainly support an experiment and be happy if it shows that I was wrong here. What about moving this discussion? --rtc (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is good here. We can maybe copy it to Misplaced Pages talk:Advertisements when it is archived. As for how much money could be raised I think it depends on what kind of deal[REDACTED] makes with the various search providers. If a dropdown searchbar with multiple search providers were added to the top left of all[REDACTED] pages (above the[REDACTED] logo), and[REDACTED] charged the search providers for every search we sent their way it could raise a lot of money. Millions of dollars. I would use the searchbar frequently. Especially if there were a Google search of Misplaced Pages as one of the options. Currently, I have to go to a new browser tab and open this bookmark:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org

It would be so convenient to use a Google searchbar. Google is so much better and faster than any other search of wikipedia. With many more options. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except that I don't think that putting it above the[REDACTED] logo would really be the right thing. Why not put it into the search box on the left, below the current search form? --rtc (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could start there. It would need to be announced though, so that people know there is a Google searchbar available for web or[REDACTED] searches. Otherwise it may not be noticed by most people. I gave up on wikipedia's search tool long ago. I always use http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org and then add search terms. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think ads are bad anywhere, relying that they raise money that is then used to improve wikipedia, they are not intrusive and have a message saying something like "The ads are not part of wikipedia, nor do they neccessarily conform to the[REDACTED] standards of of being unbiased etc" Ultra two (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)\

This is where the real money is. But I think it should be user-optional with the default being no ads. I think ads on search results should be tried first, so people see that the sky will not fall due to ads. I have websites on free web hosts. Their ads do not bother me, nor most of my site readers. I have never been pressured by the web host, nor by advertisers to change anything on my sites. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just thought about it and found that there is not really much to discuss about user-optional advertisement, search bars or whatever. Every user can actually already add advertisements or a search bar at any place and in any context he likes at his option — via a monobook javascript. The necessary javascript code would be trivial. What is missing is a contract between the Wikimedia Foundation and google or other companies, so that it actually gets money for this. --rtc (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

People just need to look at the Google-funded Firefox browser that many are using right now to read this, and then realize that Google ads are already paying for their access to Misplaced Pages. The ads are not on the browser itself, nor would Google ads be on[REDACTED] pages if wikipedians added the Google search toolbar to[REDACTED] pages via monobook javascript. Also, imagine the number of spelling errors on[REDACTED] if people did not have the Firefox browser and its spelling checker. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not people using the javascript, but it is the fact that there is no contract between the Wikimedia Foundation and google and ad providers. Misplaced Pages users cannot do anything about that; only the Wikimedia Foundation can. All the community can do is a petition, but we need many people to do that. How could such a petition look like and how do we set one off? --rtc (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I don't know offhand how to start a petition. People can add the userboxes to their user pages. I can make different userboxes if necessary, too. The contract would be between the Wikimedia Foundation and Google and the other search providers in the searchbar. There would be no contract with advertisers. Google handles that end of it. Wikimedia would not have to deal with advertisers at all. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant contracts with ad providers, not with advertisers. We should give users who want to watch ads as many choices as possible (or at least more than one), including ad banners above articles. I don't see why users should be forced not to watch aggressive ads if they want to. Making ads optional does not mean a yes-or-no-choice for some predetermined style of advertisement. Perhaps some people even enjoy content-related ads at the top of each article. Just because many people object that does not mean that there is no significant amount who would love it. Userboxes are frowned upon; they never changed anything and the Foundation won't care about them at all. Except for babel boxes, there is not a single userbox that has improved Misplaced Pages. We need a real petition, something like a list titled "I support that the Wikimedia Foundation makes contracts with ad providers and google such that users have the choice to support Misplaced Pages by including such paid ads, search bars, whatever using javascript. We emphasize the many charitable things that could be done with the money, including buying copyrights and releasing them, paying more programmers, holding conferences, paying professional authors to revise and write articles, etc." under which people can put their signature and that will be made widely known, for example with a message on WP:VP. After one month or so, we can notify the Wikimeda Foundation about the petition and perhaps it would consider it as a first step towards a Misplaced Pages that is at least partly supported by ads. --rtc (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything except the userboxes part. They are useful for getting the word out. Ad providers are also called ad servers. See ad serving and Google AdSense. I think the petition should be broken down into parts. People should be able to sign up for the parts they agree with. For example; many people might agree with adding a Google searchbar, but not with having ads directly on Misplaced Pages pages (not even user-optional ones). --Timeshifter (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be outside of the scope of the petition, which is to ask the Foundation merely to make the necessary contracts. It is not up to the community to prescribe users which ads they want to see and how they want to see them. That's a private matter. Also, such a broken down petition would be complicated. A petition needs to be easy to understand and unequivocal in its message. --rtc (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, then start with a simple petition asking the Wikimedia Foundation to make the necessary contracts for remuneration from Google and other search providers when a searchbar is added to a[REDACTED] page. This is the petition that would be most likely to get popular support, and the least opposition. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Friendly heads up

Just so there's no question about this, I ought to explain something. A few days ago Sue Gardner joined a Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly skypecast and among other things she denied a recent Valleywag rumor. I don't usually pay much attention to Valleywag, but afterward I decided to check out one of her comments and she was exactly right: nearly all of the Valleywag stories that mention women discuss what they suppose is that woman's sex life. Now there's a site that has issues, I thought. And for a bit, I left it at that.

Then in a bit of serendipity I segued from work on the triple crown awards to reading up on classical Greek mythology to the paintings of William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I've had my eye on his work for a while as potential restorations for featured picture candidacy. Then a really impish inspiration struck, and I've heard you're very good at taking a joke so I went ahead with it. The thing was an ironic barb at Valleywag's tabloid reporting.

Much to my surprise, two days later Valleywag has actually run the silly image to accompany a story about you--completely failing to see that the actual joke is on them. I've written a comment to that effect; am waiting to see whether they have the integrity to publish it. Also made a similar comment at p2pnet news. So for the record, this image is a gesture of respect to Sue Gardner and the other hardworking women of the tech industry who really deserve to get into the news for their brains. Durova 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So finally the truth comes out! Jimbo, are you looking for any interns at the moment? I'd be happy to join the team and keep all those distractions away from you :) Franamax (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "issues", it's pageviews (and they've gotten really blatant about it with the "sex trade" series). I thought the picture was hilarious in terms of mocking the (umm, alleged) wikihorndogging, not parodying Valleywag. You've got to be careful when wielding irony, it can cut back at you. Consider it the difference between the art and the artist's intent (i.e. what the reader gets from the art is not necessarily the same as what the artist was trying to say). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So for the record, this image is a gesture of respect to Sue Gardner and the other hardworking women of the tech industry who really deserve to get into the news for their brains. I think I understand. The bathing nymphs - representing "The Foundation" are trying to dampen the ardor of the lascivious satyr - representing Jimbo by dunking him in the pond - which represents the brains of the hard working women of the tech industry. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the cool things about Misplaced Pages is how often it turns up a really well composed explanation of a complex point. From satire: A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant". This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack. This was also meant as hyperbole, but seeing how quickly Valleywag actually used it, I obviously failed at estimating their lowest common denominator. Here's hoping the little joke made everybody smile and didn't give offense. Durova 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the cool things about Misplaced Pages is how often it turns up a really well composed explanation of a complex point. Thank you for the nice compliment on my explanation. One thing that I could't figure out though: Do the white buttocks in the portrait represent TCP/IP or HTTP? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it represents "mooning" - who is doing it to whom then depends on the school of interpretation you're following :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply thought that someone got confused between satire and satyr. I know I do... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An invitation...

Dear God-like Entity...

Could you explain what your stance is on user's secret pages? And if you don't mind them, could you have a go at finding mine?

Yours,

Mc_rochip  13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)