3 ms·

Commercial pressures present conflicts of interest. No form of media can claim to be truly impartial if advertising is displayed in amongst content. One of th

by lwhi 16y ago

Commercial pressures present conflicts of interest. No form of media can claim to be truly impartial if advertising is displayed in amongst content. One of the defining features of Wikipedia is absence of advertising - introduce adverts and the brand will lose a great deal of its power.

corin_ 16y ago
Completely disagree. Even in corporate life, I work for a publishing company and our sales and editorial departments are completely seperate from that point of view, in that if a bad review is going up, we won't stop it going up or edit the content just because it's for a product made by a company who currently have an advertising campaign with us. And even more so in Wikipedia's case. They could even just have an external advertising company deal with all sales, so that even if advertisers complain their feedback doesn't get through to Wikipedia staff.
- lwhi 16y ago
  The point is, a company can try to artificially shape public opinion by placing an advert. Without trying to be moralistic (or take any view on its relative merit) advertising _is_ largely an art of manipulation. In the context of Wikipedia - advertising would destroy any value Wikipedia has, because it would mean that companies with commercial interests would have a way to counter (and artificially influence) opinion. It would also create a situation where companies with the most money, would have the most clout. I think it would amount to a disaster if advertising was allowed in.
mootothemax 16y ago
Surely that's a redundant concern? Wikipedia is already open to being edited; companies can and have been caught editing entries relevant to their interests. Now, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and never will be in its current guise, i.e. with the anyone-can-edit philosophy. It's no bad thing, I love Wikipedia and can spend hours enjoying articles there. Where I'm going with this is that claiming conflict of interest or impartiality problems if advertising is to be introduced, well that just doesn't make sense - there are too many other factors that make Wikipedia unreliable. Personally, I think it's a convenient excuse for an otherwise noble cause: advertising is ugly and intrusive, and in a perfect world it wouldn't be required.
- lwhi 16y ago
  No - it's not redundant, because at the moment, the companies who wish to (try to) use Wikipedia for marketing have equal standing with other contributors and members of the public.
mseebach 16y ago
In theory, yes. In practice, no. A single big donor, or a network of donors, might threaten to withdraw support unless some change is made, in exactly the same way a commercial entity might do it (which is very in a very subtle way, typically no smoking guns). But probably the best shield against pressure: Wikipedia is a property of such a high quality that no single advertiser will ever have larger value than the mass of high quality competitors standing in line to take his place.
- lwhi 16y ago
  The way to counter this is to operate as much organisational transparency as possible. Bribery can only take place in private.
- Benjo 16y ago
  It probably wouldn't have a effect, but because these things are impossible to measure, there's no way to know for sure. It seems clear that even the perception of possible bias created by ad revenue is of negative value to Wikipedia. It's possible these effects are small. However, as an organization, they've clearly decided that the total costs of advertising outweigh the benefits.
- gus_massa 16y ago
  This is exactly what happened last May: "Pressure on the organisation had increased after Fox News reported the story, contacting a number of high-profile corporate donors to the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and related sites." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946
notahacker 16y ago
A large proportion of internet advertising is automatically served with no direct contact between advertiser and content provider anyway. User-generated and mostly user-moderated content for a non-profit organisation leaves very little room for people to make credible claims of conflict of interest. I don't think any of the Wikipedia content clones are any the less impartial for choosing Adwords over the begging bowl; their written content is literally identical. Sure, maybe it dilutes the "brand power" of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure the "brand power" of Wikipedia is a particularly worthy cause for my donation dollars anyway.
- lwhi 16y ago
  Would people contribute as much if the site was supported by advertising? Would people use and trust the content as much if the site was supported by advertising? I think the answer to both of these questions is 'no'. When I talk about the Wikipedia brand losing power, this is what I'm thinking about.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    As I pointed out, exactly the same content with exactly the same contributors is syndicated by profit-making entities like Answers.com anyway. There's certainly no shortage of content on Jimmy Wales' own openly-commercial and frequently-interfering Wikia (arguably Wikia making it's reputation off Wikipedia association is a far bigger conflict of any interest than any conceivable advertiser could manage...) I'm sure most people use Wikipedia because they've heard of the site and/or it's almost invariably within the top three Google results of a search on any given topic and usually the most informative page. Maybe lack of ads helps maintain the illusion that it's "more neutral" than other user moderated communities, but I'm still not convinced that's an illusion worth paying for.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      Well, I disagree. The fact other commercial sites syndicate Wikipedia's content is beside the point. I believe Wikipedia _is_ more neutral than other user moderated communities; it's not perfect, but it serves a very good purpose. I think it's worth paying for, which is why I donated.
roadnottaken 16y ago
In the US, our public radio (NPR) has similar fund-raising drives a few times a year. They're very annoying but must be effective. The bottom line is that no form of media can claim to be truly impartial. Period. But some are better than others.

by lwhi 16y ago

corin_ 16y ago

Completely disagree. Even in corporate life, I work for a publishing company and our sales and editorial departments are completely seperate from that point of view, in that if a bad review is going up, we won't stop it going up or edit the content just because it's for a product made by a company who currently have an advertising campaign with us. And even more so in Wikipedia's case. They could even just have an external advertising company deal with all sales, so that even if advertisers complain their feedback doesn't get through to Wikipedia staff.

lwhi 16y ago
The point is, a company can try to artificially shape public opinion by placing an advert. Without trying to be moralistic (or take any view on its relative merit) advertising _is_ largely an art of manipulation. In the context of Wikipedia - advertising would destroy any value Wikipedia has, because it would mean that companies with commercial interests would have a way to counter (and artificially influence) opinion. It would also create a situation where companies with the most money, would have the most clout. I think it would amount to a disaster if advertising was allowed in.

mootothemax 16y ago

Surely that's a redundant concern? Wikipedia is already open to being edited; companies can and have been caught editing entries relevant to their interests. Now, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and never will be in its current guise, i.e. with the anyone-can-edit philosophy. It's no bad thing, I love Wikipedia and can spend hours enjoying articles there. Where I'm going with this is that claiming conflict of interest or impartiality problems if advertising is to be introduced, well that just doesn't make sense - there are too many other factors that make Wikipedia unreliable. Personally, I think it's a convenient excuse for an otherwise noble cause: advertising is ugly and intrusive, and in a perfect world it wouldn't be required.

lwhi 16y ago
No - it's not redundant, because at the moment, the companies who wish to (try to) use Wikipedia for marketing have equal standing with other contributors and members of the public.

mseebach 16y ago

In theory, yes. In practice, no. A single big donor, or a network of donors, might threaten to withdraw support unless some change is made, in exactly the same way a commercial entity might do it (which is very in a very subtle way, typically no smoking guns). But probably the best shield against pressure: Wikipedia is a property of such a high quality that no single advertiser will ever have larger value than the mass of high quality competitors standing in line to take his place.

lwhi 16y ago
The way to counter this is to operate as much organisational transparency as possible. Bribery can only take place in private.
Benjo 16y ago
It probably wouldn't have a effect, but because these things are impossible to measure, there's no way to know for sure. It seems clear that even the perception of possible bias created by ad revenue is of negative value to Wikipedia. It's possible these effects are small. However, as an organization, they've clearly decided that the total costs of advertising outweigh the benefits.
gus_massa 16y ago
This is exactly what happened last May: "Pressure on the organisation had increased after Fox News reported the story, contacting a number of high-profile corporate donors to the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and related sites." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946

notahacker 16y ago

A large proportion of internet advertising is automatically served with no direct contact between advertiser and content provider anyway. User-generated and mostly user-moderated content for a non-profit organisation leaves very little room for people to make credible claims of conflict of interest. I don't think any of the Wikipedia content clones are any the less impartial for choosing Adwords over the begging bowl; their written content is literally identical. Sure, maybe it dilutes the "brand power" of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure the "brand power" of Wikipedia is a particularly worthy cause for my donation dollars anyway.

lwhi 16y ago
Would people contribute as much if the site was supported by advertising? Would people use and trust the content as much if the site was supported by advertising? I think the answer to both of these questions is 'no'. When I talk about the Wikipedia brand losing power, this is what I'm thinking about.
- notahacker 16y ago
  As I pointed out, exactly the same content with exactly the same contributors is syndicated by profit-making entities like Answers.com anyway. There's certainly no shortage of content on Jimmy Wales' own openly-commercial and frequently-interfering Wikia (arguably Wikia making it's reputation off Wikipedia association is a far bigger conflict of any interest than any conceivable advertiser could manage...) I'm sure most people use Wikipedia because they've heard of the site and/or it's almost invariably within the top three Google results of a search on any given topic and usually the most informative page. Maybe lack of ads helps maintain the illusion that it's "more neutral" than other user moderated communities, but I'm still not convinced that's an illusion worth paying for.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Well, I disagree. The fact other commercial sites syndicate Wikipedia's content is beside the point. I believe Wikipedia _is_ more neutral than other user moderated communities; it's not perfect, but it serves a very good purpose. I think it's worth paying for, which is why I donated.

roadnottaken 16y ago

In the US, our public radio (NPR) has similar fund-raising drives a few times a year. They're very annoying but must be effective. The bottom line is that no form of media can claim to be truly impartial. Period. But some are better than others.