3 ms·

> plastered in ads Besides Jimmy's lovely face?

by suprfsat 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago
I'm inclined to treat "please donate" ads for Wikipedia itself very differently than paid ads for third parties.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  I dislike them just as much. I dislike advertisements because I don't enjoy people trying to make me act irrationally. Wikipedia advertisements are just as manipulative as normal ads, if not more so.
  - s_dev 6y ago
    This comment seems hilariously out of place when you consider Facebook is being accused of undermining democracy with its ads.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      I had in mind when I said normal ads fast food ads, cell phone ads, etc.
  - mmkos 6y ago
    Perhaps you can say that Wikipedia ads are manipulative, but I wouldn't say that it makes one act 'irrationally'. It's not irrational to support Wikipedia. In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      I love Wikipedia[1]. And if they only asked for the money they needed to run Wikipedia, and did so in a straight-forward way, I'd be happy enough. But the reality is, despite what the frequent, heavily optimised ads might have a reader think, they have enormous amounts of money already, and lots of it is spent questionably or on other projects. [1]Although I share Gwern's concerns as laid out here: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
    - gruez 6y ago
      >In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere. That might be true, but AFAIK "hosting" makes up a small part of WMF's budget. The ads definitely give an impression that wikimedia is struggling to pay hosting expenses, but this isn't really the case. According to their 2018 report[1] "Internet hosting" and "Depreciation and amortization" combined only make up 6.4% of their budget. "Salaries and wages" makes up 47.3%, but it's unclear how much of the staff is related to IT, rather than in admin or advocacy. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin...
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      On a different note: Is a person acting rationally when they make the right move for the wrong reason?
  - evan_ 6y ago
    Ads on Wikipedia might take the form of a banner at the top and bottom of the page or they might take the form of suddenly the page for Nestle only talks about how great the company’s products are and doesn’t mention the Colombian death squads or child slavery.
  - scandox 6y ago
    I agree. I find Wikipedia's marketing communications very annoying and I've explained why in response to some of their emails in I think a constructive and polite manner. For the type of organization they are, the way they communicate is just patronising. I gave them money until they started asking for it in the manner they do now.

> plastered in ads Besides Jimmy's lovely face?

ceejayoz 6y ago

I'm inclined to treat "please donate" ads for Wikipedia itself very differently than paid ads for third parties.

garbagetime 6y ago
I dislike them just as much. I dislike advertisements because I don't enjoy people trying to make me act irrationally. Wikipedia advertisements are just as manipulative as normal ads, if not more so.
- s_dev 6y ago
  This comment seems hilariously out of place when you consider Facebook is being accused of undermining democracy with its ads.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    I had in mind when I said normal ads fast food ads, cell phone ads, etc.
- mmkos 6y ago
  Perhaps you can say that Wikipedia ads are manipulative, but I wouldn't say that it makes one act 'irrationally'. It's not irrational to support Wikipedia. In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    I love Wikipedia[1]. And if they only asked for the money they needed to run Wikipedia, and did so in a straight-forward way, I'd be happy enough. But the reality is, despite what the frequent, heavily optimised ads might have a reader think, they have enormous amounts of money already, and lots of it is spent questionably or on other projects. [1]Although I share Gwern's concerns as laid out here: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
  - gruez 6y ago
    >In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere. That might be true, but AFAIK "hosting" makes up a small part of WMF's budget. The ads definitely give an impression that wikimedia is struggling to pay hosting expenses, but this isn't really the case. According to their 2018 report[1] "Internet hosting" and "Depreciation and amortization" combined only make up 6.4% of their budget. "Salaries and wages" makes up 47.3%, but it's unclear how much of the staff is related to IT, rather than in admin or advocacy. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin...
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    On a different note: Is a person acting rationally when they make the right move for the wrong reason?
- evan_ 6y ago
  Ads on Wikipedia might take the form of a banner at the top and bottom of the page or they might take the form of suddenly the page for Nestle only talks about how great the company’s products are and doesn’t mention the Colombian death squads or child slavery.
- scandox 6y ago
  I agree. I find Wikipedia's marketing communications very annoying and I've explained why in response to some of their emails in I think a constructive and polite manner. For the type of organization they are, the way they communicate is just patronising. I gave them money until they started asking for it in the manner they do now.