4 ms·

Jimmy: "Just click on the little cross to close the ad." Seriously, why are so many people complaining about this?

by a3_nm 15y ago

aw3c2 15y ago
I don't allow cookies. That way of removing the ad does not work for me.
- jeffdavis 15y ago
  You can enable cookies to get the viewing experience that you prefer. Or, you can download the content freely and see it any way you prefer. Those seem like a couple reasonable options, to me.
- taken11 15y ago
  just use adblock
bborud 15y ago
In all seriousness, I would very much like to see Wikipedia be properly funded in a way that doesn't make bumming money from users necessary. The problem is finding a model that is sustainable in the long run and which doesn't compromise Wikipedia's independence and objectivity. What makes me a bit uncomfortable is that these ads associate Wikipedia very strongly with a single person. (I'm sure there are people who think Wikipedia is neither independent nor objective; I have no informed opinion on that. But for argument's sake, let's assume that it is and that this is what the contributors strive for)
- jeffdavis 15y ago
  "What makes me a bit uncomfortable is that these ads associate Wikipedia very strongly with a single person." A personal appeal seems reasonable to me. People are accustomed to getting content for free and not asking questions, and sometimes need to be reminded that it takes people and work to keep the quality content coming. So which people to use? They can't show pictures of individual contributors, because they won't be the ones receiving the donations. Jimmy Wales is the primary person responsible for stewarding your donation for the greater good[1], so showing his picture makes sense to me. [1]: For instance, if there were some hypothetical financial scandal, he's the one that everyone would be mad at.
  - bborud 15y ago
    I certainly see your point, though for me, personally, what I perceive to be the mission of Wikipedia, is much more important than any individual. I don't need to see a face to understand that Wikipedia is important -- I need only look at my browser history or the number of times Wikipedia is quoted as a source. What I need to know is how much Wikipedia needs (on an ongoing basis) and for what. And I need it to be presented plainly. I have donated to Wikipedia in the past -- even before Wikipedia was a household name (which isn't something I say to seem like some hipster schmuck, but to illustrate that I believe enough in what Wikipedia does to donate my money at a time when it was uncertain if they would even survive -- let alone be successful). Whenever I see Jimmy Wales' face in the current ads my gut reaction is that I'm not going to contribute to his blatant self-promotion. I don't know Mr Wales and I have no opinion on him as a person, but I can't help but recoil every time I see his face on Wikipedia. It just doesn't bring out the philanthropist in me. Sorry. I'm probably a bad person. Or something.
    - a3_nm 15y ago
      > I'm not going to contribute to his blatant self-promotion. If Wales was really fond of self-promotion, he could have done a lot more. He probably wouldn't have set up a foundation with an elected board of trustees which runs the foundation in his stead. I find it more likely that this is just the Wikimedia Foundation trying to give a humane face to Wikipedia in order to get more donations. It might be a misguided move, but I don't think Wales is excessively pushing for it.

Jimmy: "Just click on the little cross to close the ad." Seriously, why are so many people complaining about this?

by a3_nm 15y ago

Jimmy: "Just click on the little cross to close the ad." Seriously, why are so many people complaining about this?

aw3c2 15y ago

I don't allow cookies. That way of removing the ad does not work for me.

jeffdavis 15y ago
You can enable cookies to get the viewing experience that you prefer. Or, you can download the content freely and see it any way you prefer. Those seem like a couple reasonable options, to me.
taken11 15y ago
just use adblock

bborud 15y ago

In all seriousness, I would very much like to see Wikipedia be properly funded in a way that doesn't make bumming money from users necessary. The problem is finding a model that is sustainable in the long run and which doesn't compromise Wikipedia's independence and objectivity. What makes me a bit uncomfortable is that these ads associate Wikipedia very strongly with a single person. (I'm sure there are people who think Wikipedia is neither independent nor objective; I have no informed opinion on that. But for argument's sake, let's assume that it is and that this is what the contributors strive for)

jeffdavis 15y ago
"What makes me a bit uncomfortable is that these ads associate Wikipedia very strongly with a single person." A personal appeal seems reasonable to me. People are accustomed to getting content for free and not asking questions, and sometimes need to be reminded that it takes people and work to keep the quality content coming. So which people to use? They can't show pictures of individual contributors, because they won't be the ones receiving the donations. Jimmy Wales is the primary person responsible for stewarding your donation for the greater good[1], so showing his picture makes sense to me. [1]: For instance, if there were some hypothetical financial scandal, he's the one that everyone would be mad at.
- bborud 15y ago
  I certainly see your point, though for me, personally, what I perceive to be the mission of Wikipedia, is much more important than any individual. I don't need to see a face to understand that Wikipedia is important -- I need only look at my browser history or the number of times Wikipedia is quoted as a source. What I need to know is how much Wikipedia needs (on an ongoing basis) and for what. And I need it to be presented plainly. I have donated to Wikipedia in the past -- even before Wikipedia was a household name (which isn't something I say to seem like some hipster schmuck, but to illustrate that I believe enough in what Wikipedia does to donate my money at a time when it was uncertain if they would even survive -- let alone be successful). Whenever I see Jimmy Wales' face in the current ads my gut reaction is that I'm not going to contribute to his blatant self-promotion. I don't know Mr Wales and I have no opinion on him as a person, but I can't help but recoil every time I see his face on Wikipedia. It just doesn't bring out the philanthropist in me. Sorry. I'm probably a bad person. Or something.
  - a3_nm 15y ago
    > I'm not going to contribute to his blatant self-promotion. If Wales was really fond of self-promotion, he could have done a lot more. He probably wouldn't have set up a foundation with an elected board of trustees which runs the foundation in his stead. I find it more likely that this is just the Wikimedia Foundation trying to give a humane face to Wikipedia in order to get more donations. It might be a misguided move, but I don't think Wales is excessively pushing for it.