5 ms·

They routinely run absolutely massive banner ads for themselves at the top of every page begging for donations they don't need. And these ads are the worst: ext

by nvm0n2 3y ago

They routinely run absolutely massive banner ads for themselves at the top of every page begging for donations they don't need. And these ads are the worst: extremely deceptive, unnecessary, and huge.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago
Honestly once you learn the truth about their finances their banner campaign are actually the absolute pits of advertising and the most deceptive and emotionally manipulative type of advertising going. Laughable to claim wikipedia is "ad free" just because the one ad is for wikipedia.
- some_random 3y ago
  I completely agree that their campaigns are distasteful for a number of reasons, but I think the original point was more that the lack of ad slots for sale has prevented the site from turning into the addiction optimized hellsite that most websites have become now
- riffruff24 3y ago
  I like that they're up front about it. They also didn't pollute their own content with indistinguishable ads. Also I've been using adblocks for so long, the only ads I see are ones that pollute the content. So yay wikipedia.
hnbad 3y ago
There's a huge functional difference between fundraising ads (no matter how manipulative) and the kind of commercial (and behavioral) ads you see everywhere else: the incentive structure it creates. Behavioral ads also require extremely intrusive tracking. Commercial ads incentivise optimising for impressions, i.e. getting users to see as many ads as possible. This leads to clickbait, bloating one-line news bits into entire articles and extending the number of clicks necessary for a user to get what they want. Social media makes this even worse by making the ads "content" (i.e. "sponsored posts") and thus trying to drive up "engagement" which in practice leads to outrage bait (because people are more likely to comment or share what they disagree with or dislike). Wikipedia on the other hand just has a slightly annoying banner made more annoying by lazy-loading (and thus shifting the layout) that shows up for a few weeks each year. Unless your complaint is with "supposedly non-profit organizations trying to make more money" (in which case I'd say your problem might be more systemic than just a website with an ad) I'd take this over the former any day.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  The Wikipedia ads are nothing but clickbait. Wikipedia itself doesn't need any funds, but the ads urge users to click by claiming that the site may go offline if they don't. Then the money is embezzled and spent on left wing causes. This is pure commercialism of the worst kind, but it's actually worse than that because many countries have various kinds of truth in advertising laws that apply to companies, whereas Wikimedia Foundation can get away with this sort of deception.
  - Xiol32 3y ago
    [flagged]
dehrmann 3y ago
They run house ads, and it's the same ad on every page. It's not engagement driven, and it's not deceptive like Google's ads that look like search results. Whether or not they need the money is a different question.
- itsyaboi 3y ago
  The parent comment only claimed that the ads were deceptive (which they are), not that they are deceptive __like Google's__. That is entirely a straw man which you added to conveniently knock down. Wikipedia ads are frequently phrased in a way to suggest that the funds are vital for keeping the site up when in reality, the majority of the funding goes to various social "justice" orgs. https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633 https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633
momirlan 3y ago
i agree, that is annoying. i think it can be zapped with things like ublock

by nvm0n2 3y ago

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

Honestly once you learn the truth about their finances their banner campaign are actually the absolute pits of advertising and the most deceptive and emotionally manipulative type of advertising going. Laughable to claim wikipedia is "ad free" just because the one ad is for wikipedia.

some_random 3y ago
I completely agree that their campaigns are distasteful for a number of reasons, but I think the original point was more that the lack of ad slots for sale has prevented the site from turning into the addiction optimized hellsite that most websites have become now
riffruff24 3y ago
I like that they're up front about it. They also didn't pollute their own content with indistinguishable ads. Also I've been using adblocks for so long, the only ads I see are ones that pollute the content. So yay wikipedia.

hnbad 3y ago

There's a huge functional difference between fundraising ads (no matter how manipulative) and the kind of commercial (and behavioral) ads you see everywhere else: the incentive structure it creates. Behavioral ads also require extremely intrusive tracking. Commercial ads incentivise optimising for impressions, i.e. getting users to see as many ads as possible. This leads to clickbait, bloating one-line news bits into entire articles and extending the number of clicks necessary for a user to get what they want. Social media makes this even worse by making the ads "content" (i.e. "sponsored posts") and thus trying to drive up "engagement" which in practice leads to outrage bait (because people are more likely to comment or share what they disagree with or dislike). Wikipedia on the other hand just has a slightly annoying banner made more annoying by lazy-loading (and thus shifting the layout) that shows up for a few weeks each year. Unless your complaint is with "supposedly non-profit organizations trying to make more money" (in which case I'd say your problem might be more systemic than just a website with an ad) I'd take this over the former any day.

nvm0n2 3y ago
The Wikipedia ads are nothing but clickbait. Wikipedia itself doesn't need any funds, but the ads urge users to click by claiming that the site may go offline if they don't. Then the money is embezzled and spent on left wing causes. This is pure commercialism of the worst kind, but it's actually worse than that because many countries have various kinds of truth in advertising laws that apply to companies, whereas Wikimedia Foundation can get away with this sort of deception.
- Xiol32 3y ago
  [flagged]

dehrmann 3y ago

They run house ads, and it's the same ad on every page. It's not engagement driven, and it's not deceptive like Google's ads that look like search results. Whether or not they need the money is a different question.

itsyaboi 3y ago
The parent comment only claimed that the ads were deceptive (which they are), not that they are deceptive __like Google's__. That is entirely a straw man which you added to conveniently knock down. Wikipedia ads are frequently phrased in a way to suggest that the funds are vital for keeping the site up when in reality, the majority of the funding goes to various social "justice" orgs. https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633 https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633

momirlan 3y ago

i agree, that is annoying. i think it can be zapped with things like ublock