4 ms·
The worst are the adds with a picture of some guy called Jimmy and another one with long hair. Both asking for money. It takes up the whole top of the page.
by kokey 14y ago
The worst are the adds with a picture of some guy called Jimmy and another one with long hair. Both asking for money. It takes up the whole top of the page.
- Flimm 14y agoI wish more ads were like Wikipedia's: relevant, temporary and of great consequence. I don't see how they qualify for being "the worst".
- notatoad 14y agothey're the worst because they're the best. normal ads i can ignore. wikipedia's ads are not only visually hard to ignore, they're morally hard to ignore (and they don't go away after you donate)
- joshu 14y agohttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6MTFDFYHgzo/TyLtGzJmTfI/AAAAAAAAADI/2DciRgNmrIw/s1600/Dimmy+Waywes.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6MTFDFYHgzo/TyLtGzJmTfI/AAAAAAAAAD...
- sien 14y agoWould you prefer it if wikipedia just ran a line of ads all the time? This is a serious question. It's open to others to.
- twelvechairs 14y agoI think the real answer is it doesn't really matter. Especially for those of us with adblock.
- altrego99 14y agoI agree and hence if it means more profit for Wikimedia organization, from people who do not use or do not know about adblock, then it is definitely a better choice than the current donation model.
- alexchamberlain 14y agoAs long as they were clearly marked as Ads and small text-based ads, then yes. I'd like to see sponsored pages.
- epidemian 14y agoI can't believe this comment is being upvoted. Do you somehow feel it's wrong that Wikipedia asks for donations?
- kokey 14y agoI also can't believe it was upvoted, mainly because it was a silly bit of sarcasm.