Wikipedia: charting the decline in participation

[eagle]

Following World War II, the cigarette industry hired fashion models to walk up and down Michigan Ave in Chicago and Park Ave in NYC smoking cigarettes in order to make it socially acceptable for women to smoke in public.

The WMF should allocate a portion of its $55 million to hire beautiful women to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses wearing buttons saying "Edit Wikipedia with me." Although this will attract more of the same young male nerd editors, the WMF could defend the expense as a Gender Gap measure.

[Ross McPherson]

Following World War II, the cigarette industry hired fashion models to walk up and down Michigan Ave in Chicago and Park Ave in NYC smoking cigarettes in order to make it socially acceptable for women to smoke in public.

The WMF should allocate a portion of its $55 million to hire beautiful women to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses wearing buttons saying "Edit Wikipedia with me." Although this will attract more of the same young male nerd editors, the WMF could defend the expense as a Gender Gap measure.

The cigarette campaign was probably aimed at changing male attitudes to women smoking. Men were in the driving seat then. Things have changed.

You want to increase female participation? Introduce ads. A no-ad environment in this day and age is a strange environment and women are not comfortable working in strange environments. Also obsessive dogmatism is a male/paternalistic thing and WP looks obsessive and dogmatic in its cheerless spaces. Ads would brighten the place up.

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

Also ads would bring in the revenue to replace influential nerds with people who know what they are doing.

[thekohser]

The WMF should allocate a portion of its $55 million to hire beautiful women to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses wearing buttons saying "Edit Wikipedia with me."

Problem is, Richard Branson has so driven up the cost of beautiful women (whom he hires as directors of finance and "hot girl" sushi plates), the portion of the $55 million would be too significant, and they'd have to halt important programs like Flow and the Coatzee legal fund.

[eagle]

The WMF should allocate a portion of its $55 million to hire beautiful women to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses wearing buttons saying "Edit Wikipedia with me."

Problem is, Richard Branson has so driven up the cost of beautiful women (whom he hires as directors of finance and "hot girl" sushi plates), the portion of the $55 million would be too significant, and they'd have to halt important programs like Flow and the Coatzee legal fund.

Mr. Kohs finally understands the goal of my proposal. But for the sake of gender equity, if WMF hires unqualified male bimbos for its technical staff, it should also create jobs for female bimbos as well.

[Vigilant]

The WMF should allocate a portion of its $55 million to hire beautiful women to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses wearing buttons saying "Edit Wikipedia with me."

Problem is, Richard Branson has so driven up the cost of beautiful women (whom he hires as directors of finance and "hot girl" sushi plates), the portion of the $55 million would be too significant, and they'd have to halt important programs like Flow and the Coatzee legal fund.
<snip>

Mr. Kohs finally understands the goal of my proposal. But for the sake of gender equity, if WMF hires unqualified male bimbos for its technical staff, it should also create jobs for female bimbos as well.

I hardly see that the women that they've hired don't already fall into that category.

That being said, I fully support the proposal to hire better looking employees since they seem determined not to hire more competent ones.

[Ross McPherson]

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

In fact people should not be made admins until they prove they can cook from a recipe book, argue on a phone, keep an eye on baby and make entries in a ledger simultaneously. Trigger-happy male admins just itching to shoot something are bringing participation down as it were a flight of ducks. Or am I stereotyping people?

[Johnny Au]

Following World War II, the cigarette industry hired fashion models to walk up and down Michigan Ave in Chicago and Park Ave in NYC smoking cigarettes in order to make it socially acceptable for women to smoke in public.

The WMF should allocate a portion of its $55 million to hire beautiful women to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses wearing buttons saying "Edit Wikipedia with me." Although this will attract more of the same young male nerd editors, the WMF could defend the expense as a Gender Gap measure.

The cigarette campaign was probably aimed at changing male attitudes to women smoking. Men were in the driving seat then. Things have changed.

You want to increase female participation? Introduce ads. A no-ad environment in this day and age is a strange environment and women are not comfortable working in strange environments. Also obsessive dogmatism is a male/paternalistic thing and WP looks obsessive and dogmatic in its cheerless spaces. Ads would brighten the place up.

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

Also ads would bring in the revenue to replace influential nerds with people who know what they are doing.

There are some women who find advertising repulsive, such as Naomi Klein (T-H-L), author of No Logo (T-H-L).

[Cla68]

How to reverse the decline of Wikipedia:

• Promote Wikipedia right down to shoving it down the throats of many different people, especially celebrities, since they are trendsetters (I myself make more edits on Wikipedia than 99.99% of all celebrities combined)
• Put the Wikipedia globe on mainstream advertisements, just like with that navy blue square with a white lowercase "f" superimposed on it and a cyan songbird
• Likewise, put the Wikipedia globe on every major website for the same reason the aforementioned square and songbird are there
• Controversially, link WikiLeaks with the WMF, since bad publicity is publicity nonetheless, even if WikiLeaks is not affiliated with the WMF
• Fix Wikipedia's byzantine and opaque governance and listen to what sparkzilla got to say

Or, they could try to do what advocates and activists of other causes try to do and that's get government legislation passed that forces people to do what they want them to do.

[SB_Johnny]

You want to increase female participation? Introduce ads. A no-ad environment in this day and age is a strange environment and women are not comfortable working in strange environments. Also obsessive dogmatism is a male/paternalistic thing and WP looks obsessive and dogmatic in its cheerless spaces. Ads would brighten the place up.

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

Wow. Hang out with women often, do you?

[Ross McPherson]

You want to increase female participation? Introduce ads. A no-ad environment in this day and age is a strange environment and women are not comfortable working in strange environments. Also obsessive dogmatism is a male/paternalistic thing and WP looks obsessive and dogmatic in its cheerless spaces. Ads would brighten the place up.

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

Wow. Hang out with women often, do you?

I was raised with two sisters, no brothers. I asked to play with their dolls but they wouldn't let me.

[Cla68]

You want to increase female participation? Introduce ads. A no-ad environment in this day and age is a strange environment and women are not comfortable working in strange environments. Also obsessive dogmatism is a male/paternalistic thing and WP looks obsessive and dogmatic in its cheerless spaces. Ads would brighten the place up.

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

Wow. Hang out with women often, do you?

I've been a proponent of having ads on WP since I ran up against the cabal in 2008. Having ads would make it harder for abusive cabals to operate on WP, because so many outside organizations and people with money at stake would be involved with how WP operates and is administrated. I don't know, however, if it would increase participation by women.

[Johnny Au]

How to reverse the decline of Wikipedia:

• Promote Wikipedia right down to shoving it down the throats of many different people, especially celebrities, since they are trendsetters (I myself make more edits on Wikipedia than 99.99% of all celebrities combined)
• Put the Wikipedia globe on mainstream advertisements, just like with that navy blue square with a white lowercase "f" superimposed on it and a cyan songbird
• Likewise, put the Wikipedia globe on every major website for the same reason the aforementioned square and songbird are there
• Controversially, link WikiLeaks with the WMF, since bad publicity is publicity nonetheless, even if WikiLeaks is not affiliated with the WMF
• Fix Wikipedia's byzantine and opaque governance and listen to what sparkzilla got to say

Or, they could try to do what advocates and activists of other causes try to do and that's get government legislation passed that forces people to do what they want them to do.

That had been done in Armenia. Other countries should follow suit.

Since the Armenian government campaign, Armenia has one of the highest percentage of Wikipedians of its total population in the world.

[sparkzilla]

I doubt very much that ads will increase any participation - all it will do is give more money to WMF, an organization that doesn't need any more golden chairs.

There are several ways to get women to participate

1. Make it easier to contribute. There is far too much unnecessary fighting on the site, especially on news and biography pages. Excessive rules exist entrench incumbent editors
2. Pay them. Newslines has 80% women and minority writers, mainly because we hooked into a community of female homeworkers who were happy to make $1 per post. Our upcoming revenue share system will allow contributors to make even more
3. Improve the editing interface so that it is at least up to 1999 web standards
4. Improve the whole look of this site, so it's not a boring textbook
5. Allow for fully anonymous editing, not the we'll-track-you-down-and-expose-everything-about-you non-anonymity that currently exists.

It's fair to say that none of the above will be fixed any time soon. That's the market opportunity for folks like me, but frustrating for those who think Wikipedia can actually be improved.

[Lukeno94]

Some of those are valid, but "fully anonymous editing" is a bad idea in my opinion; makes it far easier for dodgy people to remain under the radar, when it is too easy as it stands right now.

[Ross McPherson]

@Sparkzilla

As a hen-pecked male I can tell you for a fact that girls like to feel linked to the wider community. Ads are visible links to those bigger circles. It is about feeling safe and snug, with everything you need close by and a taxi just around the corner. Wikipedia is an isolated hillside dominated by lonely young males, butting heads and bellowing at the moon. It is no place for girls.

The $1 per post makes sense though. It gives the girls a feeling of being in control. But maybe you should try ads instead. I would be busy at your site myself if WP had not left me forever pissed off with editing encyclopaedias. Good luck!

[sparkzilla]

Some of those are valid, but "fully anonymous editing" is a bad idea in my opinion; makes it far easier for dodgy people to remain under the radar, when it is too easy as it stands right now.

It's often said that a real-names policy will improve WP, but that will only lead to more harassment. As we all know, WP editors will use any information to discredit their opponents. I was targeted, belittled, and harassed by Wikipedia Admins once they knew my real identity. They told me it was better to declare a conflict of interest (I was a published critic of the conduct of a drug smuggler's support group), and then banned for COI (all while other users, most likely Admins, were allowed to use SPAs to attack me).

It's better to minimize harassment and favoritism by trying to creating a system that focuses solely on the quality of the edit, not on the person. At Newslines we do this by:

1) Having page structure that is based on news events, not a full article. This means no single editor or group of editors can control the page. This immediately cuts out systemic bias.
2) Assigning a random editor to assess each post that is added (in WP this would be the equivalent of assigning a random editor to assess each edit). This means that editors cannot play favorites, or harass other editors. It let's editors concentrate on the post content rather than the person making the post, and also let's writers know that they will be treated fairly. We actually take this idea further, and assign a different editor if the post has to be checked twice.
3) Having simple guidelines for what we want a post to contain. For example here's what we want in a movie post. We don't care whether the person who is writing the post is a a saint, a 'dodgy person', or an employee or PR agency -- we only care that the item they add follows standard formatting.

[Ross McPherson]

@Sparkzilla

I have been looking at your site. It is some time since I last looked and I forgot you do have ads - hence the revenue supply of course. Wikipedians seem worried that ads mean editorial interference from big business. They don't seem to mind editorial influence from anonymous gangs at the grass roots level. I know which kind of interference turns women editors away most. I am also pretty sure the opportunities for big business to meddle are far fewer than for the gangs.

[sparkzilla]

The "ads create bias" stance of Wikipedians is bogus. Of all the biases, advertising bias is one of the easiest of all to manage. I have managed ad-driven publications since before the Internet and there are many ways to deal with it. You can reject ads that come with conditions. You can mark all sponsored content as being sponsored. You actively attract competitors to advertise against each other. Bias is lessened as more advertisers participate and the power of each one is lessened.

Certainly there are plenty of 'anonymous gangs' exerting bias anyway. There's the whole gender bias issue (which can be solved in part by giving ad revenue to contributors). I wonder if people who complain most about ads on Wikipedia ever complain about bias when browsing Google, watching ads on CNN, reading a newspaper site, watching a trailer before a movie, or listening to the radio. Same goes for those who dislike tracking.

I usually hear of some example of how Shell advertising on Global Warming pages would kill the credibility of the site, but most readers know the difference between ads and content and can filter appropriately. In any case Shell may have something interesting to say. The anti-ad stance is a form of censorship that aims to preserve the biases of the people who created the page. Wouldn't it be interesting if corporations and individuals were able to post ads saying "THIS IS BS. For the real story click here!" Now that's something the Wikipedians wouldn't like.

That said, I think it would be an incredible slap in the face to those who contributed their effort on the condition that the site was to be free of ads for the site to turn around and add ads now. Especially as it is highly unlikely that and ad revenue will filter back to the writers.

[Ross McPherson]

@Sparkzilla

I hope for your sake they don't use ads and they crash and burn like the lunatics they are. It worries me that WP seems targeted at the young. It makes me think there is a group of would-be mentors behind the scenes, more interested in reshaping the world than in reporting on it, more interested in using the young than working with them for any socially acceptable purpose. But maybe I am overly suspicious and my experiences there have jaundiced my view. Anyway, enough thought on this for one day!

[Hex]

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

I can only hope that this was some attempt at humor. Otherwise, give us some more squares to cross, why don't you?

[Cla68]

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

I can only hope that this was some attempt at humor. Otherwise, give us some more squares to cross, why don't you?

Actually, I agree with evolutionary biology. But, I'm not sure how it applies to the Internet. If women and men are really 90% the same, emotionally and physically, as some activists proclaim, then why are women and men's participation on various websites different?

I think it could be argued that women don't participate in Wikipedia as much because they are more intelligent than men and recognize that it is a bush-league endeavor, while men, especially the beta and omega males that populate WP, aren't as aware of it. However, it could also be for other reasons that aren't as obsequious to one gender or the other.

[Hex]

I think it could be argued that women don't participate in Wikipedia as much because they are more intelligent than men and recognize that it is a bush-league endeavor, while men, especially the beta and omega males that populate WP, aren't as aware of it.

Occam's razor rules that theory out pretty quickly.

[Cla68]

I think it could be argued that women don't participate in Wikipedia as much because they are more intelligent than men and recognize that it is a bush-league endeavor, while men, especially the beta and omega males that populate WP, aren't as aware of it.

Occam's razor rules that theory out pretty quickly.

Actually, I think women and men have somewhat polarized (but complementary) roles for sniffing out BS depending on the context and situation, and I think women in general for some time now have recognized WP, at least as far as being a dedicated contributor, as being a big pile of doggy doo.

[Vigilant]

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

I can only hope that this was some attempt at humor. Otherwise, give us some more squares to cross, why don't you?

Actually, I agree with evolutionary biology. But, I'm not sure how it applies to the Internet. If women and men are really 90% the same, emotionally and physically, as some activists proclaim, then why are women and men's participation on various websites different?

I think it could be argued that women don't participate in Wikipedia as much because they are more intelligent than men and recognize that it is a bush-league endeavor, while men, especially the beta and omega males that populate WP, aren't as aware of it. However, it could also be for other reasons that aren't as obsequious to one gender or the other.

If chimpanzees and humans really share 90% (plus) of their DNA, explain why we're not all sitting around an anthill with a sticky stick right now...

Come on, people.

[Amy Francis]

PPS - what we really need is a world wide economic recession, a "Great Depression" if you will, where Keynesian economics was shown to, rather than reduce the effects, lengthen the period and prolong the recovery. Then we can dump this demonstrably incorrect philosophy once and for all, and improve on one that at least accurately describes what happens.... oh.. wait...

Let's see. The USA followed more or less a classical Keynesian approach. Germany didn't. Guess which country has been overcoming the recession better.

I'm afraid that denying the validity of Keynesian economics makes as much sense as denying global warming. Can you imagine any website with pretensions to being a credible reference work denying global warming? oh.. wait...

[Amy Francis]

Following World War II, the cigarette industry hired fashion models to walk up and down Michigan Ave in Chicago and Park Ave in NYC smoking cigarettes in order to make it socially acceptable for women to smoke in public.

The WMF should allocate a portion of its $55 million to hire beautiful women to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses wearing buttons saying "Edit Wikipedia with me." Although this will attract more of the same young male nerd editors, the WMF could defend the expense as a Gender Gap measure.

If you want to attract women, surely you should hire hunks with six packs to attend Wikipedia meet-ups and to walk around college campuses.

Seriously though, to retain female editors you should assign admins or at least experienced editors as bodyguards, so that when for example some wikilawyer comes and tells you that you're violating a policy and you have no idea what to do, your bodyguard can tell him (politely!) to edit Conservapedia instead.

[lilburne]

If chimpanzees and humans really share 90% (plus) of their DNA, explain why we're not all sitting around an anthill with a sticky stick right now...

Come on, people.

'Cos we learnt that the ants tend to bite it?

[Ross McPherson]

We are still shaped by ancestral habits - male the hunter, female the gatherer. He is all eyes for the target in view. She is picking berries from branches, mushrooms from the forest floor, honey from beehives, lizards from rocks. She doesn't object to ads. In fact she likes them. They help her gathering ways.

I can only hope that this was some attempt at humor. Otherwise, give us some more squares to cross, why don't you?

Well talking gender differences is a bit like staring at those either/or pictures.
"Oh look - it's a vase."
"No it's a monkey."
"Are you blind?"
"It's a monkey, I tell you."

I am not saying hunting is better than gathering. In fact a tribe can survive without hunting. It cannot survive without gatherers. Women seem to have the right attributes for gathering. They don't have our speed, strength or body mass - they don't have the momentum that us guys can generate. So they are watchful, careful. Is this difficult to understand?

I am not sure about Amy - if she is a Wikipedian, she is a rare kind of girl. But I think there is a better than even chance that, despite her global warming fears, she is not so scared of Shell or British Petrolium as she is of creeps in dark alleys. I think she would rather Wikipedia allowed advertizing by Shell than editing by anonymous gangs of creeps. But that is for her to say, of course.

[Textnyymi]

I am not saying hunting is better than gathering. In fact a tribe can survive without hunting. It cannot survive without gatherers. Women seem to have the right attributes for gathering. They don't have our speed, strength or body mass - they don't have the momentum that us guys can generate. So they are watchful, careful. Is this difficult to understand?

I am not saying writing is better than copy-pasting. In fact a Wiki can see its database expanded without writers. It cannot see its database expanded without copy-pasters. Internet citizens seem to have the right attributes for copy-pasting. They don't have the expertise, know-how, or will to study of real accredited experts - they don't have the patience that those guys can have. So they are content to see a Wiki being used for its speed in generating heaps of content. Is this difficult to understand?

[Ross McPherson]

@Textnyymi

I’m not sure how that relates to the tangled thread being woven here. The argument was about how advertizing would pressure WP to get its house in order and how this in turn would make WP a more congenial place for female editors. I think that is an important connection to make.

There are Wikipedians who would hate to see Shell advertizing on their pages, but I think Shell would have deep reservations about advertizing on a site like that.

[eagle]

@Textnyymi

I’m not sure how that relates to the tangled thread being woven here. The argument was about how advertizing would pressure WP to get its house in order and how this in turn would make WP a more congenial place for female editors. I think that is an important connection to make.

There are Wikipedians who would hate to see Shell advertizing on their pages, but I think Shell would have deep reservations about advertizing on a site like that.

Mr. Wales and his entourage want to stay in power without having to actually do anything or to answer to anyone. (This promotes Mr. Wales' new career as a B-list celebrity for hire.) So, they do not go after big grants, because they would have to be accountable to the sophisticated grant-makers. They don't want advertising, because they would have to conduct themselves in a respectable manner to remain a suitable advertising venue. So, they have redesigned the WMF fundraising department to go after small unsophisticated donor who give an average of $15. They use "the bringing knowledge to the third world" as their poster child, because most donors have no idea whether the WMF is in any way effective in the third world.

Of course, people who understand that $55 million/year is far more than the WMF can spend effectively stop donating. I can't wait for the book to be published.

[Ross McPherson]

Mr. Wales and his entourage want to stay in power without having to actually do anything or to answer to anyone. (This promotes Mr. Wales' new career as a B-list celebrity for hire.) So, they do not go after big grants, because they would have to be accountable to the sophisticated grant-makers. They don't want advertising, because they would have to conduct themselves in a respectable manner to remain a suitable advertising venue. So, they have redesigned the WMF fundraising department to go after small unsophisticated donor who give an average of $15. They use "the bringing knowledge to the third world" as their poster child, because most donors have no idea whether the WMF is in any way effective in the third world.

Of course, people who understand that $55 million/year is far more than the WMF can spend effectively stop donating. I can't wait for the book to be published.

Maybe also Wikipedians are afraid of the sort of ads they would attract. Sponsors trying to promote a product as reliable and safe would avoid the place. Purveyors of pornography, scandal tabloids, soft drinks and computer games would be the main clients. How would that help WP's public image?

[Peryglus]

Maybe also Wikipedians are afraid of the sort of ads they would attract. Sponsors trying to promote a product as reliable and safe would avoid the place. Purveyors of pornography, scandal tabloids, soft drinks and computer games would be the main clients. How would that help WP's public image?

Could not the WMF be selective about who they accept to advertise on Wikipedia? It's the sort of thing they'd do.

[Ross McPherson]

Maybe also Wikipedians are afraid of the sort of ads they would attract. Sponsors trying to promote a product as reliable and safe would avoid the place. Purveyors of pornography, scandal tabloids, soft drinks and computer games would be the main clients. How would that help WP's public image?

Could not the WMF be selective about who they accept to advertise on Wikipedia? It's the sort of thing they'd do.

I have been thinking about that and Sparkzilla made the same point. But WP has underlying credibility problems that will not escape the attention of reputable businesses. I think WP would have to pay them to place ads. The 'sponsors' would be lending credibility to WP. So I don't think WP can change course now. It has to go on pretending that it is a charity in desperate need of help.

It is like the Titanic waiting for the inevitable iceberg to cross its path - the pointy chill of a scandal. Thank God only the men get drowned this time around. And the poor children. God knows how many of them are on board.

[eagle]

I have been thinking about that and Sparkzilla made the same point. But WP has underlying credibility problems that will not escape the attention of reputable businesses. I think WP would have to pay them to place ads. The 'sponsors' would be lending credibility to WP. So I don't think WP can change course now. It has to go on pretending that it is a charity in desperate need of help.

It is like the Titanic waiting for the inevitable iceberg to cross its path - the pointy chill of a scandal. Thank God only the men get drowned this time around. And the poor children. God knows how many of them are on board.

So, we have two competing models. In the first, British Petroleum could run ads on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (T-H-L) article giving their side of the story for $X. In the second, British Petroleum could hire Y paid advocacy editor to neutralize and tend the article on their behalf for a sum that is probably less than $X.

Under both models, WP's credibility with its own editor community and eventually the readers will erode away. (And perhaps the Google juice would stop flowing.)

[Notvelty]

I have been thinking about that and Sparkzilla made the same point. But WP has underlying credibility problems that will not escape the attention of reputable businesses. I think WP would have to pay them to place ads. The 'sponsors' would be lending credibility to WP. So I don't think WP can change course now. It has to go on pretending that it is a charity in desperate need of help.

It is like the Titanic waiting for the inevitable iceberg to cross its path - the pointy chill of a scandal. Thank God only the men get drowned this time around. And the poor children. God knows how many of them are on board.

So, we have two competing models. In the first, British Petroleum could run ads on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (T-H-L) article giving their side of the story for $X. In the second, British Petroleum could hire Y paid advocacy editor to neutralize and tend the article on their behalf for a sum that is probably less than $X.

Under both models, WP's credibility with its own editor community and eventually the readers will erode away. (And perhaps the Google juice would stop flowing.)

You assume no editorial oversight... oh.. right. As you were.

[thekohser]

Could not the WMF be selective about who they accept to advertise on Wikipedia? It's the sort of thing they'd do.

I'm sure there are a few mineral extraction companies in Kazakhstan and the UAE who would be happy to assign their ad dollars to Jimbo's project.

[Vigilant]

Could not the WMF be selective about who they accept to advertise on Wikipedia? It's the sort of thing they'd do.

I'm sure there are a few mineral extraction companies in Kazakhstan and the UAE who would be happy to assign their ad dollars to Jimbo's project.

Again.

[Ross McPherson]

I had a quick look at Encyclopaedia Britannica online just for comparison. Of course you get it ad free if you pay. The public area is free but limited and comes with discreet ads. I saw two ads during my brief visit, repeated page after page.

One ad was for a Mac-cleaning program. Those programs have questionable value so clearly this product is trying to borrow credibility from EB. That encyclopaedia's credibility is rock solid and it can carry ads like that without anyone questioning it.

The other ad was for a respectable university offering scholarships. I don't know if it would ever want to place ads at WP. Maybe along the lines:

"Now how about some real knowledge?"

Generally the kind of university advertising on WP would probably be one of those that sells degrees, along the lines:

"Why let ignorance stop you!"

I guess WP could turn itself into a users-pay outfit, like EB, but who would pay to use an encyclopaedia like that? Dumb question - its own contributors would be that vain. That would be great. They could have it all to themselves and spare the rest of us.

[eagle]

I guess WP could turn itself into a users-pay outfit, like EB, but who would pay to use an encyclopaedia like that? Dumb question - its own contributors would be that vain. That would be great. They could have it all to themselves and spare the rest of us.

If Wikipedia editors are as vain and addicted as some have argued here, one could adopt a third business model: no ads on the pages in article space, but include ads on the talk and project space pages and of course, on the edit page. There are interactive ads that work like a CAPCHA: an edit would not be saved until you typed in the answer to the question: "What is the most powerful bleach?" to make sure that your read the bleach ad on the edit page.

Premium ad rates to be charged for WP:AN, WP:ANI and Jimbo's talk page.

[Ross McPherson]

If Wikipedia editors are as vain and addicted as some have argued here, one could adopt a third business model: no ads on the pages in article space, but include ads on the talk and project space pages and of course, on the edit page. There are interactive ads that work like a CAPCHA: an edit would not be saved until you typed in the answer to the question: "What is the most powerful bleach?" to make sure that your read the bleach ad on the edit page.

Premium ad rates to be charged for WP:AN, WP:ANI and Jimbo's talk page.

This is genius.

Can it be improved? How about turning edit pages into something like a juke-box that automatically deducts five cents per edit from the user's credit card! Some will say this favours the rich but the rich never got to be rich by editing WP. What it will do is drive WP's host of impoverished fools to think carefully about their edits while at the same time making heaps of money for Jimbo to play around with.

Now we're cooking.

[Johnny Au]

If Wikipedia editors are as vain and addicted as some have argued here, one could adopt a third business model: no ads on the pages in article space, but include ads on the talk and project space pages and of course, on the edit page. There are interactive ads that work like a CAPCHA: an edit would not be saved until you typed in the answer to the question: "What is the most powerful bleach?" to make sure that your read the bleach ad on the edit page.

Premium ad rates to be charged for WP:AN, WP:ANI and Jimbo's talk page.

This is genius.

Can it be improved? How about turning edit pages into something like a juke-box that automatically deducts five cents per edit from the user's credit card! Some will say this favours the rich but the rich never got to be rich by editing WP. What it will do is drive WP's host of impoverished fools to think carefully about their edits while at the same time making heaps of money for Jimbo to play around with.

Now we're cooking.

No. That would punish WikiGnomes, such as myself. We WikiGnomes make extremely incremental improvements to Wikipedia, one comma and one bypassed redirect at a time.

[eagle]

No. That would punish WikiGnomes, such as myself. We WikiGnomes make extremely incremental improvements to Wikipedia, one comma and one bypassed redirect at a time.

Will you vote for this if we promise to keep ads off of the editing of redirect pages and a 5 cent incentive for each double redirect eliminated?

[Ross McPherson]

No. That would punish WikiGnomes, such as myself. We WikiGnomes make extremely incremental improvements to Wikipedia, one comma and one bypassed redirect at a time.

So how much do you think your commas are worth?

Supposing one comma weighs 0.01 grams, at 5 cents per comma that amounts to $5 per gram of commas, which is the same price for sturgeon caviar, the best there is. If your commas are actually that good, Wikipedia could sell them on to other buyers and double their profit. In that case you would be well within your rights to ask for a waiving of the editing fee, I think. However, Wikipedia generally undervalues the work of its editors and you could end up paying like everyone else.

Have you considered joining Eric Corbett’s Monday strike? A slave factory shouldn't be open more than 6 days a week max. Maybe you can trade your commas for a rest day.

[Notvelty]

No. That would punish WikiGnomes, such as myself. We WikiGnomes make extremely incremental improvements to Wikipedia, one comma and one bypassed redirect at a time.

Will you vote for this if we promise to keep ads off of the editing of redirect pages and a 5 cent incentive for each double redirect eliminated?

Why does it come as no surprise to me that a self-proclaimed "gnome" doesn't know how to use reflexive pronouns?
It's "...WikiGnomes, such as me", not some pretentious, third-person tripe borne of bureaucratic excess.

"..WikiGnomes, like me", would be even better.

[Jim]

And, not to pile on - you might want to try "extremely small, incremental improvements", or similar, because incremental just means "The process of increasing in number, size, quantity, or extent." and carries no implication of the size of the change.

"extremely incremental improvements" thus means "very, very, increasing in size improvements" and I don't think that's quite what you meant.

HTH

[Poetlister]

Why does it come as no surprise to me that a self-proclaimed "gnome" doesn't know how to use reflexive pronouns?
It's "...WikiGnomes, such as me", not some pretentious, third-person tripe borne of bureaucratic excess.

"..WikiGnomes, like me", would be even better.

I don't think "myself" can be described as third-person, though pretentious is a good adjective. But of course I can't resist quoting some poetry:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by that same door as in I went.

It is the theme song for WP:ANI.

[Ross McPherson]

How can people pick on Johnny Au just because he is a Wikignome? As if being Canadian isn’t bad enough. His commas are caviar so I am batting for him. Better a Wikignome than an out-of-control contentist like Eric Corbett. Wikignomes irritate, Corbetts alienate.

Actually, come to think of it, I am all for the Erics. The more we are all alienated from WP the better.

[Notvelty]

How can people pick on Johnny Au just because he is a Wikignome? As if being Canadian isn’t bad enough. His commas are caviar so I am batting for him. Better a Wikignome than an out-of-control contentist like Eric Corbett. Wikignomes irritate, Corbetts alienate.

Actually, come to think of it, I am all for the Erics. The more we are all alienated from WP the better.

I suspect that I pick on Johnny because he reminds me of myself at that age.

[Johnny Au]

Wikipedia has a major shortage of commas these days.

Commas are needed, since it makes reading aloud easier, as well as making it easier to digest what is written.

I believe in the Oxford comma, the greatest of all commas.

Commas, commas, and more commas galore!

However, I do remove commas, especially when exactly two items are listed.

Everyone makes fun of me and I do like to make fun of myself, the self-proclaimed king of commas.