User:NeilTarrant/PageAds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a very provisional proposal to increase funding for Wikipedia using Google Page Ads, or a similar non-intrusive form of text only advertising.

It should be noted that as yet this page has neither been written, nor approved by anyone in charge at Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Why page ads?

Page Ads are unobtrusive, having no animated graphics, annoying sounds or bright colours. They can be tied to topics of articles increasing numbers of click-throughs and hence revenue.

According to the AdSense website, there is potential with even a standard contract to filter content of advertiments - for instance allowing a website to prevent links to its competitors. This feature could be exploited in links from Wikipedia to alleviate concerns about content.

[edit] Positioning

Image:Ads positioning.png
4 places where ads could go.

There are four possible places where adverts could be used. However due to Google Policy we are only permitted to use 3 (however 3 more for refferals).

[edit] 1 - Up top

This would be limited to a single button or referal button.

[edit] Pros

  • Above the fold, so lots of people would see it.

[edit] Cons

  • Would push page down.
  • Obtrusive.

[edit] 2 - Sidebar

This one would appear much like the one at uncyclopedia, however we would not be allowed to put 'lunch money', ads or sponsership above it as this is a violation of google tou's.

[edit] Cons

  • May extend the length of a page on high resolution screens and small pages.

[edit] 3 - At bottom

This would be either a leader box or banner could be made to change size depending on your screen resolution, so not to create a horizontal scroll bar.

[edit] Pros

  • Completely unobtrusive.

[edit] 4 - On right

This one would be simmilar to Wikicities.

[edit] Cons

  • Would reduce article space.

[edit] Philosophies and Implementations

There are many ways in which advertisements on pages could be implemented. It is important to choose an implementation that will be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. This means considering the affect upon casual and repeat visitors, as well as regular editors.

[edit] Opt out

Under this idea advertisements are shown to all anonymous users when they log onto the site. By choosing to register with Wikipedia they can opt-out of seeing advertisements.

[edit] Advantages

  • Registered Users who use and contribute most to the site are unaffected.

[edit] Disadvantages

  • Could lead to abandoned registrations of users who simply wish to avoid ads in a single session.
  • Could alter the image of our site in the eyes of a random visitor.

[edit] Opt in

Registered users have the option to turn on page ads in order to choose to help provide funding. This would most likely be through an option in my preferences.

[edit] Advantages

  • Would only affect those who choose to have the advertisements.
  • Allows those who are unable (for instance being too young to have a credit card) to (financially) contribute to Wikipedia.

[edit] Disadvantages

  • Numbers of people seeing advertisements, and hence revenue severely restricted.

[edit] Issues

  • Would need to be identified as a possibility to users - possibly by altering the 'donations' link to a 'support Wikipedia' link, which could identify all sources of income for the project (including ads and cafepress products).

[edit] During fundraising only

Under this idea page ads would only be shown during the quarterly Wikipedia fund raising drives.

[edit] Advantages

  • Restricted time frame:
    • Any issues of people being annoyed would be minimised.
    • Issues of editorial freedom would be minimised: If a problem arises, don't do it next time.
  • Could encourage people to donate to 'get rid of the ads'.
  • Could be combined with an opt-out for registered users.

[edit] Disadvantages

[edit] Portal Site

A seperate web address (nupedia and wikipedia.com have been suggested), leads one to a version of the encyclopaedia with advertisments. The association between the site and Wikipedia could be as close as the use of an alternate stylesheet with an advertising box, to as distant as a wholely independent not-for-profit website (potentialy even on its own servers) which contributes its advertising revenue to Wikipedia.

[edit] Advantages

  • User experience for long-time users is not affected.
  • Wikipedia content already used in pay sites - this would be an extension allowing the site itself to benefit from the revenue provided.
  • In contrast to most websites it could maintain the wiki philosophy with a 'To edit this article head to the PAGE_NAME page at wikipedia.org' style link.
  • Could be combined with a simpler interface for first time users, a content filtered (for kids) or other value-adding features to make visiting the pay-site worthwhile.

[edit] Disadvantages

[edit] Issues

  • There would be a temptation to de-emphasise the main wikipedia website in (for instance) search results in favour of the pay-site.

[edit] Fund raising potential

It is very difficult to estimate the amount of revenue Google AdSense would bring to Wikipedia, or any website for that matter. Google itself states "...advertisers pay either when users click on ads, or when the advertiser's ad is shown on your site. You'll receive a portion of the amount paid for either activity on your website. Although we don't disclose the exact revenue share, our goal is to enable publishers to make as much or more than they could with other advertising networks." [1]

The revenue generated per click or per impression changes frequently based on advertising demand, page content, keyword prices, ... Given Wikipedia's large user base and rapidly increasing daily traffic, any advertising on wikipedia would provide substantial money for the organization.

[edit] Issues

[edit] Editorial independence

It is of paramount importance that a fundraising proposal that depends on the placement of paid advertisements must never undermine our editorial independence. It is also crucially important to show that the proposal could in no way undermine our independence before such a proposal is seriously made, because even the prospect of any such limitation could lead some editors to abandon the Wikipedia project in favour of splinter projects.

[edit] Community reaction

  • Community reaction to advertising has in the past been strongly negative; some feel that advertising at all invalidates the principles of a "free encyclopedia", whilst others view it as the thin end of the wedge, either to a commercialisation of the project or to the loss of editorial independence.
  • For example, in reaction to the debate over this announcement - which did not actually propose advertising - the Wikipedia:Wikiproject no ads was set up. This shows the strength of feeling against advertising on Wikipedia. As Wikipedia only thrives due to the dynamic and tireless contributions of its many editors their reactions to any proposal will determine whether the idea is ever implemented.

[edit] Affect on Donations

There is the potential that when the community sees that the organization is utilizing advertising for revenue, they might be more hesitant to donate. Hopefully this would be offset by including the ad revenue along with the donations on the Fundraising page allowing users to see just how much money is still needed.

[edit] Going forward

[edit] Talking to the board of trustees

[edit] Talking to Google(?)

[edit] Community vote

Note; this section is to discuss where, when and how any vote will be conducted; this can only take place when those issues identified above have been identified and discussed. Please do not place any votes here as yet.

[edit] External links