Jimmy Wales all over Wikipedia?

1. 68

   darksideposted 12 years ago

   Who else is sick of seeing Jimmy Wales picture splashed all over Wikipedia?
   
   I am. So I did what any other slacktivist would do... I made a Facebook page about it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      contentposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Doesn't really bother me much at all.  After a while, I just don't notice it anymore.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Website Examinerposted 12 years ago

   Me too. It is hard not to see Wikipedia as a commercial enterprise.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Commercial enterprise ? Hmm,they've to pay for server expense, electricity bill and staff. 
      
      Interesting blog post :
      http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog … pedia.html

      replyreport
      1. 68

         darksideposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I have no doubt about that at all.
         
         But it feels like a branding exercise. And what's being marketed is Jimmy. Perhaps he should become acquainted with the term 'overexposure'.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If you browse 2-3 more pages of wikipedia topics then you'll notice that almost every staff member is featured on these pages. So it's not like Jimmy wales is on promotion banners all the time.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               darksideposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I haven't noticed anyone else. All I've seen is Jimmy on every single page. And I've been on a lot of pages.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I've noticed a woman also.. a few days ago.

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     darksideposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I haven't seen anything, until right now that I've gone to check and see what I've been missing, and I'm guessing it must be a geo location script because I do see a new banner which says "Thank you, State Library of Queensland"

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I think you're right, it looks like Geo-targeting.

                        replyreport
3. 0

   Toby Hansenposted 12 years ago

   Me three.

   replyreport
4. 58

   WebbyAvatarposted 12 years ago

   Plus one!

   replyreport
5. 0

   Website Examinerposted 12 years ago

   I know they are non-profit, and I have no issue with that. I was thinking in terms of the rules about what hubs may be considered commercial. Linking to Wikipedia is exempt from that. But with the way they are soliciting funds on all Wikipedia pages, it is getting harder to justify that exemption.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Asking for donation is better than showing adsense ads or CPM ads.

      replyreport
6. 60

   rotlposted 12 years ago

   They are doing what any non-profit or for-profit organization would do, putting their best asset forward.
   
   Most of us use wikipedia all year round for free. The least we can do is donate a small amount to keep the site running. I hardly think having to see Jimmy Wales in the header for a month is much of an inconvenience for a great, free service. Sure beats AdSense ads and pop-ups.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Milla Mahnoposted 12 years ago

   Smaller Adsense block in the same spot will annoy much less and likely earn much more. Highly unprofessional approach.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      700x120 spot will have small adsense ads in any way?
      
      If they put adsense ads on these pages then jimmy wales will face more criticism than what you're seeing in this thread. By adding adsense ads wikipedia will becomes just another corporate house and google will take FULL advantage of it for sure. Wikipedia is non-profit organization and not a corporate business to follow professional monetization approach.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Milla Mahnoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not sure where you got this number. I went and measured, out of curiosity, and the current size I see on my 15" screen is roughly 1100x140. 728x90 leaderboard will take much less space. As I said, it certainly would be less intrusive, and likely more profitable.
         
         And Jimmy certainly earned a lot of money by his terrific idea and great implementation, not just reimbursement of running costs. Leaving that money on the table does not make much sense to me, and begging for the money you deserve anyway when you can just take them makes even less sense.
         
         But then to each his own I guess...

         replyreport
         1. 81

            skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            My bad, i just checked with firebug and it's more than that. I guess 19'' scree resolution reflects this.
            
            
            Adsense, CPC or any other  ad-network will abuse the wikipedia keywords. For example, evolution/science keywords are targeted by scientology/cosmic finger prints and other creationism preacher sites on adwords. So this ad system is likely to abuse on other keywords as well (weight loss etc). You're saying showing such ads (let's say creationism on science topics) is less intrusive and less annoying ? and is going to help the reader ? After so many adwords updates they're yet to perfect the relevant ads system for some suspicious reasons. Even if human editor is assigned to accept ads for wikipedia at google, this will be abused sooner or later in order to compensate for money because google prefers money over quality of their ads. People who are into free speech/software hate google/microsoft for many reasons and using their service to pay the bills is what they'll prefer the least.
            
            
            Nupedia/Wikipedia started with the goal of free information, though nupedia shut down to make room for wikipedia. All the FSF/GNU thinkers moved to wikipedia for non-profit information exchange. That's another school of thought of working for free to help others, in such case only way to save them is via donations. They know many people will get away from donation drives but they're relying on those who care for wikipedia. Wikipedia/FSF/GNU and similar bodies are always going to prefer free speech over money no matter how big it is, that's totally different discussion.

            replyreport
8. 87

   IzzyMposted 12 years ago

   I was seeing Jimmy for ages but recently some female is up there...I went to check and saw something really odd.
   
   In Google.com I typed in 'wiki' and the autosuggest came up said wikipedia at the top, so I clicked on it.
   
   The next page has wikipedia at the top, and en.wikipedia is second.
   
   But the description inside en.wikipedia.org says
   "Wikipeida is for JEWS! go suck on some juicey bacon you little winit."
   
   Anyone else seeing this? A hack?

   replyreport
9. 87

   IzzyMposted 12 years ago

   It is still there: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= … p;gs_rfai=

   replyreport
10. 88

    livelongerposted 12 years ago

    I donate to Wikipedia every year - modestly, but I am a big fan and use their site all the time.
    
    They're not a for-profit company and don't have advertising. As skyfire mentioned, they have to make money somehow to maintain their operations.
    
    A bonus of donating was that I was invited to participate in a user-testing session a couple of weeks ago at their office in San Francisco. It was pretty cool. They asked a lot of questions about ratings, and asked for feedback on the feedback box that's been rolled out on a few pages, like this one:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
    (scroll down to the bottom)

    replyreport
11. 0

    china manposted 12 years ago

    I think Wikipedia is more than just a free info source.  In the net world of low quality information, disinformation, misinformation and downright lies it is one fairly reliable, peer reviewed source.  YOU should give the man some money so that I can carry on using it pretty much every day.

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport