I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary.

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by devs1010 on Thursday November 24, 2011 @01:27AM (#3273397)

I've worked for companies where one client has an inordinate amount of influence over the company, why... because they are the biggest client, they represent a significant percentage of the company's revenue. Market forces inevitably can create situations where a particular client is "really good" for a company, they may pay more than other companies would, etc and, if this client is lost (or even just reduces the business they give the company) serious consequences can result including laying people off, etc. Of course Wikipedia can avoid this, at least initially, by not relying on one company, going through an ad-broker, etc but its possible that at some point a situation can arise where they are faced with a dilemma (and this would probably be years into the future after an infusion of money has inevitably re-shaped the organization to some degree) where a decision has to be made to either lose a client (advertising customer) or bend to pressure from them to censor or delete something... I'm just speculating here but past experiences of mine lead me to believe something like this could occur as companies bend to pressure from their clients all the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by gojomo on Thursday November 24, 2011 @01:48AM (#3273446)

Except: editing is done by an unruly hive. There is no organizational nexus on which to place "comply or we'll withdraw our advertising" pressure. And, any attempt to apply such pressure would quickly trigger its own self-nullification via editor outrage (as with the 'Streisand Effect').

In order for an advertiser to have sinister influence, you'd need to assume a bunch of other changes which weaken Wikipedia's resilience. Advertising could be implemented in a way that helps prevent such weakening-changes from happening. And if any org could pull that off, Wikipedia could.

That said, I still understand why, given their community's biases and their success with donation-drives so far, they have not seriously considered ads in many years. Don't mess with what works is usually a good principle.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by danssig on Thursday November 24, 2011 @08:11AM (#3274195)

Your posts on the subject seem far and away too utopian when we're talking about wikipedia. They've already had a lot of scandals about censorship/bias/etc. now. That would only get worse when money was on the line.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by gojomo on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:41PM (#3275225)

How does advertising make it worse? Can't companies already hire PR firms and other editors to slyly improve their coverage? Isn't that cheaper and less subject to backlash than trying to communicate conditional advertising budgets?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by devs1010 on Friday November 25, 2011 @12:07AM (#3276273)

they have no direct influence unless they are a customer (paying money to Wikipedia), sure they can try to game the system, but Wikipedia isn't going to do some action at their request. If a company pays a lot of money to Wikipedia its possible someone within the Wiki organization would be willing to bend the rules a bit to cave to their request because it may keep the money flowing whereas otherwise tough decisions would have to be made (laying people off, etc)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by gojomo on Friday November 25, 2011 @01:46AM (#3276440)

If Wikipedians are so trivially corruptible by money, ads are still irrelevant to the process. Just offer a donation for warmer treatment. (The Foundation does not reject corporate donations.) Or an outright bribe.

Also, the organization that handles funds – the Foundation – has very little special editorial power, and their actions are especially transparent. (For example, their real names are necessarily known, whiich is not the case for other editors.) Attempting to influence content by being an advertiser, then making ad spends conditional on favorable bias, would be about the worst possible way to try to influence Wikipedia content. You'd be spending a lot, via a path that's under the most scrutiny. You'd probably prompt staff to be extra harsh on you to avoid any appearance of infuence.

Anyone who really wanted to spend to influence Wikipedia would just hire editors outside the funds/ads-handling organization. That threat is larger, and unaffected by the presence or absence of advertising.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by dodo53 on Thursday November 24, 2011 @04:08AM (#3273721)

But wikipedia have previously frozen controversial pages that are having edit wars. They could choose the last revision that is reasonable favourable to advertiser and then freeze the page

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary. by devs1010 on Friday November 25, 2011 @12:08AM (#3276276)

exactly. This would be all too easy for someone in their organization to do to keep a favorable relationship with a client.

[ Parent | on HN ]