Brettz9

Please leave your comments for me below:

Wiki sites share ad revenue with editors

WoW... will the billboards blink and the advertisers scream?... Ya, sell sell sell, ain't nobody selling anything here. -Edbrown05 08:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

See my response at Ed's page.

Tom Sawyer never painted my fence. -Edbrown05 06:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean...Do you mean instead that you never painted Tom Sawyer's fence? (i.e., that you won't be fooled into doing work for someone else). If the latter, then fine...The original posting I put up was a business news article--not begging people (or providing a hard-sell), so I'm not trying to get you to do work for me anyways. However, even if I were, the situation would be different from that of Tom Sawyer, as Tom, as I recall, didn't want to do any work himself, and he didn't provide any reward to the fence painters he enticed besides a psychological one.

I think the trouble with it can be seen with the capsule of The New Standard news page. That news organization, following sort of the WMF foundation example, went ad free and became funded by donations, then almost went under... (maybe it still will). Their news offerings are actually quite good, I think. Try to drive that site by advertising revenue, then what you got... probably nothing much more than a reporter already gets paid there, $50, for a story. Try to drive Wikinews by advertising, and what you got?... a newspaper with bandwidth hogging ads and browser space... Do an Alexa traffic count check for Wikinews.org and NewStandardNews.net... and wonder while you do who derives the most article satisfaction.

You are too far ahead of the times. Maybe not, you are way behind the times... the synergies of all and small contributions make up ownership of the whole. Of this much I am sure, an old adage.... "Information wants to be free." -Edbrown05 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)