> I really don't understand wikipedia's continued hesitation to accept advertising
Try to think of an example where editorial maintained independence from the sales department.
My favorite example from dead-tree newspapers: For all the noise they make about the sacredness of editorial, I don't think it was a coincidence that the number of articles about the bubble in real estate were inversely proportional to RE advertising dollars.
Do you have any research about this inverse proportion?
The bubble was in the news the whole time. People just didn't care. http://seattlebubble.com is entirely funded by real estate advertising.
Comments
> I really don't understand wikipedia's continued hesitation to accept advertising
Try to think of an example where editorial maintained independence from the sales department.
My favorite example from dead-tree newspapers: For all the noise they make about the sacredness of editorial, I don't think it was a coincidence that the number of articles about the bubble in real estate were inversely proportional to RE advertising dollars.
Do you have any research about this inverse proportion? The bubble was in the news the whole time. People just didn't care. http://seattlebubble.com is entirely funded by real estate advertising.
> The bubble was in the news the whole time.
Not from 2002-2005. By that point, it had already surpassed bubble prices of 1989 in real dollars.