Advertisement

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Advertisement

Jeroenvrp
Hello,

There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the
Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:

Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals
in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything
to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that.  
Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these
kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these
kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.

It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement has
been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other
ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to
whoever has the money.

Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly
this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in
advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a village
pump.

Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about forks. A
lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving the
project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation,
backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or
don't want to understand the rules of free content.

These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about that.
Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the
quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening the
Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They will
see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you
Foundation; for selling us out!

Jeroenvrp
Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Oldak
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The road to daily advertisement has
> been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other
> ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to
> whoever has the money.

Would you be less upset if the Foundation had consulted the community
before agreeing to Virgin Unite's terms? I know this may not be a
practical scenario, but I'm curious.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

jmerkey-3
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>The road to daily advertisement has
>>been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other
>>ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to
>>whoever has the money.
>>    
>>
>
>Would you be less upset if the Foundation had consulted the community
>before agreeing to Virgin Unite's terms? I know this may not be a
>practical scenario, but I'm curious.
>
>  
>
If they are matching contributions and supporting Wikimedia websites,
its the call of our elected officials (who we voted to represent
our views and act on our behalf).

Jeff
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Jeroenvrp
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the
> Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
>
> Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals
> in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything
> to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin.

(!)

I can get "Virgin is a multinational, which worries me", or "I am
worried we have given Virgin leverage" or stuff like that. I don't
agree with it, but it's a valid point to raise.

But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
Wikipedia, it's Virgin."

All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.

But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
care about controlling Wikimedia?

> Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that.
> Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these
> kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these
> kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
> Microsoft.

You know, we are perfectly capable of saying "no, that's a PR stunt,
we're not interested in helping you, go away". For all I know, we've
turned them down already; Danny is very insistent at ensuring we don't
become puppets for something like this. We make these things on our
terms. It may not be the best of terms, but we set them. We're not
stupid, and we have no intention of becoming shills.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Oldak
In reply to this post by jmerkey-3
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If they are matching contributions and supporting Wikimedia websites,
> its the call of our elected officials (who we voted to represent
> our views and act on our behalf).

But even within a representative democracy there must be a certain
level of public consultation. Unlike a representative democracy, a
manifesto was not put forth to be carried out by the candidates -- one
would expect more consultation.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

jmerkey-3
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>If they are matching contributions and supporting Wikimedia websites,
>>its the call of our elected officials (who we voted to represent
>>our views and act on our behalf).
>>    
>>
>
>But even within a representative democracy there must be a certain
>level of public consultation. Unlike a representative democracy, a
>manifesto was not put forth to be carried out by the candidates -- one
>would expect more consultation.
>
>  
>
Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The
community has a voice through our elected
officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.

:-)

Jeff
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Jeroenvrp
Hoi,
If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with
a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only reason
why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that are
contrary to our principles. Accepting money is not against our principles.
Accepting money from organisations is not against our principles. Being
willing and able to say "thank you" is a gracious thing to do.

In my opinion you have to differentiate between donors and partners. A
partner is an organisation that shares the same goals and works together
with you in achieving these goals. A sponsor is an organisation that only
helps by providing resources to make things possible.

When people start talking in terms of "forking" it is an option that they
have. They should know that it is not easy to be successful at this. It
fractures the effort in bringing Free/Open content to the people that need
it most. The only way I think you will be successful is by bringing
something new to such a project. If Citizendium is to do well, there mix of
Wikipedia content and expert editing needs to hit the right balance. If all
you bring to your fork is this "anger", it may mean a temporary dip in the
number of edits for the WMF projects but the traffic of our projects will
only go up as a result.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a wonderful organisation. It achieved miracles
on a shoestring budget. Given the exponential growth, there is a growing
need and potential to make things happen. About many things we fantasise;
what can we do with one hundred million Euro. We could make so much more of
a difference. The question that we need to answer is, are we a complete
hostage to a group that insists on their values being adopted or are we to
bring information to all people of this world.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the
> Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
>
> Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest
> multi-nationals
> in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do
> everything
> to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that.
> Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has
> these
> kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer
> these
> kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
> Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.
>
> It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement
> has
> been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are
> other
> ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media
> to
> whoever has the money.
>
> Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly
> this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in
> advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a
> village
> pump.
>
> Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about
> forks. A
> lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving
> the
> project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation,
> backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or
> don't want to understand the rules of free content.
>
> These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about
> that.
> Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the
> quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening
> the
> Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They
> will
> see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you
> Foundation; for selling us out!
>
> Jeroenvrp
> Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Oldak
In reply to this post by jmerkey-3
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The
> community has a voice through our elected
> officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant
from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in
day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi.
Wikipedia is only one of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 12/28/06, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The
> > community has a voice through our elected
> > officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.
>
> Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant
> from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in
> day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
On 12/28/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that.
> > Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these
> > kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these
> > kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
> > Microsoft.
>
> You know, we are perfectly capable of saying "no, that's a PR stunt,
> we're not interested in helping you, go away". For all I know, we've
> turned them down already; Danny is very insistent at ensuring we don't
> become puppets for something like this. We make these things on our
> terms. It may not be the best of terms, but we set them. We're not
> stupid, and we have no intention of becoming shills.
>
FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a
PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite.  The Gates Foundation has
pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same
founder.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 12/28/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi.
> Wikipedia is only one of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
Yeah, just the one with the vast majority of the traffic, and likely
generating the vast majority of the donations.

> On 12/28/06, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The
> > > community has a voice through our elected
> > > officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.
> >
> > Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant
> > from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in
> > day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Brad Patrick
In reply to this post by Jeroenvrp
Where did you arrive at the figure 250,000 EU?  Since it is flatly
incorrect, I would like the source of your incorrect information.

-Brad

On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the
> Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
>
> Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest
> multi-nationals
> in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do
> everything
> to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that.
> Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has
> these
> kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer
> these
> kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
> Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.
>
> It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement
> has
> been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are
> other
> ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media
> to
> whoever has the money.
>
> Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly
> this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in
> advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a
> village
> pump.
>
> Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about
> forks. A
> lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving
> the
> project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation,
> backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or
> don't want to understand the rules of free content.
>
> These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about
> that.
> Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the
> quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening
> the
> Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They
> will
> see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you
> Foundation; for selling us out!
>
> Jeroenvrp
> Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 28/12/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a
> PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite.  The Gates Foundation has
> pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same
> founder.


And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Anthony DiPierro
On 12/28/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28/12/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a
> > PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite.  The Gates Foundation has
> > pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same
> > founder.
>
>
> And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.
>
They do?  {{citation_needed}}
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 12/28/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with
> a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only reason
> why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that are
> contrary to our principles.
[snip]

In IRC last night, Jeroenvrp asserted rather loudly that even if we
were offered a trillion dollars we should not accept a *single*
advertisement on our website.

This was after I'd made an example involving freeing every book ever
published. A trillion dollars  would probably be enough to do it, and
probably with enough left over to translate them all and distribute
access to them to most of the world.

So, tell me... Should I feel guilty for judging anyone who makes a
claim like his to be selfish, short-sighted,  irrational, and
generally unworthy of our serious consideration?

Of course we're not talking about getting a 'trillion' dollars from
everyone, but we're not talking about an advertisement in the normal
sense.  Our action here is to be liberal with our gratitude in our
thanks, not only because doing so is nice.. but because by doing so we
hope to demonstrate to large and wealthy donors that we are a worthy
recipient of substantial donations from large and wealthy donors.. and
through that establish a long term pattern of substantial matching
support from the groups in the world most able to provide it.

Often the media can't even figure out that Wikipedia is a charity and
we've had instance of meetings with seriously important people who
think that Wikipedia is just another Web 2.0 hopeful that plans to
make a fortune without a business plan...  Our fundraiser will remind
the world that we are a charity, and being loud and clear about the
support we are getting from groups like Virgin Unite tells all of the
large companies and foundations that is proper and, hopefully someday,
expected for them to donate to us.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Jeroenvrp
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:

> But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
> Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
>
> All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
> before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
> us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
> least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
> two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
>
> But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
> care about controlling Wikimedia?

That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin
should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is
multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will
do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.

Jeroenvrp
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

David Strauss-4
Even if Virgin's final goal is to own Wikipedia, their opinion remains
irrelevant. Their money doesn't come with terms beyond the matching
funds agreement.

If I offered you US$100 with no strings attached, you would (and should)
take it. Even if I had a secret plan to bankrupt you, that wouldn't
change the actual $100.

Jeroenvrp wrote:

> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:
>> But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
>> Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
>>
>> All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
>> before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
>> us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
>> least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
>> two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
>>
>> But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
>> care about controlling Wikimedia?
>
> That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin
> should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is
> multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will
> do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.
>
> Jeroenvrp
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (195 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Jeroenvrp
In reply to this post by Oldak
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:50, schreef Oldak Quill:
> On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The road to daily advertisement has
> > been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are
> > other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of
> > Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
>
> Would you be less upset if the Foundation had consulted the community
> before agreeing to Virgin Unite's terms? I know this may not be a
> practical scenario, but I'm curious.

Yes off course I had be less upset, allthough I still would not agree and had
the time (like others) to discuss it with the Foundation and the local
community.

Jeroen
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

Marco Chiesa
In reply to this post by Jeroenvrp
Jeroenvrp wrote:

>It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement has
>been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other
>ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to
>whoever has the money.
>
>  
>
I agree that the main point here is that for the first time (well, as
far as I can tell), a company logo which is not related to the WMF has
appeared on all pages. I'm personally grateful to Virgin Unite for the
donation, in the same way as I'm grateful to all the other donors, known
and unknown, because without them we would be discussing about nothing.
Still, this is a precedent, it is hard to deny; I'm sure the Board and
whoever was involved in the decision is perfectly aware of this, and all
the fuss that would have followed. Whatever decision you take, there
will be someone unhappy with it; this is normal, that's how the world
goes. Personally I'm fine with the logo, it is definitely much different
from being a flashy banner or something that opens tens of popups. Is
Virgin making money out of it? Well, I hope so. If they gain and we
gain, we're estabilishing a virtuous circle, in the same way as some
contributors promote themselves beyond wikimedia by supplying excellent
contributions (which is very different from people only writing vanity
articles about themselves).

Cruccone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Advertisement

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 12/28/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation
> with
> > a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only
> reason
> > why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that
> are
> > contrary to our principles.
> [snip]
>
> In IRC last night, Jeroenvrp asserted rather loudly that even if we
> were offered a trillion dollars we should not accept a *single*
> advertisement on our website.


Clearly Jeroenvrp knows that *I* should receive the trillion dollars.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12