Fundraising and site notice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fundraising and site notice

Florence Devouard-2
Hello everyone.

Just for a head up (or down)

First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
donors in that fundraiser.
This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
reaction of some members in the community.

Second, the fundraiser is not over. It will be over on Wikipedia day. It
may be that at some point in the coming week, we change the site notice
to put links to thank donators etc...

Third, this fundraiser has been the most successful of our history by
far, until now. When we really think about it, it is fabulous. We can do
even better in the last week.

Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying
certain issues. That's life !

Anthere



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Andrew Gray
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everyone.
>
> Just for a head up (or down)
>
> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
> donors in that fundraiser.
> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
> reaction of some members in the community.
>
> Second, the fundraiser is not over. It will be over on Wikipedia day.

For the benefit of everyone else, like me, who had to look this up -
January 15, ie a week on Monday.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fundraising and site notice

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-2
Florence Devouard wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> Just for a head up (or down)
>
> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
> donors in that fundraiser.

I was just told some people were jumping to the wrong conclusions. So,
let me emphasize that I used the word "that" on purpose. There will no
more matching donations in THAT fundraiser.

It is very probably we'll have again matching donations in the next
fundraisers.

ant

> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
> reaction of some members in the community.
>
> Second, the fundraiser is not over. It will be over on Wikipedia day. It
> may be that at some point in the coming week, we change the site notice
> to put links to thank donators etc...
>
> Third, this fundraiser has been the most successful of our history by
> far, until now. When we really think about it, it is fabulous. We can do
> even better in the last week.
>
> Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying
> certain issues. That's life !
>
> Anthere


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Gatto Nero
2007/1/7, Anthere <[hidden email]>:

> I was just told some people were jumping to the wrong conclusions. So,
> let me emphasize that I used the word "that" on purpose. There will no
> more matching donations in THAT fundraiser.
>
> It is very probably we'll have again matching donations in the next
> fundraisers.
>
> ant

Oh. I was quite happy.
So, let me emphasize that I used the word "that" on purpose.

(But, if we are going to discuss the *form* in which matching donation
are going to be rewarded, maybe...)

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Oldak
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-2
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> Just for a head up (or down)
>
> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
> donors in that fundraiser.
> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
> reaction of some members in the community.

Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).

Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Sage Ross
On 1/7/07, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Just for a head up (or down)
> >
> > First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
> > donors in that fundraiser.
> > This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
> > reaction of some members in the community.
>
> Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
> an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
> Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
> bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
> ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).

I have to disagree.  I hope that you're only mentioning the "reactions
of some members of the community" reason in order to shame the
complainers; canceling a matching donor because of such a tiny
minority is not "responsiveness", it's oversensitivity.  When you say
that was one of the reasons, do you mean that loud whining about
Virgin Unite is a reason why no other matching donors decided to
participate, or do you mean that the complaints are why the Foundation
decided not to have another matching partner?  Hopefully, neither; I'd
like to think that the complaints really were as insignificant as they
seem to me.

-Ragesoss

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Oldak
Oldak Quill schreef:

> On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Hello everyone.
>>
>> Just for a head up (or down)
>>
>> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
>> donors in that fundraiser.
>> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
>> reaction of some members in the community.
>>    
>
> Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
> an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
> Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
> bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
> ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
>
> Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
>
>  
Hoi,
I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you
only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited
funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"

This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will
not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no
serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires.
And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed
best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.

In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.

Thanks,
    GerardM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fundraising and site notice

Florence Devouard-3
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Oldak Quill schreef:
>
>>On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>Hello everyone.
>>>
>>>Just for a head up (or down)
>>>
>>>First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
>>>donors in that fundraiser.
>>>This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
>>>reaction of some members in the community.
>>>    
>>
>>Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
>>an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
>>Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
>>bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
>>ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
>>
>>Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
>>
>>  
>
> Hoi,
> I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you
> only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited
> funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
>
> This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will
> not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no
> serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires.
> And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed
> best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
>
> In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

It was not clear cut.
There was responsiveness to the logo issue. Some members were greatly
distressed at the logo, and many were not very happy with it. So, some
board members asked if we could avoid having the logo entirely.

However, the decision to not have the firm a matching donor was more
technical. They will not be called matching donor, but they will still
give a hand. So there is no loss of support.

I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them
being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next
matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming
them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take
into account.

There is a board meeting next week, I will tell you more about it in a
few days. Discussion over our financial situation will be of course an
item of the agenda. As well as what we intend to do to increase our
revenue. Any solution aside from fundraising will require getting
professional help in any cases.

ant




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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Oldak
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Oldak Quill schreef:
> > On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone.
> >>
> >> Just for a head up (or down)
> >>
> >> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
> >> donors in that fundraiser.
> >> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
> >> reaction of some members in the community.
> >>
> >
> > Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
> > an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
> > Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
> > bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
> > ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
> >
> > Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
> >
> >
> Hoi,
> I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you
> only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited
> funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
>
> This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will
> not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no
> serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires.
> And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed
> best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
>
> In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.

IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove
from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me
that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week:
there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this
reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate
responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the
community can, to an extent, heal.

I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be
named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the
anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Gerard Meijssen-3
Oldak Quill schreef:

> On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Oldak Quill schreef:
>>    
>>> On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Hello everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Just for a head up (or down)
>>>>
>>>> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching
>>>> donors in that fundraiser.
>>>> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the
>>>> reaction of some members in the community.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
>>> an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
>>> Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
>>> bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
>>> ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
>>>
>>> Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Hoi,
>> I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you
>> only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited
>> funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
>>
>> This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will
>> not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no
>> serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires.
>> And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed
>> best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
>>
>> In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
>>    
>
> IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove
> from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me
> that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week:
> there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this
> reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate
> responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the
> community can, to an extent, heal.
>
> I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be
> named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the
> anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
Hoi,
Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund
raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to
understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of
our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community
that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our
organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its
books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do.
An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to
accommodate the growth that it could have.

I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary
reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want
to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an
even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing
to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is
deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for
money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle
even more damaging.

The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes
no material difference. It does not help as money would.

Thanks,
    GerardM

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Peter van Londen
GerardM and community

I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious
issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more
matching donations this fundraiser.

I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is and it
is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html).
It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is
now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects can
do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed
expand on some further ideas.

I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on this
idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative outcome,
if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an
alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think about it
and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is
doing good with this way of funding.

Kind regards
Londenp

2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:

>
> Oldak Quill schreef:
> > On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Oldak Quill schreef:
> >>
> >>> On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hello everyone.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just for a head up (or down)
> >>>>
> >>>> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more
> matching
> >>>> donors in that fundraiser.
> >>>> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
> the
> >>>> reaction of some members in the community.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
> >>> an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
> >>> Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
> >>> bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
> >>> ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent
> job.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hoi,
> >> I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you
> >> only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited
> >> funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
> >>
> >> This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or
> will
> >> not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no
> >> serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires.
> >> And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed
> >> best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current
> funding.
> >>
> >> In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
> >>
> >
> > IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove
> > from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me
> > that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week:
> > there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this
> > reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate
> > responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the
> > community can, to an extent, heal.
> >
> > I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be
> > named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the
> > anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
> Hoi,
> Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund
> raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to
> understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of
> our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community
> that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our
> organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its
> books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do.
> An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to
> accommodate the growth that it could have.
>
> I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary
> reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want
> to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an
> even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing
> to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is
> deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for
> money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle
> even more damaging.
>
> The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes
> no material difference. It does not help as money would.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
In your assertion that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding, you
immediately indicate what the problem is with the proposal; it is being
done and quiet successfully by others (not only Wikia). The problem with
the proposal is also that in order to benefit from the proposal, the WMF
has to seriously invest in these projects. It must because this is then
how we make some of our money. The people who are not interested in the
"fanstuff" will not be interested in doing this and seriously, why would
the people who ARE interested in this stuff be willing to work on this;
the Wikipedia crowd exorcised them into another project? Why should they
be willing to do profit the WMF, when they can go elsewhere to nice
established communities..

We know how much money the Foundation needs.. It needs $1.500.000,- at
this moment in time.. Do you really think the fanstuff proposal will
make us the money that will be sufficient for the /increased /need for
money of the Foundation that is the consequence of the growth of its
projects?? This does not even consider the investments we would like to
make to make a difference in other ways (administrative for instance) If
you think the scheme will work for all this, please show us the math.

You explicitly asked for people to consider the proposal.. Sorry, to be
this dismissive.

Thanks,
    GerardM


Peter van Londen schreef:

> GerardM and community
>
> I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious
> issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more
> matching donations this fundraiser.
>
> I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is and it
> is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html).
> It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is
> now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects can
> do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed
> expand on some further ideas.
>
> I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on this
> idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative outcome,
> if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an
> alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think about it
> and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is
> doing good with this way of funding.
>
> Kind regards
> Londenp
>
> 2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> Oldak Quill schreef:
>>    
>>> On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Oldak Quill schreef:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>> Hello everyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just for a head up (or down)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more
>>>>>>            
>> matching
>>    
>>>>>> donors in that fundraiser.
>>>>>> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
>>>>>>            
>> the
>>    
>>>>>> reaction of some members in the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
>>>>> an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
>>>>> Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
>>>>> bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
>>>>> ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent
>>>>>          
>> job.
>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you
>>>> only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited
>>>> funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
>>>>
>>>> This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or
>>>>        
>> will
>>    
>>>> not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no
>>>> serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires.
>>>> And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed
>>>> best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current
>>>>        
>> funding.
>>    
>>>> In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove
>>> from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me
>>> that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week:
>>> there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this
>>> reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate
>>> responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the
>>> community can, to an extent, heal.
>>>
>>> I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be
>>> named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the
>>> anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
>>>      
>> Hoi,
>> Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund
>> raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to
>> understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of
>> our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community
>> that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our
>> organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its
>> books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do.
>> An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to
>> accommodate the growth that it could have.
>>
>> I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary
>> reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want
>> to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an
>> even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing
>> to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is
>> deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for
>> money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle
>> even more damaging.
>>
>> The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes
>> no material difference. It does not help as money would.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Peter van Londen
I think this idea doesn't deserve such an answer, but hey I asked for it:
1) I have not said that it should be the only way of funding, I think it
would help though as one out of the several funding possibilities to
generate the amount of cash, which you envision.
2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and
so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow.
3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these
mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share
the same ideals as we have.
4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved
in Wikia might have an answer though.
5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much
answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per
fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point
in the necessity of  loads of money, but there must be alternatives for
advertising on all projects.

This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash
so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to
be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and
therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with
advertising on the projects.

I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make
a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would
develop.

Kind regards
Londenp




2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:

>
> Hoi,
> In your assertion that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding, you
> immediately indicate what the problem is with the proposal; it is being
> done and quiet successfully by others (not only Wikia). The problem with
> the proposal is also that in order to benefit from the proposal, the WMF
> has to seriously invest in these projects. It must because this is then
> how we make some of our money. The people who are not interested in the
> "fanstuff" will not be interested in doing this and seriously, why would
> the people who ARE interested in this stuff be willing to work on this;
> the Wikipedia crowd exorcised them into another project? Why should they
> be willing to do profit the WMF, when they can go elsewhere to nice
> established communities..
>
> We know how much money the Foundation needs.. It needs $1.500.000,- at
> this moment in time.. Do you really think the fanstuff proposal will
> make us the money that will be sufficient for the /increased /need for
> money of the Foundation that is the consequence of the growth of its
> projects?? This does not even consider the investments we would like to
> make to make a difference in other ways (administrative for instance) If
> you think the scheme will work for all this, please show us the math.
>
> You explicitly asked for people to consider the proposal.. Sorry, to be
> this dismissive.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> Peter van Londen schreef:
> > GerardM and community
> >
> > I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious
> > issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more
> > matching donations this fundraiser.
> >
> > I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is
> and it
> > is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html
> ).
> > It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which
> is
> > now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects
> can
> > do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed
> > expand on some further ideas.
> >
> > I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on
> this
> > idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative
> outcome,
> > if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an
> > alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think
> about it
> > and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia
> is
> > doing good with this way of funding.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Londenp
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Michael Snow
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-2
Peter van Londen wrote:

> GerardM and community
>
> I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious
> issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more
> matching donations this fundraiser.
>
> I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is
> and it
> is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html).
>
> It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is
> now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other
> projects can
> do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed
> expand on some further ideas.
>
> I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge
> on this
> idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative
> outcome,
> if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an
> alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think
> about it
> and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is
> doing good with this way of funding.

Well, the original suggestion didn't seem to think that the "fanstuff"
is currently being discarded, it indicated that a lot of what we
currently have is "fancruft" and could be moved elsewhere with ads
placed on it. But either way, all this does is get into the problem that
one person's junk is another person's treasure. Imagine how this could
skew an Articles for Deletion process - not only is this stuff we need
to get rid of, we're passing up an opportunity to make money off of it.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the consequence of this idea is that
Wikimedia projects *should* have advertising, and that the advertising
should be used specifically to improve the content. And a very simple
solution presents itself. Anything that is tagged as being disputed,
controversial, needing cleanup, unsourced, original research, vanity, or
a host of other problems - using one of the many such templates on the
English Wikipedia, for example - automatically gets advertising space
added along with the tag. (I'd even include libelous and
copyright-infringing material, except that making money directly from
illegal content would significantly change the potential for liability.)
Furthermore, we no longer need to worry about advertising compromising
the quality of our content, because we're only putting it in places
where it's already compromised.

Once the content is fully compliant with our policies, the advertising
is then removed. The absence of advertising would be the indication that
the quality has been reviewed and meets our standards. In fact, we can
even stop trying to come up with the long-awaited revision-flagging
feature, since we'd already have solved the problem it's designed to
address.

Turning garbage into gold has been a fantasy since the alchemists.
There's a reason it's a fantasy.

--Michael Snow

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Walter van Kalken
In reply to this post by Peter van Londen
Let me first state that I do not write fancruft articles as I am not
interested in them. I do feel though that they have their place on a
project like wikipedia. And I am getting tired of the relatively very
small group on NL. wikipedia who try whatever they can to get these
articles deleted. They have been trying this for years. This proposal
from them is in my opinion to xxxxth attempt to accomplish this.

>2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and
>so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow.
>  
>
There could be many reasons. Like people simply choose not to work on
this, but go elsewhere.

>3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these
>mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share the same ideals as we have.
>  
>
They would not. If I would ban you from a website writing about the
stuff you like, would you go and work on a new website I set up for you
to do your thing? The answer is no! I have seen it tried at fora where
people wrote OT stuff. The siteowner stopped it set up a seperate forum
(a new site). But instead of the people going there the people set up a
totally new place where they could combine the new topics with the old.
So the old forum lost a lot of its contributors. And the new forum never
had the amount of contributors to get a good forum going. So both lost
out. People do not like in general to go from site to site. People are
usually dedicated to only one or two places on the internet. The other
places they go to marginally. It is a time issue.

Also look at our own projects. People usually contribute really a lot to
one project and only marginally to other projects. Which means that
apart from the fancruft writing we would loose out on the spellchecking
and other contributions these people do when exiled somewhere else.

Also splitting up means we are setting up new fiefdoms where people can
go by their own rules etc.

>4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved
>in Wikia might have an answer though.
>  
>
The last I heard (over 6 months ago though) was that Wikia was turning a
loss.


>5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much
>answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per
>fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point in the necessity of  loads of money, but there must be alternatives for advertising on all projects.
>  
>
MAybe because people only see reasons why it would not work?

>This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash
>so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to
>be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and
>therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with
>advertising on the projects.
>
>I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would develop.
>  
>
Never on the Dutch projects, it is already hopelessly divided and
splintered. nl.wikiquote, nl.wikinews, even nl.wikibooks and
nl.wikisource barely have contributors. Why? Because people do not like
to be send somewhere else. Same when I go looking for something I do not
like having to visit different sites if one has it all. If you want the
Dutch project to be a guinea-pig better first discuss it amongst the
community, instead of assuming the nl: projects will blindly follow you
on this. If you want to try it out why not seperately from the
foundation yourself and when it seems to work have it become a part of
the foundation. More things have been tried out that way.

Waerth

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Peter van Londen
Hoi,
The problem with your answer is that the proposal was brought as a way
of making some serious money. Now you complain because I destroyed the
basic assumption that a fanpedia will make sufficient money to make a
difference. You now state that you do not have a clue how much money is
needed but also that is does not need to be the only source of revenue.
My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and the
arguments used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they
do not, have not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been
asked is there no compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want
advertisement per se, I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation
in order to be able to continue to grow. For a compromise there is a
need to water down positions. The question is therefore: are you willing
to sacrifice our growth by preventing the  corresponding need for funding?

There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current
Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is
a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we
explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to
wiggle any more.

Now consider, a website with Pokemon stuff without a picture of
charmander .. how is that to make us money ?

Thanks,
    GerardM

Peter van Londen schreef:

> I think this idea doesn't deserve such an answer, but hey I asked for it:
> 1) I have not said that it should be the only way of funding, I think it
> would help though as one out of the several funding possibilities to
> generate the amount of cash, which you envision.
> 2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and
> so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow.
> 3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these
> mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share
> the same ideals as we have.
> 4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved
> in Wikia might have an answer though.
> 5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much
> answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per
> fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point
> in the necessity of  loads of money, but there must be alternatives for
> advertising on all projects.
>
> This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash
> so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to
> be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and
> therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with
> advertising on the projects.
>
> I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make
> a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would
> develop.
>
> Kind regards
> Londenp
>
>
>
>
> 2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> Hoi,
>> In your assertion that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding, you
>> immediately indicate what the problem is with the proposal; it is being
>> done and quiet successfully by others (not only Wikia). The problem with
>> the proposal is also that in order to benefit from the proposal, the WMF
>> has to seriously invest in these projects. It must because this is then
>> how we make some of our money. The people who are not interested in the
>> "fanstuff" will not be interested in doing this and seriously, why would
>> the people who ARE interested in this stuff be willing to work on this;
>> the Wikipedia crowd exorcised them into another project? Why should they
>> be willing to do profit the WMF, when they can go elsewhere to nice
>> established communities..
>>
>> We know how much money the Foundation needs.. It needs $1.500.000,- at
>> this moment in time.. Do you really think the fanstuff proposal will
>> make us the money that will be sufficient for the /increased /need for
>> money of the Foundation that is the consequence of the growth of its
>> projects?? This does not even consider the investments we would like to
>> make to make a difference in other ways (administrative for instance) If
>> you think the scheme will work for all this, please show us the math.
>>
>> You explicitly asked for people to consider the proposal.. Sorry, to be
>> this dismissive.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>>
>> Peter van Londen schreef:
>>    
>>> GerardM and community
>>>
>>> I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious
>>> issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more
>>> matching donations this fundraiser.
>>>
>>> I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is
>>>      
>> and it
>>    
>>> is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
>>>
>>>      
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html
>> ).
>>    
>>> It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which
>>>      
>> is
>>    
>>> now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects
>>>      
>> can
>>    
>>> do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed
>>> expand on some further ideas.
>>>
>>> I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on
>>>      
>> this
>>    
>>> idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative
>>>      
>> outcome,
>>    
>>> if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an
>>> alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think
>>>      
>> about it
>>    
>>> and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia
>>>      
>> is
>>    
>>> doing good with this way of funding.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Londenp

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Peter van Londen
Hallo,
@Michael Snow 1: garbage has no place on Wikipedia, nor on something like
Fanpedia. I agree turning garbage into gold is not possible. OK, but the
question is if all the fancruft is garbage?
Turning garbage into gold has been a fantasy since the alchemists.
There's a reason it's a fantasy.
@Michael Snow 2: I like your idea of using templates for disputed content
for advertisements. But it would bring advertisements in all projects.
a) the consequence of this idea is that Wikimedia projects *should* have
advertising, and that the advertising should be used specifically to improve
the content.
b) Anything that is tagged as being disputed, controversial, needing
cleanup, unsourced, original research, vanity, or a host of other problems -
using one of the many such templates on the English Wikipedia, for example -
automatically gets advertising space added along with the tag.

@Waerth 1: it is not a way to get rid of fancruft from the Wikipedia: the
idea is a way to make money!! Fancruft is popular and therefor a project
like Fanpedia would have a kick-start. I am OK with another solution: like a
add-driven wine-encyclopedia, or an animal encyclopedia (allthough I hate to
loose that in wikipedia), or any other idea. Is is not focused just on
fancruft. I do invite you to start adding content on Wikipedia again.
And I am getting tired of the relatively very small group on NL. wikipedia
who try whatever they can to get these articles deleted. They have been
trying this for years. This proposal from them is in my opinion to xxxxth
attempt to accomplish this.
@Waerth 2: You are the only one advocating to join all sister-projects into
Wikipedia. I have never heard of anyone backing up that idea. Besides I
agree that the communities on other projects are not that big as on
Wikipedia, but 1) Wikipedia has a head start and 2) not everything needs to
be as successful as Wikipedia
@Waerth 3: I don't, I was asking for a feasibility of this project, before I
start-up a discussion which brings as nowhere, because it is not possible to
do.
If you want the Dutch project to be a guinea-pig better first discuss it
amongst the
community, instead of assuming the nl: projects will blindly follow you on
this.
@GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of
money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and
even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a
compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does
sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to
back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but
because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of
the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the
community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation
or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further
if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by
working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do
so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate
matching donations.
My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and
the arguments
used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have
not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no
compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se,
I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to
continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions.
The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by
preventing the  corresponding need for funding
@GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome.
There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current
Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is
a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we
explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to
wiggle any more.

I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which
could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside
the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical
opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language
to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to
find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.

So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not
backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds
are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.

Kind regards,
Londenp


> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 07/01/07, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them
> being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next
> matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming
> them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take
> into account.


That's the stupidest thing I've yet heard of in this entire thing.


- d.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Peter van Londen
Hoi,

> @GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of
> money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and
> even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a
> compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does
> sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to
> back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but
> because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of
> the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the
> community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation
> or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further
> if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by
> working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do
> so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate
> matching donations.
> My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and
> the arguments
> used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have
> not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no
> compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se,
> I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to
> continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions.
> The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by
> preventing the  corresponding need for funding
>  
For the record: I have no doubt that you did not sabotage the fund-raiser.

When you ask me do I want advertisements, then the answer is no. When
you ask me "am I willing to sacrifice our growth by preventing the
corresponding need for funding" then I do not know what you mean because
We ARE growing and this results in a need for funding and we are NOT
investing where it is most needed. We need to invest more in the
languages where we do not have an organisational presence. It is for
this reason that I am glad that our Wikimania 2007 will be in Taiwan,
you will appreciate that I would not mind it to be in Nairobi next year
and Brazil the year after. I would be glad to prevent growth where it is
least needed. This would be the English Wikipedia but the problem is
that you cannot prevent this growth. I would not advise anyone to try to
limit this growth because the backlash would be phenomenal.

Where you say: "you can only do so much", I agree. The problem is that
you propose a project that is not viable as a consequence. Personally I
expect that you can not make a community in the way you propose. I want
you to be realistic. How would you limit the growth, what will be the
consequences. We have an overstretched organisation it is not rocket
science to understand that the sheer amount of work will only grow.
People are organising themselves to get functional Wikipedias for
Africa. There are NGOs paying money for the translation of Wikipedia
content to other Wikipedias. You do not have a clue how the tsunami of
our growth is continuing. You cannot put your finger in the dike and
prevent this from flooding you.

The fact that we are struggling with the notion of advertisement is
exactly what is preventing a lot of cooperation with organisations. Even
not for profit organisations and universities welcome to be publicly
thanked. It makes a difference to them. Many people confuse saying
"thank you" with advertising. Many people think that our editorial
freedom will be compromised when we give in to the demands of others.
Hell, we have situations where our content is completely removed because
of legal reasons. We have to cope with what others think and want
already. The question that was not asked is: do you really think that
the Foundation can stop people writing as they do? Do you have a notion
what would happen if our editorial independence was compromised?? You
will find me on the barricades when that happens !!

> @GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome.
> There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current
> Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is
> a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we
> explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to
> wiggle any more.
>
> I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which
> could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside
> the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical
> opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language
> to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to
> find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.
>
> So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not
> backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds
> are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.
Adds would be introduced to work on improving the WikiMedia-content !!!

Thanks,
    GerardM

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

Łukasz Garczewski-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 1/8/07, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 07/01/07, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them
> > being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next
> > matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming
> > them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take
> > into account.
>
> That's the stupidest thing I've yet heard of in this entire thing.

Not only that, that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of
during my years in this organization and community.

The effects could go far beyond this fund-raiser and the issue of ads
vs. no ads, beyond even the issue of matching donations. Think,
people! Virgin Unite is a *BIG*, international charity. Do you think
they don't have contacts with other similar charities? If somebody
from one of these other organizations comes to them and asks "How did
you do with the matching donations thing? I saw your logo." they'll
say "Well... We got flamed."

Not only that, Virgin might have been considering normal donations on
a regular basis. Or a whole lot of other things to do in cooperation
with WMF.

Nice going, people. You've probably set us back a mile or so.

--
Łukasz 'TOR' Garczewski
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

123