This is not an Advertisement

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
77 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

This is not an Advertisement

Dedalus-2
Tomorrow the Virgin Unite will not longer be present as a sitenotice. Today
jeroen and others complained about that sitenotice. In his words the
community would have been split. The current fundraiser raises today an
additional several 100k US dollar, so that is gain one. Concerning the Dutch
Wikipedia, today over 250 persons registered a username. So the Dutch
Wikipedia today gains that many new users and maybe loose temporarily (I
doubt definitely) one or two well known users.

Somebody else mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's in the
press they would like to raise the level of primary and secondary education
in the US. Wikiversity and or Wikibooks might be helpful in raising the
level of education there and elsewhere. Suppose the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation would like to grant some money to WMF on the condition that it
would be for specific projects, e.g. Wikibooks or Wikiversity, would that
raise any objections by anyone?

In short, I believe Brad Patrick and his team are doing a perfect job to
keep the WMF and the websites up and running.

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

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Teun Spaans
On 12/28/06, Dedalus <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Tomorrow the Virgin Unite will not longer be present as a sitenotice.
> Today
> jeroen and others complained about that sitenotice. In his words the
> community would have been split. The current fundraiser raises today an
> additional several 100k US dollar, so that is gain one. Concerning the
> Dutch
> Wikipedia, today over 250 persons registered a username. So the Dutch
> Wikipedia today gains that many new users and maybe loose temporarily (I
> doubt definitely) one or two well known users.


For both numbers one can doubt if they are permanent. But the one swho have
gone are mainly old hands, experienced contributors who have the core values
of wikipedia at heart.

The new ones will mainly have arrived because of the 250,000 article
milestone, the press release hit the media today. Many of the new
wikipedians will never write even 1 article.



Somebody else mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's in the

> press they would like to raise the level of primary and secondary
> education
> in the US. Wikiversity and or Wikibooks might be helpful in raising the
> level of education there and elsewhere. Suppose the Bill and Melinda Gates
> Foundation would like to grant some money to WMF on the condition that it
> would be for specific projects, e.g. Wikibooks or Wikiversity, would that
> raise any objections by anyone?
>
> In short, I believe Brad Patrick and his team are doing a perfect job to
> keep the WMF and the websites up and running.
>
> Dedalus
> _______________________________________________
> 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: This is not an Advertisement

Daniel Mayer
In reply to this post by Dedalus-2


--- Dedalus <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Somebody else mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's in the
> press they would like to raise the level of primary and secondary education
> in the US. Wikiversity and or Wikibooks might be helpful in raising the
> level of education there and elsewhere. Suppose the Bill and Melinda Gates
> Foundation would like to grant some money to WMF on the condition that it
> would be for specific projects, e.g. Wikibooks or Wikiversity, would that
> raise any objections by anyone?

Not by me. Also, the charge that the current message is an advertisement sounds bizarre to me
since no product or service is even mentioned, let alone pushed.

The message is simply an acknowledgement of a very generous donation that is linked to the amount
of money our readers can give in a day; this is an inducement to donate. It is NOT an inducement
to buy any product or service of Virgin Unite or the Virgin group of companies.

This is no different than the sponsorship messages seen or heard on the non-profits NPR and PBS.
 
> In short, I believe Brad Patrick and his team are doing a perfect job to
> keep the WMF and the websites up and running.

Ditto.

-- mav


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Oldak
In reply to this post by Dedalus-2
On 28/12/06, Dedalus <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In short, I believe Brad Patrick and his team are doing a perfect job to
> keep the WMF and the websites up and running.

I don't think anyone who has objected to the Virgin Unite notice has
claimed Brad Patrick and his team were doing a bad job. They certainly
are doing a very good job. It was their methods that were being
questioned. Since we're a community-based project, this seems healthy.

--
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: This is not an Advertisement

Brion Vibber
In reply to this post by Teun Spaans
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Teun Spaans wrote:

> On 12/28/06, Dedalus wrote:
>> Tomorrow the Virgin Unite will not longer be present as a sitenotice.
>> Today
>> jeroen and others complained about that sitenotice. In his words the
>> community would have been split. The current fundraiser raises today an
>> additional several 100k US dollar, so that is gain one. Concerning the
>> Dutch
>> Wikipedia, today over 250 persons registered a username. So the Dutch
>> Wikipedia today gains that many new users and maybe loose temporarily (I
>> doubt definitely) one or two well known users.
>
>
> For both numbers one can doubt if they are permanent. But the one swho have
> gone are mainly old hands, experienced contributors who have the core values
> of wikipedia at heart.

To be frank, we have to ask ourselves if that's true.

JeroenVP for instance has made clear that he does not care about the
core values of Wikipedia at all (making knowledge available to the
public as free content) but only cares about not ever seeing anything he
perceives as an "advertisement".

That saddens me.

If we'd just sold out to $BIGCO years ago we wouldn't need to run
fundraisers. But of course let's be honest, there would be big stankin'
blinking ad banners on every page all day every day forever if we had
done that, like every other 'web 2.0' site with no business model.

If perfectly normal, everyday non-profit fundraising techniques that
would not lift an eyebrow elsewhere are so offensive to a handful of
people that they would happily throw away everything this project stands
for... I have to ask...

*Should* we actually miss them?

As I said the other day, we have as a community an anger management
problem. People fly off the handle, get into flame wars, hold grudges.

The first step in combatting that is to step back and calm down when we
have a knee-jerk emotional reaction; think about what the other person's
saying and what we're about to say.

In the longer term, we also have to think about what the project is
actually about and how what we do and say actually helps or hinders that.

When we have a reaction to something, is it because we really think it
harms the principles behind the project? Or are we having a selfish
reaction?


Certainly as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. I benefit
from its continued solvency. Money coming in means the project I work on
 stays up, I keep my job, I can pay my rent. That's good for me, of
course. ;)

More importantly, it keeps Wikipedia and friends up and online.

As the highest-profile free/open content website out there, I think
that's pretty valuable just in terms of visibility.

It also provides a useful resource for many people, as a first step on
researching or quickly looking up various topics.

It also provides a source of encyclopedia content which can be, and is,
reused and republished.


By running fundraising events to boost donation income, this keeps the
site free of both:
* the control of a single benefactor who could threaten to drop support
* the constant 24/7 barrage of annoying banner ads that makes the
typical web experience a little less pleasant

Good? Probably!

But let's think about those two things again:

* the control of a single benefactor who could threaten to drop support

vs

* the constant 24/7 barrange of annoying banner ads that makes the
typical web experience a little less pleasant


The first one is about *control*; maintaining our independence and our
credibility, and our future. We have multiple donors, no single majority
we have to rely on or have to please.

The second is about *comfort*. We don't want ads because they're *ugly*
and *annoying*. If one of a hundred advertisers gets in a tizzy over
something and pulls out, well... who cares? There'd be thousands to take
their place.


In all honesty, running ads wouldn't do a damn thing to affect our
*neutrality*. Can we really say different, knowing that we can easily
tell any advertiser to fuck off if they wanted to pressure us?

No, they're just annoying.

Really, really annoying.


So if we're going to call a brief fundraising notice an "advertisement",
fine for the sake of argument let's call it that.

It's small.

It doesn't blink.

It has a tiny, tiny 50x24 logo... not a giant 480x80 banner.

It doesn't push any particular product or service.

You can make it go away by clicking a button once.

It'll be gone in a few hours, and things like it will only run a few
times a year.


If it's an advertisement, it's about as minimal as we could possibly get.

And it *still* gave enough traffic to kill Virgin Unite's web server in
under 12 minutes.

That's *killer* ad revenue potential.

We could make *lots* by actually running ads.

But we throw it away.

Why?

Because banner ads are annoying. *Damn* annoying. And somehow as a
community the hate of advertisements has grown so ingrained that even
*non-advertisements* that *kinda resemble advertisements* send some
people into such a tizzy that they'll edit-war and threaten to leave
forever and ever.

Well.

People get in tizzies, edit-war, and threaten to leave forever and ever
*every day* on Wikipedia.

Why should our fundraising technique be any different from any other topic?


Let's all calm down, pass the kool-aid around, and think to ourselves
what we actually like and don't like about Wikipedia and Wikimedia. What
we want to see the project accomplish. What we think it's really *about*.


Is it about non-commercialism?

Is it about "fuck Microsoft"?

Well... no.

It never was.

Neither is, say, Linux and free/open-source software. But those
communities have a lot of people with the same confusion (and there's
some overlap to be sure).

It's about free/open educational content. It's about making materials
open and available for use by the public, including the creation of
derivative works and redistribution.

That's not non-commercial in the sense of being anti-commercial; it's
just *un-commercial* in that it follows a different path.

In fact it's fully compatible with commercial enterprises, and a healthy
ecosystem with the commercial world is to be encouraged.

Free software involves a lot of companies which distribute, support, and
develop it.

Free content involves companies which distribute, support, and republish
it, and they give back too.


It's fine to think advertisements are ugly and to prefer that we avoid
going to banner ads because we think it's a nicer, purer web without them.


But to go to the extreme of demanding that companies who donate to help
keep free content available should remain anonymous is to adopt an
*anti-commercial* attitude that is, IMHO, damaging.

In my experience with conversations of this type over the last few
years, there is an unfortunate tendency of some people to assume that
free content means that no money should ever change hands, and this
belief is often tied up with such anti-commercial sentiment.


But that's not true. It was never true.

Free content IS NOT ANTI-COMMERCIAL.

FREE CONTENT DOES NOT FORBID MONEY FROM CHANGING HANDS.

FREE-CONTENT LICENSES *FORBID YOU FROM FORBIDDING* THAT MONEY CAN CHANGE
HANDS!

FREE CONTENT *ENCOURAGES* A COMMERCIAL ECOSYSTEM TO DEVELOP TO SUPPORT IT.


Maybe it's time for the community to "clean house" as it were. Take
stock of your beliefs about free content and what this project is about.

I do expect some people to leave; that's not because they're bad people.
But some people are going to discover, sooner or later, that they've
been chasing something *other* than free content, and that Wikipedia
isn't really the project for them after all.

Other people are going to leave because they're angry even though they
don't actually understand the difference. That's nothing new. People get
in tizzies, edit war, and threaten to leave Wikipedia forever and ever
all the time over every little thing.

That's why we need to stop, to think.

It's better to leave calmly over a reasoned belief, for instance a
belief in anti-commercialism which is incompatible with free content,
than to storm out in a huff -- and probably just wind up coming back to
fight again.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFlCwswRnhpk1wk44RAj03AKDB6ZjLpi3xFUHWXFE3nwz4FdXrmACfQva3
sgNkKt50wBW9EgWxWFOfIZw=
=y4Yd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Kat Walsh
Thank you, Brion. You are not only wonderful because you keep the site
from falling flat on its butt, but because you write things like this.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Brad Patrick
Hee hee, Brion, you never cease to amaze me....another fabulous post. You
must have been saving your quota for the end of the year. ;-)


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

>
> Thank you, Brion. You are not only wonderful because you keep the site
> from falling flat on its butt, but because you write things like this.
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
> _______________________________________________
> 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: This is not an Advertisement

Jeroenvrp
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 21:42, schreef Brion Vibber:
> JeroenVP for instance has made clear that he does not care about the
> core values of Wikipedia at all (making knowledge available to the
> public as free content) but only cares about not ever seeing anything he
> perceives as an "advertisement".

I assume the above statement is a way to polarise the discussion ever more and
I will ignore these remarks.

> It's about free/open educational content. It's about making materials
> open and available for use by the public, including the creation of
> derivative works and redistribution.

Exactly, but you you miss the point completely Brion. It's advertisement at a
location where the free content is CREATED, not redistributed/mirrored.
Actually I don't care about if people make money with Wikipedia content, the
same applies for Linux distributions, but we are talking about advertisement
on the location where the content is created. That kills our reliability, so
far we have that allready. It's not about business-models, websites, but
about the source off the free content. Any connection to what kind of
company, religion, political party, government, whatever... will harm one of
the basic principles of this great project.

It really sadness me also to hear that you and the Foundation are
opportunists, that can endanger the projects.

> I do expect some people to leave; that's not because they're bad people.
> But some people are going to discover, sooner or later, that they've
> been chasing something *other* than free content, and that Wikipedia
> isn't really the project for them after all.

Hopefully it will be those people who endanger Wikipedia and such, like
selling us out and don't have any respect for the community. The community
who created Wikipedia and such.

> That's why we need to stop, to think.

That's what we do all the time, unfortunately we don't think the same.

I will ask the Foundation to make an official excuse to the community about
forcing these site notices and about not directly informing the communities.
I will also ask to stop any other actions like these in the future, until the
community at least can have a vote in this matter.

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

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Michael Bimmler
On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>e time, unfortunately we don't think the same.
>
> I will ask the Foundation to make an official excuse to the community about
> forcing these site notices and about not directly informing the communities.
> I will also ask to stop any other actions like these in the future, until the
> community at least can have a vote in this matter.
>
Maybe you want to start with defining the term "community". It proved
to be not so easy... (And no, the community is not just the
subscribers to foundation-l)
Michael
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Jeroenvrp
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 22:51, schreef Michael Bimmler:
> > I will ask the Foundation to make an official excuse to the community
> > about forcing these site notices and about not directly informing the
> > communities. I will also ask to stop any other actions like these in the
> > future, until the community at least can have a vote in this matter.
>
> Maybe you want to start with defining the term "community". It proved
> to be not so easy... (And no, the community is not just the
> subscribers to foundation-l)

That is very easy. The   "community" are the users who contribute on all
Wikimedia projects.

Jeroenvrp

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

Re: This is not an Advertisement

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

> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 22:51, schreef Michael Bimmler:
> > > I will ask the Foundation to make an official excuse to the community
> > > about forcing these site notices and about not directly informing the
> > > communities. I will also ask to stop any other actions like these in the
> > > future, until the community at least can have a vote in this matter.
> >
> > Maybe you want to start with defining the term "community". It proved
> > to be not so easy... (And no, the community is not just the
> > subscribers to foundation-l)
>
> That is very easy. The   "community" are the users who contribute on all
> Wikimedia projects.
>
Okay. And sure you know how to get in contact with the whole
community? Because people tend to complain about not being informed,
although they just didn't read the relevant threads on foundation-l.
Should we make a notice on every little village pump (it will be
really cheap and easy to translate such a thing in every possible
language to allow non-english-speakers to participate)? Or shall we
send an email to every registered Wikimedia user (see translation
issue above)? Or do you know another way how *everybody* feels
included, asked and considered?
Michael
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Jeroenvrp
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 23:03, schreef Michael Bimmler:
> Okay. And sure you know how to get in contact with the whole
> community? Because people tend to complain about not being informed,
> although they just didn't read the relevant threads on foundation-l.
> Should we make a notice on every little village pump (it will be
> really cheap and easy to translate such a thing in every possible
> language to allow non-english-speakers to participate)? Or shall we
> send an email to every registered Wikimedia user (see translation
> issue above)? Or do you know another way how *everybody* feels
> included, asked and considered?

I allready explained that. There a few mailing lists for the local communities
and there are village pumps. I'm not talking about informing every single
project, but the ones with a good amount of community members. Yes, the are
many of them, but it is 30 min. work to inform them. You can do it English,
there is always someone who can translate it and that is ten times better
than only informing this mailing list, that is not read by the average hard
working contributors.

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

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Brad Patrick
In reply to this post by Jeroenvrp
> > Maybe you want to start with defining the term "community". It proved
> > to be not so easy... (And no, the community is not just the
> > subscribers to foundation-l)
>
> That is very easy. The   "community" are the users who contribute on all
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Jeroenvrp


Hmm, I think you may be missing something pretty important.  In fact, the
definition of community is the single most difficult thing to agree upon.
What is my community, your community, etc. does not have answers.  The Board
retreat could not answer it with the 25 people who were there.  The Board
itself cannot agree on the meaning.  Certainly, though, you do not have the
hubris to think that this thing called Wikimedia exists only for editors, to
the exclusion of the millions of people who view it every day?  I view the
orthodox idea that the community consists of, and can only consist of,
editors as being at least as insulting as the opposite would be to Horning.
Millions of people *read* the site, and do not contribute a comma.  And
that's okay!   Generators *and* consumers of free culture must be
incorporated.  If we are philosophically opposed as people who differ on
whether a sound is made when a tree falls in  forest, so be it.


--
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: This is not an Advertisement

Brion Vibber
In reply to this post by Jeroenvrp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeroenvrp wrote:
> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 21:42, schreef Brion Vibber:
>> JeroenVP for instance has made clear that he does not care about the
>> core values of Wikipedia at all (making knowledge available to the
>> public as free content) but only cares about not ever seeing anything he
>> perceives as an "advertisement".
>
> I assume the above statement is a way to polarise the discussion ever more and
> I will ignore these remarks.

It was meant to be a provocative opening statement, but it appears
accurate based on your actions and words last night and you have not
explained otherwise, so I continue to stand by these words.

>> It's about free/open educational content. It's about making materials
>> open and available for use by the public, including the creation of
>> derivative works and redistribution.
>
> Exactly, but you you miss the point completely Brion. It's advertisement at a
> location where the free content is CREATED, not redistributed/mirrored.
> Actually I don't care about if people make money with Wikipedia content, the
> same applies for Linux distributions, but we are talking about advertisement
> on the location where the content is created. That kills our reliability, so
> far we have that allready.

How? Please explain.

> It's not about business-models, websites, but
> about the source off the free content. Any connection to what kind of
> company, religion, political party, government, whatever... will harm one of
> the basic principles of this great project.

How? Please explain.

>> I do expect some people to leave; that's not because they're bad people.
>> But some people are going to discover, sooner or later, that they've
>> been chasing something *other* than free content, and that Wikipedia
>> isn't really the project for them after all.
>
> Hopefully it will be those people who endanger Wikipedia and such, like
> selling us out and don't have any respect for the community. The community
> who created Wikipedia and such.

Perhaps you missed it, but the foundation came from the community and is
made up of community members.

Perhaps you missed the last six years solid, where there have always
been disagreements within the community and communications problems
between different parts of it.

Me, I noticed. That's probably why I've been screaming for better
organization and communication in this fundraiser debacle.

Communication is the #1 problem facing us. Do you believe the best
response to this is to engage in edit wars?

I don't.

That's probably why I'm posting here instead of dropping the nukes and
blocking edit-warring sysops.

What good would it do other than piss people off?

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFlFZAwRnhpk1wk44RAqARAJ4h5tQpXmVZyBtq1u18StkJo46GjgCgnVNx
2rxKrYhtmrF3WK8U4eW7Ej8=
=YqTo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Jeroenvrp
Op vrijdag 29 december 2006 00:41, schreef Brion Vibber:
> It was meant to be a provocative opening statement, but it appears
> accurate based on your actions and words last night and you have not
> explained otherwise, so I continue to stand by these words.

Well, you did revert me on a Wikipedia where you are only a moderator because
of technical reasons and since this was NOT a technical issue, I assume you
also did not follow the book.

> >> It's about free/open educational content. It's about making materials
> >> open and available for use by the public, including the creation of
> >> derivative works and redistribution.
> >
> > Exactly, but you you miss the point completely Brion. It's advertisement
> > at a location where the free content is CREATED, not
> > redistributed/mirrored. Actually I don't care about if people make money
> > with Wikipedia content, the same applies for Linux distributions, but we
> > are talking about advertisement on the location where the content is
> > created. That kills our reliability, so far we have that allready.
>
> How? Please explain.
>
> > It's not about business-models, websites, but
> > about the source off the free content. Any connection to what kind of
> > company, religion, political party, government, whatever... will harm one
> > of the basic principles of this great project.
>
> How? Please explain.

Come on Brion, must I really explain this to you. I don't go that way with
you. You should know WHY?

> Perhaps you missed it, but the foundation came from the community and is
> made up of community members.

That's even worse.

> Perhaps you missed the last six years solid, where there have always
> been disagreements within the community and communications problems
> between different parts of it.

Yes, so we should have learned from the past.

> Me, I noticed. That's probably why I've been screaming for better
> organization and communication in this fundraiser debacle.

Good to hear that.

> Communication is the #1 problem facing us. Do you believe the best
> response to this is to engage in edit wars?
>
> I don't.

No I don't believe that, but sometimes things are more important than not
doing anything.

> That's probably why I'm posting here instead of dropping the nukes and
> blocking edit-warring sysops.

Well, that is one more credit for you.

> What good would it do other than piss people off?

Nothing, so let stop us for now. I think everyone had made his/her point and I
truly hope the communities are much better informed and involved the next
time.

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

Re: This is not an Advertisement

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber
Brion Vibber wrote:

>>> It's about free/open educational content. It's about making materials
>>> open and available for use by the public, including the creation of
>>> derivative works and redistribution.
>> Exactly, but you you miss the point completely Brion. It's advertisement at a
>> location where the free content is CREATED, not redistributed/mirrored.
>> Actually I don't care about if people make money with Wikipedia content, the
>> same applies for Linux distributions, but we are talking about advertisement
>> on the location where the content is created. That kills our reliability, so
>> far we have that allready.
>
> How? Please explain.

Well. I think it would be interesting to take a very close look how this
    "non-advertisement" in sitenotice affects the content of the article
of "non-advertised" company or organization.

Take a look on:

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

which was created first on 14:35 December 2007, and had almost 100 edits
till now. I am quite sure that it would have never be edited so
extensively if the logo of this organisation hadn' been used in
sitenotice. This is rather obvious that this logo indeed has quite
enormous effect on the content of this particular article. I am not
judging if this effect was good or wrong.

What we may be afraid of:
*The company "non-advertised" on sitenotice might be interested to keep
the article about itself in the shape they would prefer, and they may
expect that someone from Foundation will take care of it
*It may end-up in agressive edit war, which may result in blocking this
  article
*There will be more such articles, so the problem will grow soon.

This was not discussed yet, but if Foundation make a decision to put
some "real" advertisement on Wikipedia and other projects, how it may
affect the articles about advertised companies and organisation as well
as biographic articles about the people conected with these companies
and articles about products/services they provide?

It is really difficult to evaluate this without any experimental data,
but I think many people fell that it may create some sort of conflict of
interest.

--
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Polimerek
http://www.poli.toya.net.pl/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/pl/TomaszGanicz.html
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

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

>
>
>
> --- Dedalus <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Somebody else mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's in
> the
> > press they would like to raise the level of primary and secondary
> education
> > in the US. Wikiversity and or Wikibooks might be helpful in raising the
> > level of education there and elsewhere. Suppose the Bill and Melinda
> Gates
> > Foundation would like to grant some money to WMF on the condition that
> it
> > would be for specific projects, e.g. Wikibooks or Wikiversity, would
> that
> > raise any objections by anyone?
>
> Not by me. Also, the charge that the current message is an advertisement
> sounds bizarre to me
> since no product or service is even mentioned, let alone pushed.


>From Wikipedia: "*Advertising* is paid communication through a non-personal
medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled.
Variations include publicity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity>, public
relations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations>, product
placement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement>,
sponsorship <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship>,
underwriting<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting_spots>,
and sales promotion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_promotion>."

Hmmmmmm.


The message is simply an acknowledgement of a very generous donation that is
> linked to the amount
> of money our readers can give in a day; this is an inducement to donate.
> It is NOT an inducement
> to buy any product or service of Virgin Unite or the Virgin group of
> companies.
>
> This is no different than the sponsorship messages seen or heard on the
> non-profits NPR and PBS.


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

Re: This is not an Advertisement

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Jeroenvrp
On 29/12/06, Jeroenvrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Op vrijdag 29 december 2006 00:41, schreef Brion Vibber:

> > > Exactly, but you you miss the point completely Brion. It's advertisement
> > > at a location where the free content is CREATED, not
> > > redistributed/mirrored. Actually I don't care about if people make money
> > > with Wikipedia content, the same applies for Linux distributions, but we
> > > are talking about advertisement on the location where the content is
> > > created. That kills our reliability, so far we have that allready.

> > How? Please explain.

> > > It's not about business-models, websites, but
> > > about the source off the free content. Any connection to what kind of
> > > company, religion, political party, government, whatever... will harm one
> > > of the basic principles of this great project.

> > How? Please explain.

> Come on Brion, must I really explain this to you. I don't go that way with
> you. You should know WHY?


No, really ... please explain. You're making these blank assertions on
a public mailing list, and even if you think Brion can read your mind
the rest of us can't.


> Nothing, so let stop us for now. I think everyone had made his/her point and I
> truly hope the communities are much better informed and involved the next
> time.


I suggest it would still help if we understood yours.


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

Re: This is not an Advertisement

rfrangi@libero.it
In reply to this post by Dedalus-2
I've just had a great idea.

For the next fundriasing WMF says: "to run our projects we need to raise X$ in the next two weeks." Without doublings, ads, and stuff.

If after 2 weeks the sum raised is less than the X$ needed, the Foundations says: "You didn't gave us enough money. Can we put ads?"

If the answer is no, just shut the whole damn thing down.

Sometimes people needs a slap in the face to understand.

Roberto (Snowdog)  


------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada29dic06


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
m7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This is not an Advertisement

m7
2006/12/29, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>:

> I've just had a great idea.
>
> For the next fundriasing WMF says: "to run our projects we need to raise X$ in the next two weeks." Without doublings, ads, and stuff.
>
> If after 2 weeks the sum raised is less than the X$ needed, the Foundations says: "You didn't gave us enough money. Can we put ads?"
>
> If the answer is no, just shut the whole damn thing down.
>
> Sometimes people needs a slap in the face to understand.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)

Agreed in full.

--
Ciao,
M/
[ http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:M7 ]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234