Geni is speaking of the huge banner on Enwp at the moment featuring Craig of craigslist. Hit reload a few times if you haven't seen it. It links to a clearly spoken statement of support for wikipedia. To avoid you haivng to click and goofing up the counters, here is what it says: " I'm a proud supporter of Wikipedia, and I encourage you to make a donation to support their work too. Wikipedia is an accomplishment of major proportions. It's become the "first draft of history," a vital, living repository of human knowledge. How did we ever manage without it? Wikipedia makes it easy to learn about anything. It's dramatic proof of the supreme effectiveness of collaboration: people from all around the world work together on Wikipedia to build articles with one purpose - to provide free knowledge. But the work has just begun. And Wikipedia needs our financial support. If you read it, if you edit it, if you visit it more than once a month: please join me in supporting Wikipedia today. " There is are no hyperlinks to anything but WMF donation stuff, from the target. On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:50 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Your post makes me sad: I think the banner is doing the right thing and if we complain about moderate and well considered actions then we lose credibility when something more foolish is done. I normally respect and appreciate your comments but I this one is not a fair one. The banner isn't a link to craiglist, it's 'The founder of this other widely known (and I think usually well respected) organization endorses wikipedia, here is why...' Arguably craiglist is only known and credible to much of the same subculture that WMF's message has already reached— I suppose the results will have to be left to speak for themselves— but is this an add for craigslist? Hardly. It's a craig-of-craigslist ad for Wikipedia, speaking about the virtues of Wikipedia, not craig or craigs-list (other than the virtue of his support, which is being used as social proof). I accept that there can be a reasonable discussion about the wisdom of this kind of messaging, but I don't think that such a discussion could be had with your rather extreme characterization overhanging. Might I convince you to restate it in a way more conducive of discussion than dispute?

We've advertised third party for-profits in the past with prominent matched donations notices before (albeit controversially). This isn't that different. Craigslist gets some publicity and we get some money (hopefully - it's more definite in the matched donations case, of course). I don't see a problem.