-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Teun Spaans wrote: 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)

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 <mindspillage(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com 727-231-0101

On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp <wikipedia(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: 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

On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp <wikipedia(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: 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 wrote: It llooks like your theory of community democracy is already showing cracks. Ec

On 12/29/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote: So a report from a certain portion might be useful ;) I would like to introduce another view we find on the community, I mean, a community of a certain language speakers as a part of the whole Wikipedia community; Japanese editors. I have seen no complaint, no grudges anywhere as far as I know - on Village pump, mailinglist and some external usergroups. (I haven't access irc recently, but perhaps there was no reaction). Some was impressed by the generocity of Virgin and it is perhaps an exceptional reaction; It is obvious most of editors on the Japanese projects simply did not care for it. They have been fascinated in their daily concerns instead - editwar, disputes, votes and of course, editing articles. What we as editors' community pursue here and now on the project is both sustainability and neutrality in my opinion, and I cannot think one time donation and one time expression of gratitude hurt the neutrality. If we were asked to make a favor to donors on our content, it were a serious damage, but here and now I haven't seen such threatening. -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *

On 29/12/06, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote: Lots of reaction on IRC, from which it seemed the biggest backlash was in it.wp and nl.wp, both of whom had some very vocal people coming by. The Catalan wp responded to it in a rather delightful way, by taking advantage of the presence of the "Day of the Holy Innocents" (Iberian equivalent of April 1) to treat it all as a grand joke - http://ca.wikinews.org/wiki/Imatge:Wiki-ca-Innocents.png is a copy of the modified logo that went up, and both ca.wnews and es.wnews ran news stories saying we were going to charge 20 EUR for editing and float on the NASDAQ ;-) enwp was broadly the same. Some noise kicked up by people discussing it freely and frankly, and a number who Didn't Like It One Bit, but not really much above the usual level we have of people Very Upset Over Something. Certainly no repeated editwarring to remove the sitenotice, attempts to disrupt it in other ways, or having it occupy the attentions of the entire project... As to the "broader community", our readers - as of last night, when I checked OTRS, I couldn't find a single complaint about it. I'm welcome to corrections from anyone who talked to someone, but keyword searching drew a total blank in the day's mail. And given the random things that cause some of our readers to write and complain*, I think that's a pretty good figure. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk * Imagine our sillier deletion/pagename disputes, just even weirder

On 29/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Wikimedia_Foundation_to_introduce_paid_… - d.

On 29/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote: Note edit summary for article's creation. (It's amazing the Fair Use a satirical site can get away with under US law.) - d.

David Gerard schreef: Hoi, Especially the logo is brilliant.. *This image is a copyright <http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Copyright> violation because this is a Wikimedia image.* Luckily, nobody cares <http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Nobody_cares>. Thanks, GerardM **

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. bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com 727-231-0101

On 29/12/06, Daniel Mayer &lt;maveric149(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: I must say, it feels really good knowing my work is useful to others. I repeat once more what a buzz it was seeing sentences I'd written in [[:en:Xenu]] reused in literally every news report on Tom Cruise around mid-2005 ... One thing I've been doing when shilling for the fund drive is add "If you want to give something back but haven't got money, you could give photos or writing instead." I don't know if adding that to the fund drive page would overly distract from the important message, i.e. that we're on the bones of our arse and NEED MONEY NOW. One to consider between fundraisers, perhaps. - d.

Oldak Quill schreef: Hoi, Think big.. "please contribute a financial donation instead." Thanks, GerardM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeroenvrp wrote: 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. How? Please explain. How? Please explain. 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)

On 29/12/06, Jeroenvrp &lt;wikipedia(a)xs4all.nl&gt; wrote: 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. I suggest it would still help if we understood yours. - d.

On 29/12/06, Jeroenvrp &lt;wikipedia(a)xs4all.nl&gt; wrote: The Wikimedia Foundation board has semi-regular elections. If you are unhappy with the decisions they make, vote differently next time. Don't blankly defy what they have decided on behalf of all Wikimedia projects, out of some misguided sense of self-importance. That will just get you emergency desysopped more quickly. I asked you in IRC to explain why you were edit warring against the wishes of the Foundation, and you did not respond. It's one thing to disagree with what the Foundation has decided to go with for this fundraiser. It is quite another to take it upon yourself to prevent the Foundation from implementing that decision on your local project. You should be taking a long, hard look at whether you can continue to participate in Wikimedia projects if you have such trouble accepting decisions of the Wikimedia Foundation, who it should not be forgotten have to pay all the bills. ~Mark Ryan

Birgitte SB wrote: This is an interesting distinction. I have noticed improvements in that six months. Those who have worked on this deserve the credit, and I can't picture Jimbo doing it all himself. Expanding the community that is informed will take it one step further. Ec

On 12/28/06, Daniel Mayer &lt;maveric149(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: 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>nt>, sponsorship <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship>, underwriting<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting_spots>ts>, and sales promotion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_promotion>." Hmmmmmm. The message is simply an acknowledgement of a very generous donation that is Right. Those, too, are ads.