"Carcharoth" <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:206791b10908110309j4ef2cca3l777b8fcb5e86c78c@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Jay
Litwyn<brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
"stevertigo" <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:7c402e010907301615q7f86e8a1v5edb56ced5a80a18@mail.gmail.com...
Sorry, thought this was going to foundation-l.
-S
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
> some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
> eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
> not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it?
Carcharoth answered that question in October or November
<snip>
I'm not entirely sure I did answer that question back then (I can't
find anything on a brief search). I might have done, so if you point
me to an e-mail I wrote to this list, I'll accept that. Even if I did,
no-one should have accepted it at face value, as I was likely just
giving an uninformed opinion (can you tag mailing list posts with
"citation needed"?). And any case, what SJ (Samuel Klein) has just
said is obviously much better informed!
Mis-attributed.
It
was Anthony. You were only in the message, sorry. I had fully intended to
read source documents to find out if I would get a conclusion,
and...well...even if I understand it, I hate legalese, and making chaos
click less took longer than I thot. In any case, the way I see it, we are
more likely to see donations from grateful dot coms (like *.wikia.com) and
commercial interests who exploit our information -- our unannounced printer
being an example. Those donations would reduce our cravings for donations
from contributors. The DVDs at WalMart (an investment) were solidly a risk,
because you would be depending on people with slow access or no access to
the internet, and that is dwindling, TMK. I would not mind knowing how it
panned out.
_______