Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I take no sides in this discussion, but I would just like to note
that this last bit is not really true. In the unlikely event that the
Foundation decided to take advertising in some limited fashion on the
search results page or similar (and I should note that this is an
interesting discussion in the community, but not something the board is
actively interested in or considering at all) it would be quite simple
to accept only pre-approved ads, and to mark them quite clearly as not
part of the content, etc.
>
> There are grave and legitimate concerns about what accepting
advertising would do to the perception of neutrality of Wikipedia, but
it is worth noting that worst case scenarios are easily avoidable.
Hmmm. Who would deal with the advertisements in Russian language from
Russian companies ?
Ant
A Resolution To Restrict The Number Of Appointed Members To The Wikimedia Foundation Board Of Trustees.
WHEREAS: The Wikimedia Community has indicated a desire for its governance to be more accountable in the decisions and policy made.
WHEREAS: Appointed Trustees directly influence policy creation and the direction the Foundation takes.
WHEREAS: The aforementioned type of Trustee is not restricted in number and is not accountable to the editors of the projects that comprise the Foundation.
BE IT RESOLVED; That the Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation should be amended, in accordance with the provisions of Article XI, Section 1, as directed by the relevant portions of this Resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED; That Article IV, Section 3 (B) be amended through the addition of the following text;
"Notwithstanding any other provision of these Bylaws, the number of appointed Trustees shall not exceed 1/3 of the Board as a whole. This provision shall be considered to have no effect on interim appointments to regularly elected Trusteeships where the term expires at the next election and where the Community regularly elects the occupant of that Trusteeship."
Thoughts/Complaints/Concerns?
Geoff Plourde
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
I see where you are going but respectfully disagree on most points. Without a community of editors, there would be no Foundation. I do not care what goal or ideal you try to pull up, it would not happen.
I am simply stating the majority of the Board should be drawn from the Electorate. Where we see eye to eye is that the Electorate should be clearly defined.
For example, I would hope that the Electoral Commission would be kind enough to recommend a standing formula to be an Elector.
----- Original Message ----
From: Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann(a)gmx.net>
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:31:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> A Resolution To Restrict The Number Of Appointed Members To The Wikimedia Foundation Board Of Trustees.
I strongly believe this discussion - as well as the volunteers council
and all others regarding representation of the editors - is going into a
wrong direction and realizing this resolution would be detrimental to
the future of the WMF.
While the WMF started out of the Wikipedia and today is best known for
hosting the projects, its scope goes way beyond that and right now with
the move to San Francisco and the build up of professional staff, WMF
takes the necessary steps to reach out. So over time hosting Wikipedia
and all the other wikis will be only a small activity among others.
In my eyes, binding the majority of the board to the community of
editors would be a burden, not an asset, as editors to Wikipedia will
very soon don't know much about the activities of WMF, and being based
in the community of the wikis will not be helpful for the tasks of a
board member.
The Red Cross started with emergency services for wounded soldiers. Does
anyone here really believe that it would be helpful if two thirds of the
board of directors in Geneva would be elected by army medics of the world?
The WMF is working hard to become the "Red Cross of Knowledge" (c)
Jimbo. It is moving beyond the wikis and we - the editors - should set
the WMF free, not bind it to our communities.
Henning Schlottmann, user:H-stt (de, en, commons, meta)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Please define "our" in "our values". Please understand that I do not want
> advertisements either however, this *has *to be weighed as one issue with
> the other issues. When advertisements are considered the single most
> important issue and all other issues are considered of less
relevance, then
> I absolutely cannot consider it a value that is ours. Read what the
WMF aims
> to do, read what Wikipedia aims to do. We are about bringing knowledge to
> the people of this world. That is our aim, our values can only be the
ones
> that make this possible.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
First hack at the Foundation values is here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values
Note that this is a first hack. It may naturally evolve if it is
seriously unsatisfactory. But till now, no one complained.
Ant
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
I gave a
> presentation yesterday about Wikibooks to a group of professionals
> from "the technology sector", and most of them were absolutely
> bewildered by the kinds of things that I was talking about. People who
> do not understand us cannot possibly be expected to help us or to
> guide us.
Eh, do you have a slide presentation ? Or best, were you recorded ?
Ant
I don't think they were serious, but this sounds like a fine idea.
Reposted with permission. From #wikimedia-tech:
[21:43] <kylu> actually, you should change bugzilla... instead of voting
for bugs, you donate for them
[21:43] <AaronSchulz> and it builds up like a pot, that they get if they
implement it
Actually, I think this is a grand idea. Bugging for dollars. What are
the thoughts?
./scream
I was asked by User:The-Q@hewiki to send this question to the list, per
technical problems subscribing to the list:
Hello,
We on Hebrew Wikipedia decided to cast a vote on hiding some talk namespaces
("Talk", "Wikipedia Talk", "User Talk", etc) from search engines such as
Google.
Just before the vote, we decided to ask if the foundation has any objections.
Thanks in advance
Chad writes:
> I don't necessarily agree. As Mark pointed out, the trick
> is just getting enough editors over to help you get started,
> the readership isn't an immediate necessity. If those
> editors can establish themselves well and build up the
> infrastructure, they can do it.
That's a perfectly fine strategy if you're the first mover in the
marketplace. No fork could be a first mover, however -- by definition.
> The trick is offering a product that's better than the original,
> even if it doesn't have the same name.
I forget who it was (it may have been someone at Sony) who pointed out
that to replace the existing dominant produce or service, your
offering can't merely be better than the original; it has to be ten
times better.
--Mike
How many times does this have to be pounded home? If you put ads in WP or any other project, there would be a fork. Look at the Spanish WP if you don't believe me. However why don't we look at a opt in adsense skin?
----- Original Message ----
From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:23:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?
To answer White Cat: an encyclopedia that efficiently and effectively
accomplishes its mission - not simply maintenance of the status quo.
The ultimate goal is not "longterm web hosting of a web based encyclopedia"
its "distribute the sum of human knowledge, free, to all people." Its a big
vision, and its apparent that the big vision is not shared by all who
contribute - many construe only the narrow responsibility of keeping the
lights on. There is far more that can and should be done, and Wikimedia is
in a unique position to go much, much further towards accomplishing such a
broad goal than we are now. A hundred Wikimedia Academies, conferences at
universities around the world to involve content experts in specific fields,
the fast and responsive development of new features, etc. There are many,
many other worthy ideas that deserve consideration and attention from those
who can provide serious support. If we wanted to have that capacity, we
could have it.
The single most important aspect of the revenue impact from advertising
would be the preservation of Wikimedia and its projects for the duration -
right now, each year is a question that we rely on individual donors to
answer. Its just not necessary - when we have the tools to guarantee
Wikimedia survives and pursues its missions for decades to come, why do we
let it hang on the precipice year after year instead?
I honestly do not understand the point of view that any ads in articlespace
whatsoever immediately compromises all of our content. I don't even see
evidence to reflect the notion that all of our contributors will immediately
fork. I think the prospect of a severe fork of the English Wikipedia is
rather slim, to tell you the truth, and any fork would immediately become
obscure and useless for most purposes. What is the difficulty with
distinguishing between "content" and "stuff alongside content"? All of our
readers do this effortlessly throughout their day - in fact, a significant
portion of them probably think there already are ads somewhere on Wikipedia.
The reactionary opposition to advertising in any form needs to stop - it is
uninformed, because no comprehensive investigation of what is involved and
what the community thinks has ever been performed. It claims the authority
of a majority where no evidence of such majority exists. At least permit the
Board and staff to look into the possibility without demanding a preemptive
statement that advertising is evil. Something that hurts no one, does not
negatively impact our actual content or our community and ensures the
survival and expansion of Wikimedia is not evil on its face.
Nathan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> What kind of an encyclopedia advertises Toyoto on an article on Ford or
> vice
> versa?
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/googles-thin-skinned-lawyers/index…
> >
> > From Google Ads terms of service:
> >
> > "5. Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or
> > encourage any third party to:
> > …
> > (xi) engage in any action or practice that reflects poorly on Google
> > or otherwise disparages or devalues Google's reputation or goodwill."
> >
> > So much for NPOV.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
----- Original Message ----
From: Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:33:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Advertisements?
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm saying that the Foundation needs a source of revenue to ensure its
> longterm survival,
> and your suggestion is that folks use blogs to raise advertising dollars and
> that the
> WMF set up an "opt-in" advertising scheme? For what purpose? It would be
> barely
> supplemental to the current fundraising drive. How many people would opt in?
> A few
> hundred? What would advertising on low profile blogs in the name of
> Wikimedia bring in?
> Some small number of thousands? You, Plourde and Todd Allen, are against
> advertising
> and your opinion is known. Your suggestions are not viable alternatives, and
> your
> claim to know that the community will fork (which is not the end of the
> world) is supported
> seemingly by a hunch.
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
> On 3/19/08, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> > > How many times does this have to be pounded home? If you put ads in
> > > WP or any other project, there would be a fork. Look at the Spanish
> > > WP if you don't believe me. However why don't we look at a opt in
> > > adsense skin?
> >
> >
> > So? That's their right. I don't foresee a fork being nearly as
> > successful, because they'll be struggling just to get together hosting
> > costs while WMF is able to use their millions in new ad revenue to make
> > everything a lot better. Imagine all the improvements that could be
> > made to MediaWiki with a lot more paid staff ('What You See Is What You
> > Get' editing would just be the beginning).
> >
> >
> > - --
> > Ben "Cyde Weys" McIlwain ( http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/ )
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
> >
> > iD8DBQFH4cQovCEYTv+mBWcRAq6+AJ9WSabBQn0UjuEqcFBRuGHRfU6ALQCbBmD4
> > n7UPVI4LFpUKBn4rifZaRA8=
> > =xaga
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
I don't believe strong negative reaction to such proposals in the past
is "a hunch", it's been a reality. If it's not now, as with anything,
consensus does certainly still rule the day. But regardless, I will
not stick around for an ad-laden Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope I am
not the only one who would oppose this well-intentioned but misguided
proposal. There are very few things I would leave the project for (let
alone even consider a fork), but that is one of them.
As to opposition, I've also thus far seen opposition from David Gerard
and Durova, and they've been around the block a time or two as well.
You might also find the following instructive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Us…
We don't -need- megabucks, alluring as it is. Wikimedia has done just
fine with "small numbers of thousands" (and no onsite ads) for years.
Is the situation really so dire as to risk upsetting that?
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ben, Nathan;
You already know my opinion. Wikimedia has been run as a labor of love for seven years on donations from people who share our goal of providing free knowledge to the world. What has really helped us is our altruistic purpose. People use WP because they trust that they will find a decently written article that is ad free. In the pecking order of reliability, an ad free site will always eat a seeded site. Why? Because the ad free site is less likely to be biased in favor of whatever its selling. Due to the major scandals, we already are in a fight for reputation.
As regards MediaWiki, millions of dollars does not make a better product. Look at Windows Vista or Internet Explorer. In the case of internet explorer, the volunteers at mozilla beat them every time.
I do have an alternative proposal to cover the bills. Its a time of recession. We could snap up some hosting companies and offset our expenses that way. Personally i would prefer budget slashing first.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ