Perhaps the "Foundation is evil" calls would be quelled a little bit by some examples of donation ideas that were rejected. After all, we've only heard about the donations that were accepted, so we can't measure them against anything else.
(Without having to disclose names and embarrass potential donors, of course)
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:20 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attempt at a compromise (Re: Advertising)
On 30/12/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but you need both. As I said earlier, donations almost always follow a power law, like Alexa ratings or whatever. And you don't get the first without the thank-yous, because they're used to them.
So let's retrain them. Don't charitable entrepeneurs want to break the traditional paradigms?
Note that the first round of donations was matched by precisely the sort of anonymous donor you describe.
But you know, I have no problem saying "thank you" quite loudly to someone giving us tens of thousands of dollars - if it was someone we would have a problem saying "thank you" quite loudly to, then we wouldn't accept it. And I understand Danny has said "no thanks" to more than a few bad ideas that might have netted us substantial cash.
- d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l