On 10/24/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I will never bow to any sort of pressure of that kind, and one of the reason partnerships like answers.com http://answers.com are so
important is precisely to
avoid our having to rely on a few large donors.
[...]
NPOV is non-negotiable.
So what happens in this hypothetical scenario where we accept a significant contribution from a corporation, and 6 months into the partnership they turn around and say "we don't like that bit on the article which criticises us, remove it or we pull the funding"?
We say no and then publicise the fact that they asked us to do so, ensuring that not only do they not get their way but if they pull funding they'll wind up getting bad publicity out of it. What would be the alternative? The board announces that they are protecting the page permanently and that any admin who unprotects it or adds criticism on company X will be deadmined immediately? Do you really think that's going to happen?
I understand the need for money for the Foundation, I just disagree with
the idea that going to a corporation for donations is the best way to do it. I am open to persuasion on this (of course), so please don't think I am arguing for argument's sake.
Chris
I agree with this to some extent, and that's why I think Wikipedia should just advertise directly. Then any single corporation is going to have a negligible effect on revenues. But it seems that answers.comhttp://answers.comis only beginning, even with them there is probably a contract in place that doesn't let them back out for such a trivial reason, and they're unlikely to put us in such a position anyway, because they'd either not get their way or get their way and destroy Wikimedia by causing the community to abandon them. The latter certainly won't happen as long as the current board is in place. I trust Angela, Anthere (sorry I don't remember your name), and Jimbo not to abandon NPOV at any cost. Anthony