Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the sponsoring
charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that officially
crossing the line?
On 1/2/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/01/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:
But I think it's a mischaracterization to say
there's been an ongoing
promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.
This is an example of violating expectations as opposed to violating
policy. The former is actually more problematic, because policy rules
are breakable and formable, but violating expectations is an
"everything you knew about this world was wrong" moment. People feel
the ground shifting under their feet, and they get much more upset.
That's what's happening here, I think.
(my own position: naming a matching company in text is fine, issuing a
press release is important, I'd really rather not have a corporate
logo there at all ... and make sure they understand that Virgin
Unite's site was knocked off the net 12 minutes after the link went up
and to be ready for it ;-)
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l