2009/12/16 Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We've advertised third party for-profits in the past with prominent matched donations notices before (albeit controversially). This isn't that different.
As you say, that one was controversial and this one isn't that different. Then it should not surprise you that this one is controversial too, should it? Or do people lose the right to complain against something if it happens the second time?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
At what point is something "controversial"? As far as I can remember there hasn't been a single decision in the history of Wikimedia that has received universal support. Some people will complain no matter what happens. When you're the person doing the complaining it is your POV that the issue is "controversial", whereas when you're the one who isn't complaining then it is your POV that the issue is NOT "controversial" and the complainers are just overreacting.
There is no objective criteria to define controversy. Furthermore, if there is one place in the Wikimedia world where people complain the loudest, longest and for most obscure reasons - it's here on foundatio.nl So, whilst I'm not ignoring the fact that Geni et. al. genuinely feel that this was a bad decision on behalf of the fundraising team, I do not believe that this particular issue warrants the term "controversy". It is something that some people dislike but most people are either indifferent to it or see it favourably. Your concerns have been raised, elaborated and debated. I don't think there's anything more that can be said about this particular issue other than to reiterate already voiced points.
-Liam [[witty lama]]
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
There is one point left. We can't measure the change in traffic to Craigslist but we can measure this:
http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Craigslist