In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:03:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes:
However, your assertion that we are doing a great job for all people on
this planet is very debatable. We have little or no content for many
languages and I would think it a fallacy to reject paying for content in
languages like Bambara or Ossetian out of hand just because we can get
content in languages like English, Dutch or Plattdüütsch. The defenition
of Wikipedia is: *"Wikipedia* is a project to build free encyclopedias
in all languages of the world based on a neutral point of view."
Which is why I have been active in my capacity as grants coordinator to
speak to the relevant parties (Guaka, for instance) to figure out ways to promote
articles in those languages. In fact, Gerard, much of the Africa scholarship
project idea was mine. I would not compare fostering languages with Bambara
to helping individuals in affluent countries promote their personal websites.
On
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia it does not say that we will
always be a volunteer organisation. If anything, we are slowly getting
more professionals in to make sure that what we do will grow and
prosper.
Yes, we need professionals, in organizational capacities. We do not need
professionals to write articles. In fact, our strength is that we do not rely on
professionals to do that.
The discussion on paying for content has been going on for
quite some time. Many people are really happy that there is some
movement in getting content in languages like Bambara or Ossetian. In my
opinion, it makes more sense to spend money on Bambara than on
Plattdüütsch. Research on languages like Bambara are comparatively so
underfunded.
See my comments above. This is very different from paying for content by
corporations or large groups for promotional purposes. My track record proves
that I support one, if not the other.
Danny