On 1/15/08, simonpedia simon@cols.com.au wrote:
I know that advertising is a no no, even though when a do a
Google on most organisations/companies it brings me back a Wikipedia page, usually in the top five, adorned with a company logo. This advertising (or product placement) goes on for many products and services, from aeroplanes to universities. Is there any reason the WMF wouldn't create a company/product templates, so it's made plain to an occasional reader, and charge for it?
I think this is a very odd definition of "advertising" or "product placement"; the logos are there because these are the official identifying marks of the company, and thereby add to a comprehensive encyclopedic description thereof. They are added by our readers under "fair use", and there's no top down decision that we want them - it's the community that judges them to have informational value. Turning this into any kind of officially sponsored content seems highly problematic, as it would blur the line between content and ads much more than even Google ads would.
As one reads through this monthly thread, and tries to make
some sense of all the semi related conversation (between the usual suspects) before they are archived after 30 days, does it ever occur to the team how impossible it is for a newbie to get orientated? The idea of a forum in which threads aren't cut (I,e, where discussions go back years) and conversations can be related (redirected) across elists and the workers identified, has been raised quite often. Is there any reason why they aren't used? (Apart from "We don't want to change!!!")
I don't understand your question; what archiving are you talking about?
The aim of the Foundation is to spread knowledge. Its major
costs are hardware and software development. It wants to continue its projects, unencumbered by commitments to private donors, while ensuring they are kept forever, hopefully in the context in which they are created. Logically, the only alternative to 'pan handling to privates' is for WMF's projects' contents to become part of the global networks of NRENs, which are funded by the public purse.
Erm, no. There are many revenue sources that can be combined to sustain the organization in the long run. For example, institutional support from charitable foundations, grants, and business development all do not qualify as "panhandling to privates". On the hosting front, we are actively building relationships with non-profits, public organizations & for-profits to support & expand our infrastructure.
Considering all the never-ending talk going back years, about
improving Communications in and between projects and groups, will you be revisiting your Jan 2007 proposal? HYPERLINK "http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026707.html" http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026707.html
Probably not in this form - if that was a good idea, the community would have picked it up and run with it already. But I do think we should find new ways to facilitate volunteer promotional activities. These don't initially need to take place in a dedicated project; improving the self-organization tools e.g. on Meta and more prominently pointing people to the right places seem like good beginnings.
Best, Erik