-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/11/2010 19:44, Fred Bauder wrote:
How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the table each year?
Please don't take this as any personal attack, but did we reach such a philosophical and wise government in the foundation that we now wish to talk about opening the dams of money? The day that the community at large (that is, a massive consensus, not representatives) agrees completely about a very specific project with crystal-clear intentions and critical-trusted [*] agents, THEN and only then should we start talking about founding *directly*, not through intermediate organizations.
[*]: once again, critical trust is the kind of trust one obtains after having access to all the necessary data to make a judgment in complete liberty of thought.
On 08/11/2010 18:10, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Another hard word.. cupidity: "avarice: extreme greed for material wealth".
I appreciate the sentiment. However, the material gain from advertisements is not going to make us personally rich.
Since I was born I have only found a handful of saints who handle millions of dollar without getting rich themselves. Let's say that my lack of luck has put a sense of rightful distrust towards projects of power and money. I'd like a complete understanding of who would be doing what with Wikipedia if it were to become a source of income, because we're talking about an incredible sum of good willed efforts, of people who believed in an ideal, versus an incredible source of corruption. I'd like to be sure that the monstrous altar we're building since 2001 will not end as a making money machine. Id' like to be doing the right choice about this.
I would require such conditions to vote with a full awareness of the topic: First show me the need for this money. Then show me a huge consensus about this need. Then I would accept, and I think I'm speaking the community's mind, to discuss about how we want the financing done.
It will enable us to do more and different things.
Of course it will. Money can do everything, the best and the worst. But it won't be our money, it will the money of advertisers, who will threaten and reward us endlessly with their coins according to THEIR goals, until the first cedes. It's letting the wolf into the sheep pen, says a french saying. [*]
[*]: "enfermer le loup dans la bergerie".
Things that are currently outside of our reach. When we use such monies frugally, the benefits will be enormous and, this is quite the opposite of your sentiment.
This ideal outcome is beautiful, really. But it won't happen the ways things are currently. That's precisely because I believe in Wikipedia's vision that I must advocate for financial freedom from third parties and reject your proposal.