Why would anyone want to sponsor a page?
What would they get out of it?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Darnell" <jane023(a)gmail.com>
To: <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>et>; "Wikimedia Mailing List"
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea,
but it is hard
to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
placed ones get a higher "price". That said, does the sponsorship only
apply to the page in one language? And how long does the sponsorship
stay with the page? Forever? That doesn't seem right. Putting the
sponsor's name visibly on the page can also be confusing, because most
readers will assume sponsor=writer, and this is incorrect. You could
create a donor's list though that links to the pages and have the
sponsor names listed there with the year of their sponsorship, with
each year an update possible with the amount paid (or amount block in
a scheme of bronze, silver, gold). This way high profile pages could
have more sponsors. With the sponsor amounts as a guide, individual
Wikipedia contributors may apply for a mini-grant to cover costs of
source books, etc for future work based on past work in these pages.
2013/3/30, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>et>:
It comes down to asking what the purpose of the
Foundation and a project
like Wikipedia is. Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
promote volunteerism? If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
particular page, then that's a possibility that we ought to make
ourselves
open to. Volunteerism, of course, has served the movement well and got
us
to where we find ourselves today, but it is not and should not be
considered an end unto itself.
Of course, as has been pointed out, there are potential pitfalls with
this
model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential COI
issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing in
others. However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those sort
of possibilities out of hand.
Cheers,
Craig Franklin
On 30 March 2013 11:29, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
It's a weird dichotomy.
I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
area. I could easily have spent several grand.
Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
benefit.
And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
this
entire field in GAs in a year.
Without that it will take me a good five years
I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
Tom
On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono"
<monomium(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>
wrote:
>
> How so?
It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
written encyclopedia.
You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
editors.
There would inevitably be a lot of conflict
between those groups. The
whole
concept would be extremely divisive.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5713 - Release Date: 03/29/13