It is one thing to disagree (simple) it is another to address the issues that I have raised. *You quote of context and therefore you lose the main point that I made that we will need money for other projects than just the English Wikipedia. *You only rehash why you think this might be acceptable. You tell me that I must assume good faith but where is your good faith where you assume that it is only the other party that has to convince ? So far you have not convinced at all. *You assume that it goes against the ideals of the Foundation. Which ideals are they ? As a Foundation we have objectives and it does say what we aim to do. With more funding we can do more. *If you cannot think of an admin who does not have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart .. Well I am not a Wikipedia admin and I am an admin. This does not mean that I do not have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart, it only shows the fallacy of your line of thinking.
I do consider an admin who removes these links narrow minded. He does not consider other things than his immediate concerns (that is what narrow minded means). I also fail to see a justification for these things in your arguments. I also miss how you would make the money that allows for the growth pattern that we have seen. Please be constructive; make sure that our projects can grow as boundless as the English Wikipedia has been allowed to do untill now.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/24/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
GerardM wrote:
People who know me, now that I do almost everthing to have the things I believe in come true. They also know that i will not squander away the values of what we stand for. When some person aggresively removes these links, I will be sorry for the narrow mindedness that it demonstrates.
It
must also be an admin to do this, I will wonder to what extend this behaviour will be mitigated by him finding the funds that are lost to
the
rest of us. This is the least I would expect of someone who is this
position
of responibility.
I don't think it is narrow-mindedness that would cause someone to remove these links, and I think accusing someone of acting in this way is rather impolite and shows a lack of good faith. I can't think of one admin who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and is only doing what they think best.
The thing is, a large number of people have not been convinced that this is necessary for the Foundation's continued operations, but the partnership is going against some of the ideals on which Wikipedia was founded. At the moment, the impression I (and many others) am getting is that this deal is allowing corporations to influence how the Foundation operates. Some people do not mind; others do. It's up to the Board to demonstrate that this is a good move, not up to the community to say why it's a bad move. Saying "let's give it a trial and see what the results are" isn't good enough.
Chris _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l