Delirium wrote:
Most people, however, neither know the board nor have
any particularly
great knowledge of Wikimedia's internals. Were it any other
organization, as in my Sierra Club example, I wouldn't believe the
explanation, so I wouldn't blame non-Wikimedians who read about this in
the newspaper if they were a bit skeptical. That seems like it'll
inevitably be damaging from a PR and fundraising perspective. I believe
Erik's explanation of the space's benefits, I just think the Board is
underestimating the negative effects to the Foundation's reputation.
Anyone familiar enough with the background to understand why the lease
might be an issue has probably formed their opinion about the potential
for conflicts already. So I don't believe it will have a negative impact
outside of people who have already made up their minds and won't
reconsider. This discussion itself is evidence of that, as it seems the
only person who thinks the lease is actually bad, as opposed to possibly
looking bad, has a long history of finding fault with us no matter what.
With regard to any impact on public relations or fundraising generally -
if there are donors or media professionals who don't believe Erik's
explanation (even without any evidence to the contrary), I'll be happy
to discuss it with them.
--Michael Snow