We can discuss the matter of obscene materials on wikipedia in another thread if you like. But note that your comment alledging my prudishness is both out of place and innaccurate. -Steven
On 8/10/09, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Cmon, keep your whining prudishness for another thread. Sheesh.
On 7/31/09, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Walter Vermeirwalter@wikipedia.be wrote:
An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for 2009-2010 is 9,4 million US dollar. That is not a lot on a global scale. I find it very normal that institutions are government funded. Probably because from where I am from, Belgium, that is the way it is. But I know that is not so everywhere. In some places the musea, schools, Churches, hospitals and so need to receive donations to function. So that approach would also not be acceptable for some because the have some problem with using public funds for public services.
Interesting points. And yes, accepting government or institutional money would probably come with conditions like improving overall article quality, and maybe even getting rid of our "fetish" and other destructive-sexuality / pro-depravity articles and images - something our great many pro-"freedom" dogmatists just don't want to do.
-Stevertigo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Sent from my mobile device
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l