Hello,
There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that. Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.
It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement has been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a village pump.
Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about forks. A lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving the project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation, backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or don't want to understand the rules of free content.
These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about that. Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening the Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They will see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you Foundation; for selling us out!
Jeroenvrp Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp wikipedia@xs4all.nl wrote:
The road to daily advertisement has been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
Would you be less upset if the Foundation had consulted the community before agreeing to Virgin Unite's terms? I know this may not be a practical scenario, but I'm curious.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp wikipedia@xs4all.nl wrote:
The road to daily advertisement has been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
Would you be less upset if the Foundation had consulted the community before agreeing to Virgin Unite's terms? I know this may not be a practical scenario, but I'm curious.
If they are matching contributions and supporting Wikimedia websites, its the call of our elected officials (who we voted to represent our views and act on our behalf).
Jeff
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
If they are matching contributions and supporting Wikimedia websites, its the call of our elected officials (who we voted to represent our views and act on our behalf).
But even within a representative democracy there must be a certain level of public consultation. Unlike a representative democracy, a manifesto was not put forth to be carried out by the candidates -- one would expect more consultation.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
If they are matching contributions and supporting Wikimedia websites, its the call of our elected officials (who we voted to represent our views and act on our behalf).
But even within a representative democracy there must be a certain level of public consultation. Unlike a representative democracy, a manifesto was not put forth to be carried out by the candidates -- one would expect more consultation.
Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The community has a voice through our elected officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.
:-)
Jeff
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The community has a voice through our elected officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.
Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.
Hoi. Wikipedia is only one of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Thanks, GerardM
On 12/28/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The community has a voice through our elected officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.
Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/28/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Wikipedia is only one of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Thanks, GerardM
Yeah, just the one with the vast majority of the traffic, and likely generating the vast majority of the donations.
On 12/28/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The community has a voice through our elected officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.
Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
But even within a representative democracy there must be a certain
level of public consultation. Unlike a representative democracy, a manifesto was not put forth to be carried out by the candidates -- one would expect more consultation.
Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The community has a voice through our elected officials.
Finances are indeed a Foundation issue, but editing is a projects issue. This leaves some site notices as orphans somewher in between. While I would consider myself mildly against site-notice ads, it's not an issue that I'm ready to take a strong stand about. Each Project needs to establish its own general parameters for what it will accept in a site notice. The Foundation needs to be free to enter into agreements without significant prior consultations with the Projects. The dynamics of our discussions do not lend themselves very well to dynamic business decisions. The distinction is also importand for those who see the Foundation as a kind of ISP.
Ec
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:50, schreef Oldak Quill:
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp wikipedia@xs4all.nl wrote:
The road to daily advertisement has been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
Would you be less upset if the Foundation had consulted the community before agreeing to Virgin Unite's terms? I know this may not be a practical scenario, but I'm curious.
Yes off course I had be less upset, allthough I still would not agree and had the time (like others) to discuss it with the Foundation and the local community.
Jeroen
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp wikipedia@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hello,
There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin.
(!)
I can get "Virgin is a multinational, which worries me", or "I am worried we have given Virgin leverage" or stuff like that. I don't agree with it, but it's a valid point to raise.
But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday, before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply care about controlling Wikimedia?
Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that. Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from Microsoft.
You know, we are perfectly capable of saying "no, that's a PR stunt, we're not interested in helping you, go away". For all I know, we've turned them down already; Danny is very insistent at ensuring we don't become puppets for something like this. We make these things on our terms. It may not be the best of terms, but we set them. We're not stupid, and we have no intention of becoming shills.
On 12/28/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp wikipedia@xs4all.nl wrote:
Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that. Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from Microsoft.
You know, we are perfectly capable of saying "no, that's a PR stunt, we're not interested in helping you, go away". For all I know, we've turned them down already; Danny is very insistent at ensuring we don't become puppets for something like this. We make these things on our terms. It may not be the best of terms, but we set them. We're not stupid, and we have no intention of becoming shills.
FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite. The Gates Foundation has pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same founder.
Anthony
On 28/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite. The Gates Foundation has pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same founder.
And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.
- d.
On 12/28/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite. The Gates Foundation has pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same founder.
And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.
They do? {{citation_needed}}
Anthony wrote:
On 12/28/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite. The Gates Foundation has pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same founder.
And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.
They do? {{citation_needed}}
There is a certain logic to it. It's a very inexpensive donation for them. Think of the optics of having a Bill and Melinda Gates sponsored site being powered by Linux. :-)
Ec
On 12/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 12/28/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite. The Gates Foundation has pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same founder.
And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.
They do? {{citation_needed}}
There is a certain logic to it. It's a very inexpensive donation for them. Think of the optics of having a Bill and Melinda Gates sponsored site being powered by Linux. :-)
It would make a lot more sense for Microsoft to donate the Windows licenses directly, which I assume is what actually happens. If the Gates Foundation donated the licenses, how would they obtain them? Buy them from Microsoft? That would involve a huge and insanely illegal conflict of interest transaction.
No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate Windows licenses. And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
Anthony
On 31/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate Windows licenses. And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva10272005.html
- d.
On 12/31/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate Windows licenses. And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=324
Started in 1997, the Library Program was Bill and Melinda Gates' first major philanthropic venture. Since that time the program has made grants to more than 5,800 libraries in the United States, installed more than 25,000 PCs and trained 7,000 librarians. It is anticipated that by the end of 2003, 10,000 libraries in 50 states will have benefited from the $200 million total investment from the foundation.
This year, it's Indiana's turn to benefit.
The Gates Foundation plans to spend $5.8 million equipping 185 public library buildings in Indiana with computer hardware, software, and training. Installation and training across Indiana will be scheduled over the next year and provided by the six SLIS interns. An additional 201 buildings--eligible for partial grants--will receive free software and training from the Foundation by purchasing their computers.
On 12/31/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/31/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate Windows licenses. And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=324
Started in 1997, the Library Program was Bill and Melinda Gates' first major philanthropic venture. Since that time the program has made grants to more than 5,800 libraries in the United States, installed more than 25,000 PCs and trained 7,000 librarians. It is anticipated that by the end of 2003, 10,000 libraries in 50 states will have benefited from the $200 million total investment from the foundation.
This year, it's Indiana's turn to benefit.
The Gates Foundation plans to spend $5.8 million equipping 185 public library buildings in Indiana with computer hardware, software, and training. Installation and training across Indiana will be scheduled over the next year and provided by the six SLIS interns. An additional 201 buildings--eligible for partial grants--will receive free software and training from the Foundation by purchasing their computers.
http://www.olis.ri.gov/grants/gates/pac/initdescrip.php
Interesting... They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and providing technical support and training. Would they still donate the computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on them? Maybe. But would they still provide the free technical support and training for those libraries? Somehow I doubt it (although it would be really cool if they did).
I'll admit it. I was wrong when I said that the Gates Foundation doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft. The Foundation is actually more slimy than I had realized.
I do still think it's inaccurate to say that the Gates Foundation donates Windows licenses. What they do is much more subtle than that. The software is actually donated by Microsoft. From that same link you provided:
"Part of a nation-wide program to help bridge the ' digital divide,' known as the gap between those who have access to the power of technology and the Internet and those who don't, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with ***donated software from Microsoft Corporation***, is about to have a state-wide impact on Indiana libraries in qualifying low-income communities." [emphasis mine]
Anyway, point taken. The Gates Foundation is probably worse than Virgin Unite.
Anthony
On 31/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I do still think it's inaccurate to say that the Gates Foundation donates Windows licenses. What they do is much more subtle than that. The software is actually donated by Microsoft. From that same link you provided:
Yeah, I was speaking way too loosely. I meant that so far, rather too much of what they do entrenches Microsoft. I expect this will change with time.
Anyway, point taken. The Gates Foundation is probably worse than Virgin Unite.
OTOH, if the Gates Foundation offered us cash, I'd say "PLEASE PLEASE TAKE IT!" as long as it didn't mean running Windows on the Squids!
- d.
Anthony wrote:
Interesting... They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and providing technical support and training. Would they still donate the computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on them? Maybe. But would they still provide the free technical support and training for those libraries? Somehow I doubt it (although it would be really cool if they did).
Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux? The primary reason for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of proprietary licences.
I'll admit it. I was wrong when I said that the Gates Foundation doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft. The Foundation is actually more slimy than I had realized.
I do still think it's inaccurate to say that the Gates Foundation donates Windows licenses. What they do is much more subtle than that. The software is actually donated by Microsoft.
It comes down to a question of whatever works.
Anyway, point taken. The Gates Foundation is probably worse than Virgin Unite.
I'm not familiar enough with the business operations of Virgin Unite to make the comparison. The Gates/Microsft gifts are sure to include a lot of other proprietary material such as access to databases, along with the subtle IP propaganda that goes with it. In terms of strategic marketting I think that Gates is at least as capable as the tobacco companies. If free software and open access are to be long term successes they're going to have to pay attention and understand that mode of thinking.
Ec
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Interesting... They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and providing technical support and training. Would they still donate the computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on them? Maybe. But would they still provide the free technical support and training for those libraries? Somehow I doubt it (although it would be really cool if they did).
Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux? The primary reason for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of proprietary licences.
I'm sure entire books have been written on why one should use free software rather than no-cost software. If you really have trouble finding information on this let me know and I'll do a better search for some resources. Or maybe someone else can provide us with some?
But for the purposes of this discussion, it's enough for me to merely point out that the software license being given to the libraries does not entitle that library to free upgrades. That alone should be enough reason to prefer Linux, if all other things were equal. the clear strategy here of Microsoft, if not the Gates Foundation, is to give it away for free, get 'em hooked, and then start charging.
Of course, all other things aren't equal. If the library gets free support from the Gates Foundation with Windows, and doesn't get free support with Linux (which tends to be more costly to support in the first place), then it's going to be really hard for them to choose Linux.
If the Gates Foundation really wants to help the libraries, then they should help the libraries free themselves from relying on the continued charity of Microsoft.
Anthony
Hoi, I have learned from some organisations who also do things that can be considered as charitable. They told me that as a consequence of the Gates Foundation and its activities many things are no longer accepted because this notion of giving away and consequently forcing people to buy into upgrade schemes etc is not accepted any more in the same way as it used to be.
As to libraries and their software, I just read the other day of another great open source project that targets the administration of libraries and is really efficient at this. I forgot its name ..
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Interesting... They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and providing technical support and training. Would they still donate the computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on them? Maybe. But would they still provide the free technical support and training for those libraries? Somehow I doubt it (although it would be really cool if they did).
Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux? The primary reason for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of proprietary licences.
I'm sure entire books have been written on why one should use free software rather than no-cost software. If you really have trouble finding information on this let me know and I'll do a better search for some resources. Or maybe someone else can provide us with some?
But for the purposes of this discussion, it's enough for me to merely point out that the software license being given to the libraries does not entitle that library to free upgrades. That alone should be enough reason to prefer Linux, if all other things were equal. the clear strategy here of Microsoft, if not the Gates Foundation, is to give it away for free, get 'em hooked, and then start charging.
Of course, all other things aren't equal. If the library gets free support from the Gates Foundation with Windows, and doesn't get free support with Linux (which tends to be more costly to support in the first place), then it's going to be really hard for them to choose Linux.
If the Gates Foundation really wants to help the libraries, then they should help the libraries free themselves from relying on the continued charity of Microsoft.
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The real value of library software is not the software, but the data in their databases. One of the major players on the Dutch market charges for this software is OCLC. They maintain their near monopoly because of the data in their databases.
On 1/1/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have learned from some organisations who also do things that can be considered as charitable. They told me that as a consequence of the Gates Foundation and its activities many things are no longer accepted because this notion of giving away and consequently forcing people to buy into upgrade schemes etc is not accepted any more in the same way as it used to be.
As to libraries and their software, I just read the other day of another great open source project that targets the administration of libraries and is really efficient at this. I forgot its name ..
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Interesting... They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and providing technical support and training. Would they still donate the computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on them? Maybe. But would they still provide the free technical support and training for those libraries? Somehow I doubt it (although it would be really cool if they did).
Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux? The primary reason for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of proprietary licences.
I'm sure entire books have been written on why one should use free software rather than no-cost software. If you really have trouble finding information on this let me know and I'll do a better search for some resources. Or maybe someone else can provide us with some?
But for the purposes of this discussion, it's enough for me to merely point out that the software license being given to the libraries does not entitle that library to free upgrades. That alone should be enough reason to prefer Linux, if all other things were equal. the clear strategy here of Microsoft, if not the Gates Foundation, is to give it away for free, get 'em hooked, and then start charging.
Of course, all other things aren't equal. If the library gets free support from the Gates Foundation with Windows, and doesn't get free support with Linux (which tends to be more costly to support in the first place), then it's going to be really hard for them to choose Linux.
If the Gates Foundation really wants to help the libraries, then they should help the libraries free themselves from relying on the continued charity of Microsoft.
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony wrote:
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Interesting... They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and providing technical support and training. Would they still donate the computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on them? Maybe. But would they still provide the free technical support and training for those libraries? Somehow I doubt it (although it would be really cool if they did).
Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux? The primary reason for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of proprietary licences.
I'm sure entire books have been written on why one should use free software rather than no-cost software. If you really have trouble finding information on this let me know and I'll do a better search for some resources. Or maybe someone else can provide us with some?
I don't think that it's a question of availability of information. Motivated library boards could look it up just as easily. I think that it has more to do with budgetting processes. A cost free, and at least superficially reliable, alternative can look mighty inviting in the current budget when there is serious competition for funds. Problems that may not arise for five years can wait five years to be addressed. Decision makers don't like complicated choices, even more so if those choices involve technical matters that they do not understand. For some Microsoft has been in their face for years; the marketting strategy has been successful.
The technically super-savvy people fail to appreciate the enormity of the gap between them and the end users of the technology. In a society that embraces specialization, those who pursue a non-technical specialty leave behind the skills needed to understand technological change. How can you expect somebody to understand how to change the clock on a DVD player when they aren't yet able to do it on the VHS player? Personally I get my son to change the clock on my car radio when we change between daylight and standard time. I can't be bothered to go through a thick manual to figure it out. Under those circumstances I should probably be pleased with year around DST. :-)
I recently had my stereo amplifier die after 20 years. Replacing it was a daunting task the results of which do not satisfy me. My original unit did what I wanted it to do, and I am now faced with the prospect of working around a lot of features that I never wanted in order to achieve my old functionality.
I suspect that Microsoft has grokked this problem.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it's enough for me to merely point out that the software license being given to the libraries does not entitle that library to free upgrades.
I don't know enough to comment on that last point.
That alone should be enough reason to prefer Linux, if all other things were equal. the clear strategy here of Microsoft, if not the Gates Foundation, is to give it away for free, get 'em hooked, and then start charging.
They don't need to start charging the libraries. That would not be good marketting. The end users of the software in the libraries are young. Their loyalty to the Microsoft product line for the next 50 years is far more valuable. The managements of large for-profit corporations have a big advantage in this kind of long-term strategic thinking and problem solving. Compare that with the enormous energy which some organizations expend over whether dates should be marked A.D. or C.E.
Of course, all other things aren't equal. If the library gets free support from the Gates Foundation with Windows, and doesn't get free support with Linux (which tends to be more costly to support in the first place), then it's going to be really hard for them to choose Linux.
That's consistent with my point.
If the Gates Foundation really wants to help the libraries, then they should help the libraries free themselves from relying on the continued charity of Microsoft.
I can't imagine that Bill Gates' altruism would include auto-deFenestration. ;-)
Ec
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/31/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate Windows licenses. And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=324
Started in 1997, the Library Program was Bill and Melinda Gates' first major philanthropic venture. Since that time the program has made grants to more than 5,800 libraries in the United States, installed more than 25,000 PCs and trained 7,000 librarians. It is anticipated that by the end of 2003, 10,000 libraries in 50 states will have benefited from the $200 million total investment from the foundation.
This year, it's Indiana's turn to benefit.
The Gates Foundation plans to spend $5.8 million equipping 185 public library buildings in Indiana with computer hardware, software, and training. Installation and training across Indiana will be scheduled over the next year and provided by the six SLIS interns. An additional 201 buildings--eligible for partial grants--will receive free software and training from the Foundation by purchasing their computers.
This makes excellent business sense. I'm sure that Bill is smart enough not to fall into some obviously stupid Conflict of Interest trap. The Gates Foundation can by whatever it needs at the best available market rates as a bulk buyer. When it gives away the software to institutions the users there become familiar with the software. That can be a big influence on their future personal software purchase.
Only a small minority of computer purchasers are techno-geeks. They want their computers to work. If that means Microsoft + AOL they don't want to look any further.
Ec
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:
But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday, before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply care about controlling Wikimedia?
That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.
Jeroenvrp
Even if Virgin's final goal is to own Wikipedia, their opinion remains irrelevant. Their money doesn't come with terms beyond the matching funds agreement.
If I offered you US$100 with no strings attached, you would (and should) take it. Even if I had a secret plan to bankrupt you, that wouldn't change the actual $100.
Jeroenvrp wrote:
Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:
But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday, before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply care about controlling Wikimedia?
That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.
Jeroenvrp _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only reason why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that are contrary to our principles. Accepting money is not against our principles. Accepting money from organisations is not against our principles. Being willing and able to say "thank you" is a gracious thing to do.
In my opinion you have to differentiate between donors and partners. A partner is an organisation that shares the same goals and works together with you in achieving these goals. A sponsor is an organisation that only helps by providing resources to make things possible.
When people start talking in terms of "forking" it is an option that they have. They should know that it is not easy to be successful at this. It fractures the effort in bringing Free/Open content to the people that need it most. The only way I think you will be successful is by bringing something new to such a project. If Citizendium is to do well, there mix of Wikipedia content and expert editing needs to hit the right balance. If all you bring to your fork is this "anger", it may mean a temporary dip in the number of edits for the WMF projects but the traffic of our projects will only go up as a result.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a wonderful organisation. It achieved miracles on a shoestring budget. Given the exponential growth, there is a growing need and potential to make things happen. About many things we fantasise; what can we do with one hundred million Euro. We could make so much more of a difference. The question that we need to answer is, are we a complete hostage to a group that insists on their values being adopted or are we to bring information to all people of this world.
Thanks, GerardM
On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp wikipedia@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hello,
There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that. Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.
It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement has been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a village pump.
Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about forks. A lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving the project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation, backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or don't want to understand the rules of free content.
These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about that. Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening the Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They will see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you Foundation; for selling us out!
Jeroenvrp Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/28/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only reason why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that are contrary to our principles.
[snip]
In IRC last night, Jeroenvrp asserted rather loudly that even if we were offered a trillion dollars we should not accept a *single* advertisement on our website.
This was after I'd made an example involving freeing every book ever published. A trillion dollars would probably be enough to do it, and probably with enough left over to translate them all and distribute access to them to most of the world.
So, tell me... Should I feel guilty for judging anyone who makes a claim like his to be selfish, short-sighted, irrational, and generally unworthy of our serious consideration?
Of course we're not talking about getting a 'trillion' dollars from everyone, but we're not talking about an advertisement in the normal sense. Our action here is to be liberal with our gratitude in our thanks, not only because doing so is nice.. but because by doing so we hope to demonstrate to large and wealthy donors that we are a worthy recipient of substantial donations from large and wealthy donors.. and through that establish a long term pattern of substantial matching support from the groups in the world most able to provide it.
Often the media can't even figure out that Wikipedia is a charity and we've had instance of meetings with seriously important people who think that Wikipedia is just another Web 2.0 hopeful that plans to make a fortune without a business plan... Our fundraiser will remind the world that we are a charity, and being loud and clear about the support we are getting from groups like Virgin Unite tells all of the large companies and foundations that is proper and, hopefully someday, expected for them to donate to us.
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/28/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation
with
a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only
reason
why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that
are
contrary to our principles.
[snip]
In IRC last night, Jeroenvrp asserted rather loudly that even if we were offered a trillion dollars we should not accept a *single* advertisement on our website.
Clearly Jeroenvrp knows that *I* should receive the trillion dollars.
Where did you arrive at the figure 250,000 EU? Since it is flatly incorrect, I would like the source of your incorrect information.
-Brad
On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp wikipedia@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hello,
There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their €250.000 is nothing compared to that. Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.
It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement has been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a village pump.
Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about forks. A lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving the project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation, backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or don't want to understand the rules of free content.
These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about that. Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening the Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They will see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you Foundation; for selling us out!
Jeroenvrp Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeroenvrp wrote:
It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement has been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to whoever has the money.
I agree that the main point here is that for the first time (well, as far as I can tell), a company logo which is not related to the WMF has appeared on all pages. I'm personally grateful to Virgin Unite for the donation, in the same way as I'm grateful to all the other donors, known and unknown, because without them we would be discussing about nothing. Still, this is a precedent, it is hard to deny; I'm sure the Board and whoever was involved in the decision is perfectly aware of this, and all the fuss that would have followed. Whatever decision you take, there will be someone unhappy with it; this is normal, that's how the world goes. Personally I'm fine with the logo, it is definitely much different from being a flashy banner or something that opens tens of popups. Is Virgin making money out of it? Well, I hope so. If they gain and we gain, we're estabilishing a virtuous circle, in the same way as some contributors promote themselves beyond wikimedia by supplying excellent contributions (which is very different from people only writing vanity articles about themselves).
Cruccone
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org