I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for many years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply about the project, and feel that accepting advertising, whether it be for brand identity or a specific product, as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion (and others involved) that the values of the community *do* have a substantial number of people who will never accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard with the other.
I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live with and stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch, I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
Goodbye.
--- Pat Gunn mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom http://dachte.org
Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your further endeavours!
Waerth
I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for many years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply about the project, and feel that accepting advertising, whether it be for brand identity or a specific product, as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion (and others involved) that the values of the community *do* have a substantial number of people who will never accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard with the other.
I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live with and stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch, I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
Goodbye.
Pat Gunn mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom http://dachte.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We need to abandon the method of let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon as possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn advertisalicious.
We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not be interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the fundraiser or the UN.
If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of money. That's pathetic.
"It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words... it's not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your further endeavours!
Waerth
I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for many years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply about the project, and feel that accepting advertising, whether it be for brand identity or a specific product, as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion (and others involved) that the values of the community *do* have a substantial number of people who will never accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard with the other.
I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live with and stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch, I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
Goodbye.
Pat Gunn mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom http://dachte.org
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
On 1/2/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
A (few) dozen people is not our entire community.
I understand your desire to keep your friends happy, but of the people who've left over this who speak languages that I understand, I'm not seeing too much in the way of real objections to the advertising within the context of the goals of our project. Instead I see some confusion about what Wikimedia is actually about. Brion's post really spoke clearly about this sort of confusion.
For example, in the thread here we see Pat Gunn saying his farewell. We don't see Pat going into why the things that have happened harm Wikimedia...
The reason for this is that there isn't any harm that most of the people listening here understand. You see, it's Pat's position that it is not sufficient that Wikimedia be non-commercial; he believes that it must be actively anti-commercial.
His position on commercial activity isn't surprising considering his political alignment (he's a communist), nor do I think he's incorrect for holding it, but I do think he is incorrect for expecting Wikimedia to act against its primary objectives just to further the distantly related political objectives of some of its participants.
There are a great many ideas out there, but it's nearly impossible to build a productive organization around more than a tiny number of them at once.
Wikimedia is about [[Free content]] for education, and increasing the amount of knowledge available to the world.
Wikimedia is not about destroying the military industrial complex, or putting Rupert Murdoc out of business... even though people who advocate such things may consider the success of Wikipedia a necessary part of achieving their goals.
People of many goals (including anti-commercialism as well as pure unbridled capitalism) can often find common objectives with our own, and when they do I sincerely hope that we can work with them to further our own goals. It is important, however, to remember that just because we share goals with differently-motivated parties, those goals are not necessarily the goals of Wikimedia. Our ability to cooperate with as many people as possible depends on Wikimedia maintaining a consistent and clear focus.
So while I am saddened to see people go, I also see it as a sign of *decreasing* confusion. It is my belief that such departures were always inevitable.. We could not prevent the loss even by accepting an a dramatic shift in our mission, Just as we're losing Pat because Wikimedia isn't anti-commercial... or we'd lose someone else (and perhaps many more) if we were to make Wikimedia actively anti-commercial.
In the past when I've had people threaten to leave because I argued that we shouldn't accept their preferred free-as-in-no-lawsuit-yet content, I've offered to help with some of the technical aspects of setting up a fork around their rejected ideals. So far no one has taken me up on this. If any of the folks leaving because they are disappointed that Wikimedia can't and won't adopt their political agenda would like to start a fork, feel free to ask for my help. Of course, forks are bad... but when people refuse to cooperate towards a single superordnate goal (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SuperordinateGoal) our choices are fairly limited.
Though I'm glad you're sticking around, I'm sorry to hear your discontent with current fundraising practices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) now require significant money to run, *far* more money than ever before:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in genuine altruism. People, charities, and companies give money for all sorts of reasons. A few individuals might get their kicks giving anonymously, but they're not in the majority. In most cases, the recipient of the donation is responsible for giving the payload: public recognition that the donor is a good person, charity, or company. Even the hard-hearted robber barons of the 19th century eventually succumbed to a need for acceptance by offsetting their misdeeds with visible, public charity.
The more we limit recognition opportunities, the more we limit potential donors. I think the limits you suggest will not provide sufficient support for Wikimedia.
Fortunately, recognition doesn't conflict with the real goal of Wikimedia: spreading free knowledge. There's no foreseeable slippery slope to sponsor control of Wikimedia's content. I've worked in publishing for over seven years, and I have yet to hear an advertiser comment on content. I'm also on the board of directors for Texas Student Publications, possibly the largest college media organization in the world. I've been with Texas Student Publications for three years, and I have never heard an advertiser request a content change. Finally, *even if* a sponsor requested a content change, Wikimedia is far more likely to tell them to buzz off if Wikimedia is financially healthy. The key is diversity of sponsorship, not restriction of it.
The other side to public matching is encouragement of community donations. Community donors want to feel good about helping Wikimedia, and having a visible matching sponsor lets them know that they'll have twice the effect. I think recognizing the matching sponsor actually amplifies that effect. Knowing who matches the donation makes it more tangible.
But despite my respect for your objection, I don't think anyone owes you an apology.
David
James Hare wrote:
We need to abandon the method of let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon as possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn advertisalicious.
We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not be interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the fundraiser or the UN.
If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of money. That's pathetic.
"It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words... it's not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your further endeavours!
Waerth
I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for many years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply about the project, and feel that accepting advertising, whether it be for brand identity or a specific product, as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion (and others involved) that the values of the community *do* have a substantial number of people who will never accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard with the other.
I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live with and stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch, I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
Goodbye.
Pat Gunn mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom http://dachte.org
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication, because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.
Yes David Strauss, I understand the financial cost -- it takes more money than I will probably ever have at once. To this effect I've donated hundreds of dollars to Wikimedia to help it keep afloat.
As Greg Maxwell addressed, advertisers seldom comment on the content. That's great! Even *if* we tell them to go away, we'll just find new advertisers 'cause we're top 20, baby!
As long as Wikimedia stays devoted to its true goals, I will be content. Advertising is not that pleasant; maybe it'll be necessary. Before we have to resort to that, we have to find something better. To that note, Greg, when will that list of images be finished?
On 1/2/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Though I'm glad you're sticking around, I'm sorry to hear your discontent with current fundraising practices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) now require significant money to run, *far* more money than ever before:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in genuine altruism. People, charities, and companies give money for all sorts of reasons. A few individuals might get their kicks giving anonymously, but they're not in the majority. In most cases, the recipient of the donation is responsible for giving the payload: public recognition that the donor is a good person, charity, or company. Even the hard-hearted robber barons of the 19th century eventually succumbed to a need for acceptance by offsetting their misdeeds with visible, public charity.
The more we limit recognition opportunities, the more we limit potential donors. I think the limits you suggest will not provide sufficient support for Wikimedia.
Fortunately, recognition doesn't conflict with the real goal of Wikimedia: spreading free knowledge. There's no foreseeable slippery slope to sponsor control of Wikimedia's content. I've worked in publishing for over seven years, and I have yet to hear an advertiser comment on content. I'm also on the board of directors for Texas Student Publications, possibly the largest college media organization in the world. I've been with Texas Student Publications for three years, and I have never heard an advertiser request a content change. Finally, *even if* a sponsor requested a content change, Wikimedia is far more likely to tell them to buzz off if Wikimedia is financially healthy. The key is diversity of sponsorship, not restriction of it.
The other side to public matching is encouragement of community donations. Community donors want to feel good about helping Wikimedia, and having a visible matching sponsor lets them know that they'll have twice the effect. I think recognizing the matching sponsor actually amplifies that effect. Knowing who matches the donation makes it more tangible.
But despite my respect for your objection, I don't think anyone owes you an apology.
David
James Hare wrote:
We need to abandon the method of let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon
as
possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn advertisalicious.
We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not
be
interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the
fundraiser
or the UN.
If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of
money.
That's pathetic.
"It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words...
it's
not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a
1,000,000,000-year
contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your further endeavours!
Waerth
I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for many years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply about the project, and feel that accepting advertising, whether it be for brand identity or a specific product, as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion (and others involved) that the values of the community *do* have a substantial number of people who will never accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard with the other.
I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live with and stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch, I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
Goodbye.
Pat Gunn mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom http://dachte.org
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
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Hare wrote:
For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication, because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.
I will happily apologize for the poor communication; the fundraiser has been run a bit chaotically, with lots of last-minute jumps and hurdles and our communication and planning on the visible parts (such as the site notice) have indeed been *abysmal*.
The notices for instance ought to have been prepared and translated a week or two before they went up, which would have given a lot more time for people to see what sort of stuff was actually going to be going up.
A proper, functioning fundraising committee involving the community would also be super. That was supposed to happen, but apparently things fell apart...
I really, really want us to do better on this next time.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
That's too good an apology! I forgiveth thee.
On 1/2/07, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Hare wrote:
For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication, because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.
I will happily apologize for the poor communication; the fundraiser has been run a bit chaotically, with lots of last-minute jumps and hurdles and our communication and planning on the visible parts (such as the site notice) have indeed been *abysmal*.
The notices for instance ought to have been prepared and translated a week or two before they went up, which would have given a lot more time for people to see what sort of stuff was actually going to be going up.
A proper, functioning fundraising committee involving the community would also be super. That was supposed to happen, but apparently things fell apart...
I really, really want us to do better on this next time.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFmhH0wRnhpk1wk44RApFqAJ9ueIFMiK5xTYpPkojayrRHZvIy8QCfXawg OP6DsnCpnqTkc/deVGTVAAQ= =jpqn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brion Vibber wrote:
James Hare wrote:
For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication, because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.
I will happily apologize for the poor communication; the fundraiser has been run a bit chaotically, with lots of last-minute jumps and hurdles and our communication and planning on the visible parts (such as the site notice) have indeed been *abysmal*.
The notices for instance ought to have been prepared and translated a week or two before they went up, which would have given a lot more time for people to see what sort of stuff was actually going to be going up.
True as this may be, I have noticed considerable improvements in communicastions since our new présidente has taken office. Finally dealing with financial statements was a big step forward. In that context the lacunae in communications are understandable, and do not require the apology that has been so importunately demanded.
A proper, functioning fundraising committee involving the community would also be super. That was supposed to happen, but apparently things fell apart...
Would it be wrong to assume that the bitching about the Virgin banner is consistent with the amount of effort that those doing the bitching have put into the fundraising committee. ;-)
Ec
I'm sorry that Pat left, and have told him so; despite our differences in philosophy I considered him to be a thoughtful person and an asset to the project.
I'm thankful in particular to Brion, David, and many others who have posted and elaborated on the position so that I do not have to. I do believe in free content, not anti-commercial content; I don't think an ad-supported project is desirable or something I would support, but not for anticommercialism. I am happy for the writing I have contributed to be used for any purpose, so long as it remains free; that's a really powerful idea, and now one that I am happy to support at an organizational level.
Though I speak only for myself, I think it is fair to say that the Board knew there would be some people, even many people, upset and disappointed with the decision; most of us now come from within the community and are aware of how communities will react even if a call for community comment does not happen every time. Sometimes doing what you think is the best decision, considering all the factors, means making some people unhappy with you.
It's impossible to do anything new and still please everyone all of the time; changing anything usually means upsetting something that someone else thought was important, maybe even relied on. It's our responsibility to keep the projects running according to our stated goals. Which includes raising enough money to keep the data flowing and the lights on, and making sure that what we do doesn't conflict with putting together free-content reference works.
Soliciting matching donations is a popular way of encouraging contributions from both corporate and individual sources, and one that we have just now started to use. I believe that thanking our matching donors is an appropriate expression; while we certainly appreciate the quiet generosity of our anonymous donor, a gift does not need to be anonymous to be worth recognition. It is expected courtesy to publicly acknowledge such large gifts, and doing so by means of a logo or a namedrop does not change its nature; in 2005 we even thanked Yahoo! for their donation with a press release trumpeting it.
In addition, the sitenotice drew enough attention to the pledge to match and the banner that it encouraged more people to donate, soundly beating the donation totals of the immediately surrounding days. (Not counting the large entry from our anonymous friend the day before, well over double.) And now the logo is gone; when the fund drive is over the banner will be gone also, and we will be left exactly as we were, with the freedom and neutrality of the projects unharmed. And that is what I am concerned about.
We could have communicated the decision better. Organization of the fundraiser has been somewhat shaky, was held back by a few surprise difficulties, and could certainly be improved; lessons learned for next time.
Just so this isn't forgotten in the midst of all the argument: thank you to all of the other donors, also. I've read most of the comments in the live list (OK, I skipped past the spammy ones), and am continually amazed by how many people think this is a really fantastic project worth pouring their time and money into.
Cheers and happy new year.
-Kat
2007/1/2, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org:
In addition, the sitenotice drew enough attention to the pledge to match and the banner that it encouraged more people to donate, soundly beating the donation totals of the immediately surrounding days. (Not counting the large entry from our anonymous friend the day before, well over double.) And now the logo is gone; when the fund drive is over the banner will be gone also, and we will be left exactly as we were, with the freedom and neutrality of the projects unharmed. And that is what I am concerned about.
No, it won't go on exactly as before. Before it was said that there would never be advertisements on Wikipedia projects. I did not see the necessity for it, but I agreed with the policy, because people had made it clear that would leave if that would ever happen - hell, the es: split happened for nothing more than remarks that some people interpreted to mean that there might be advertisements in the future. Now there HAVE been advertisements on Wikipedia and the other projects. That surely is a different situation.
Andre Engels wrote:
No, it won't go on exactly as before. Before it was said that there would never be advertisements on Wikipedia projects.
Even if someone said that at one time (certainly in an unofficial capacity), Wikimedia does not operate off precedent; it operates to achieve free knowledge. And sometimes, the circumstances for doing that change.
However, going way back thorough Wikipedia's history, it's evident that there's always been speculation about the need for sponsorship. Some messages were vague, alluding to expected funding problems. Some were more explicit, stating, "Someday, there will be advertising on Wikipedia."* Thankfully, that's not the case.
But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising. Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.
David
* See: http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales/Advertising_on_Wikipedia
On 02/01/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising. Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.
This is an example of violating expectations as opposed to violating policy. The former is actually more problematic, because policy rules are breakable and formable, but violating expectations is an "everything you knew about this world was wrong" moment. People feel the ground shifting under their feet, and they get much more upset. That's what's happening here, I think.
(my own position: naming a matching company in text is fine, issuing a press release is important, I'd really rather not have a corporate logo there at all ... and make sure they understand that Virgin Unite's site was knocked off the net 12 minutes after the link went up and to be ready for it ;-)
- d.
Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the sponsoring charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that officially crossing the line?
On 1/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/01/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising. Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.
This is an example of violating expectations as opposed to violating policy. The former is actually more problematic, because policy rules are breakable and formable, but violating expectations is an "everything you knew about this world was wrong" moment. People feel the ground shifting under their feet, and they get much more upset. That's what's happening here, I think.
(my own position: naming a matching company in text is fine, issuing a press release is important, I'd really rather not have a corporate logo there at all ... and make sure they understand that Virgin Unite's site was knocked off the net 12 minutes after the link went up and to be ready for it ;-)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/1/2, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com:
Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the sponsoring charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that officially crossing the line?
I don't think anybody said "officially"? I do think that in most people's minds, though, the logo was the thing that made it look like an ad.
/habj
Never mind the "officially," I was trying to allude to something else. People who know will get the reference.
Good point, Habj.
On 1/2/07, habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
2007/1/2, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com:
Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the
sponsoring
charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that
officially
crossing the line?
I don't think anybody said "officially"? I do think that in most people's minds, though, the logo was the thing that made it look like an ad.
/habj _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 02/01/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the sponsoring charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that officially crossing the line?
I was stating it in terms of my own personal preference. I thought it looked too ad-bannerish with the logo. Text links are more tasteful.
- d.
David Gerard ha scritto:
I was stating it in terms of my own personal preference. I thought it looked too ad-bannerish with the logo. Text links are more tasteful.
I agree. Logo makes our thank-you note more likely to be *perceived* like an advertisement.
I still would prefer an official single "thank-you page" with links and logos, but if the thank-you note must stay in the sitenotice, a text link would look more "neutral" and probably more acceptable.
G.
2007/1/2, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
(my own position: naming a matching company in text is fine, issuing a press release is important, I'd really rather not have a corporate logo there at all ... and make sure they understand that Virgin Unite's site was knocked off the net 12 minutes after the link went up and to be ready for it ;-)
My position: I personally don't mind that this occurred (although I do agree it would have been better not to include the logo). What I do mind is, as you said, the violation of acceptations. It's a major break in policy, even though, indeed, there seems to be no written policy. As such, an announcement, including an invitation to submit opinions, would have been a good idea a few weeks at least before the fact, and before the final decision. Now people got to hear it a day at most before it actually happened, without the possibility of enforcing a decision on the project level, even if it had been possible to make a decision on such a short notice.
P.S.: This is all said from reading this list and the village pump rather than any actual seeing of the message by me - I was on a few days' holiday in an internet-free location at that moment.
Kat Walsh wrote:
I do believe in free content, not anti-commercial content; I don't think an ad-supported project is desirable or something I would support, but not for anticommercialism. I am happy for the writing I have contributed to be used for any purpose, so long as it remains free; that's a really powerful idea, and now one that I am happy to support at an organizational level.
That's the bottom line. What's most frightening is the thought that at some future time someone or some future board would turn all these efforts into something proprietary. I think we are safe with the present Board, but we do need to safeguard against such eventualities in the longer term.
Though I speak only for myself, I think it is fair to say that the Board knew there would be some people, even many people, upset and disappointed with the decision; most of us now come from within the community and are aware of how communities will react even if a call for community comment does not happen every time. Sometimes doing what you think is the best decision, considering all the factors, means making some people unhappy with you.
It's impossible to do anything new and still please everyone all of the time; changing anything usually means upsetting something that someone else thought was important, maybe even relied on.
This has to do with mastering the art of bringing a broader community into a decision. Anthere has noted elsewhere that the committee system has not been as successful as it might have been. Some people are content to work in their particular area of interest, and nothing more. They may even be willing to participate actively in a WikiProject. (I would rename WikiProjects tp Study Groups, but that's another story.) That's fine; they shouldn't need to be dragged further into wiki-politics. Others will complain endlessly about what is wrong, without ever putting forth a constructive suggestion. They are a fact of life about which nothing can be done; they will not be improved by giving them greater opportunity. Still others do have more to contribute, but have difficulty finding the right place to help.
Perhaps what went wrong with the Committees was that the call to participate was so general that everyone waited for the other person to volunteer. Perhaps too the original annoncement left the feeling that we were being offered a closed list of committees whose structure was pre-determined. Such an impression can be left unintentionally. As established committees get older, the appearance of a closed group gets more pronounced. Committees need to report and recruit. Some will work better in a confidential environment, but that only makes the need to report and recruit more acute. Recruitment needs to be more active. Any existing member of a committee should be on the lookout for others who take an interest in those matters that fall within the committee's terms of reference, and who appear willing to offer new ideas rather than just putting out an unremitting stream of complaints. When they are identified a committee should be prepared to actively invite them to be a member of the committee; people are more likely to feel welcome when they are asked to join. Committees should also be ready to divide or to form sub-committees when they get too big or when one topic tends to dominate the committee's activities more than all the others combined.
It's our responsibility to keep the projects running according to our stated goals. Which includes raising enough money to keep the data flowing and the lights on, and making sure that what we do doesn't conflict with putting together free-content reference works.
It's the crunch of reality.
It is expected courtesy to publicly acknowledge such large gifts, and doing so by means of a logo or a namedrop does not change its nature; in 2005 we even thanked Yahoo! for their donation with a press release trumpeting it.
Did anyone complain about the banner to thank the sponsors at Wikimania?
We could have communicated the decision better. Organization of the fundraiser has been somewhat shaky, was held back by a few surprise difficulties, and could certainly be improved; lessons learned for next time.
All things considered I would attach no blame. I would have preferred no ad, but I don't think that enough happened to warrant strong reactions.
Ec
On 02/01/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's the bottom line. What's most frightening is the thought that at some future time someone or some future board would turn all these efforts into something proprietary. I think we are safe with the present Board, but we do need to safeguard against such eventualities in the longer term.
It is worth remembering - whatever any future Board does only affects the 'container', the sites and the names. The legal ownership or control of the content does not rest with the Board, and they'd be hard pressed to find any way to make it proprietary and unfree.
Andrew Gray schreef:
On 02/01/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's the bottom line. What's most frightening is the thought that at some future time someone or some future board would turn all these efforts into something proprietary. I think we are safe with the present Board, but we do need to safeguard against such eventualities in the longer term.
It is worth remembering - whatever any future Board does only affects the 'container', the sites and the names. The legal ownership or control of the content does not rest with the Board, and they'd be hard pressed to find any way to make it proprietary and unfree.
Hoi, This may be true, but it does not mean that people who have an opinion that differs from the board can leverage their control of "their" content. When the board leaves the content as is, they can manipulate the container and it is the container that gives the content in the end its value. Thanks, GerardM
--- Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your further endeavours!
Waerth
I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message
here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for
many
years, as being uncaring about our values. I care
deeply
about the project, and feel that accepting
advertising,
whether it be for brand identity or a specific
product,
as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many
users
who have put userboxen against advertisements (as
ironic
as that is) on their userpages should've taught
Brion
(and others involved) that the values of the
community
*do* have a substantial number of people who will
never
accept this kind of thing. After reading some of
the other
comments on this list and chatting with a few
folks, I
understand that my concerns, while considered, will
not be
addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects)
are and
must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it
is impossible
to honestly educate with one hand while waving a
billboard
with the other.
I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live
with and
stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the
Spanish
Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish
with my
accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to
summarise
the foundation lists) that a new project head is
needed.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to
pick up
the ball.
I will pick up the ball here. I think LSS is an extremely important project. I thank you for your work in starting LSS as well as all your other contributions.
BirgitteSB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 02/01/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I will pick up the ball here. I think LSS is an extremely important project. I thank you for your work in starting LSS as well as all your other contributions.
Thank you for taking this on!
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Pat Gunn wrote:
I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for many years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply about the project, and feel that accepting advertising, whether it be for brand identity or a specific product, as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion (and others involved) that the values of the community *do* have a substantial number of people who will never accept this kind of thing.
As I mentioned in chat, that's actually pretty much the point of my post.
Some people's preferences, beliefs, or values may not fully mesh with the core values of free content that Wikipedia has staked itself on from the beginning, and some of those people are going to be shocked to discover that there are different values in play (as, apparently, you have been shocked).
That doesn't make those other views wrong, and it doesn't necessarily make the free content/free software-style ideals right. But, IMHO, it's important to look at what those values are, and think about them, rather than plowing ahead pretending we all believe the same thing, or fighting over those other values and ignoring Wikipedia's actual core goals in the process.
To me, this is the same issue as the overuse of "fair use" labeling for materials which cannot be freely reused just for the sake of getting a pretty picture. It's nice to have pretty pictures, but Wikipedia/Wikimedia is built on a strict foundation of free content, and leaning too far towards content that's "educational-use only" or "Wikipedia-only" harms the core values of reuse, redistributability, and freedom to make derivative works.
An extreme anti-commercial attitude, IMHO, can be similarly dangerous when it reaches the point of pushing an unrelated ideology to the detriment of the project's actual goals.
So can an extreme pro-commercial attitude, of course.
I'd like to hope we will strike an appropriate balance; pretending that money doesn't exist isn't really helpful in a world where money is, in fact, often exchanged for goods and services.
Thus it's a good thing for the community and the Foundation organization to talk about this issue and actually figure out what's going to work and what's appropriate *based on the needs and goals of the project* instead of *what's going to make people with certain views angry when they hear it*.
(This is all just my personal opinion, and should not be taken as official WMF policy; I do not set WMF policy, nor do I necessarily even know what it is. For all I know the board is crying out for my blood. :P)
After reading some of the other comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard with the other.
Reasonable people can and do disagree on a) whether it's possible and b) what constitutes billboard-waving.
IMHO maintaining free content is far more important than whether or not there are advertisements on the web site that some people will see the content on, even if I don't particularly like advertisements and would strongly prefer never to have to see a banner ad.
That doesn't mean I think we *should* put up banner ads (though there might be obvious financial advantages to doing so). It just means that whatever we *do* see and do should be based on the actual situation.
There is, to me, a pretty clear difference between notices in a fundraising event and traditional advertisement. I expect rational people to be able to distinguish different degrees and qualities in this way, and hold discussions in which advantages and disadvantages are discussed.
An attitude of "not an inch!" is a matter of ideology, and IMHO where we base decisions on ideology they should be due to the actual ideology the project is based on, and not our personal ideologies as individuals.
If our personal ideologies turn out to be really, solidly, incompatible with the project... then maybe we shouldn't stay.
But again, maybe I'm wrong. Don't take my word for it.
I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live with and stay.
On the other hand I'm glad we're finally talking openly about the elephant in the room; if we're no longer tiptoeing about hoping nobody says the "a"-word we might be able to make actual decisions as a community.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org