-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pat Gunn wrote: 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) 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. 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)