In a message dated 6/18/2005 9:30:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
On 19/06/05, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
I therefore suggest that donors have the possibility
of earmarking their
donation. That is to say, they will have the ability to specify where they
their money to go. In that case, one donor may give
while another donor may give specifically to promote a
language, print a
particular wikibook, or whatever.
Isn't there a danger of this leading to huge resources for the English
Wikipedia and not enough for the rest of the projects and languages
simply because more people visit that and therefore decide to put all
their donations towards that project rather than the Foundation's
Actually, this will help smaller projects. By projects, I do not mean a
specific wikilanguage. Rather, I mean projects like "Buying new servers,"
"Developing Wiktionary," "Helping Ossetian," the "Africa
Project", etc. It does not
mean earmarking money for a specific Wiki. In fact, this will help people
keep abreast of new charitable projects as they emerge. This has nothing to do
with English or any other language
It might make more sense to say we will spend grant money on certain
projects, but I'm not yet convinced it makes sense for all donations
to have to go towards specific tasks in this way.
No, not all donations. But this allows people to have some say in how they
want the money they donate spent. There will certainly be an option to give to
the general running of Wikimedia, and all smaller grants will donate 10
percent to that cause as well.
Larger grants, in general, will require us to report on how we are spending
their money. I am suggesting that this serve as an outline for that. For
instance, we received a grant to push ahead with Wikijunior. We then have to
report to the donors how taht money was used to further that specific end.
Finally, of course the Board will have final say in which projects are
legitimate and which are not.
3. People involved in specific projects will
naturally assume the
responsibility of "Project Heads" and naturally grow to fill leadership
I'm not sure how the topic of donations is related to this, nor
whether having "Project Heads" is needed.
It is already occurring. The address for Ultimate Wiktionary is Gerard. The
address for Ossetian is Amikeco. I think that this is a good thing, because it
helps build grassroots leadership.
On 19/06/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
This proposal helps the board to take decisions
according to the
community wishes and at the same time, it allows editors to support
certain projects rather than others.
Would community wishes be reflected by this though? Many donors are
not members of the community, or not the editing community anyway, and
vice versa. What if a large donor puts all their money towards a
project that is not supported by the community? How could that be
Sure, and we want donors to have options about where to donate. From
non-Wiki experience, I can tell you that donors do not like the idea of just giving,
without knowing where their money is going. They want to get the best bang
for their buck, if you will pardon the Americanism. At the same time, they
also want to find a project that best suits their personal interests and
objectives. We are offering them a pallette from which they can choose.