It is of course very nice of Virgin Unite to match the donations received today. I would argue however that having a logo in the site notice is basically an advertisement for Virgin.
There is nothing wrong per se with advertisements, but it is my belief that that logo is a bad precedent if Wikipedia's goal is to be advertisement-free.
Oleg Alexandrov
Danny gave a very good speech about this in the Wikimedia IRC channel. He said that since we don't do advertising, we are giving up on tens of millions of dollars a year. Now that we need money, we have Virgin Unite kind enough to offer some really cool matching. Mentioning them in the Sitenotice is our way of saying "thank you for being so awesome."
On 12/27/06, Oleg Alexandrov aoleg@math.ucla.edu wrote:
It is of course very nice of Virgin Unite to match the donations received today. I would argue however that having a logo in the site notice is basically an advertisement for Virgin.
There is nothing wrong per se with advertisements, but it is my belief that that logo is a bad precedent if Wikipedia's goal is to be advertisement-free.
Oleg Alexandrov _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2006/12/28, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com:
Danny gave a very good speech about this in the Wikimedia IRC channel. He said that since we don't do advertising, we are giving up on tens of millions of dollars a year. Now that we need money, we have Virgin Unite kind enough to offer some really cool matching. Mentioning them in the Sitenotice is our way of saying "thank you for being so awesome."
Danny gave a very rethorical speech about this in the Wikimedia IRC channel. That was the impression of a lot of chatters who don't agree with the use of a commercial logo.
There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page". Writing a phrase with "The donations made in this day will be doubled by Virgin. Thanks to Virgin!" is quite acceptable. Putting a logo that's linked to a very, very big and spread commercial reality is not acceptable.
By the way, the way some members of the Board described this deal made it result as a "ad selling": "you double our donations, we will put a logo on our projects". At first, they said there was no deal about the use of the logo; then, they said WMF and Virgin ther has been a "gentleman agreement".
Boh.
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page".
1) Virgin Unite is the non-profit arm of Virgin. It's a charitable organization listed in directories such as GuideStar. 2) Please explain what exactly the difference between visual and textual identification of a donor is, in your opinion.
2006/12/28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page".
- Virgin Unite is the non-profit arm of Virgin. It's a charitable
organization listed in directories such as GuideStar.
The logo is a big dot with Virgin Inside: no matter if there is a big "Unite" under it, it publicize Virgin.
- Please explain what exactly the difference between visual and
textual identification of a donor is, in your opinion.
First of all, textual identification is less intrusive. Second of all: marketing works with logos. There's a reason why a logo is so important for the life of a company. Try to think to the Apple of Apple. Or the stilized Windows of Microsoft Windows. Think about how important is the Brand of Coca-Cola, used everywhere. "Visual" is more influent than text. If you take a look to recent music videos, you'll see a lot of "not-so-hidden" spot of mobile phones with logo really visible. It's not that difficult to understand.
Gatto Nero schreef:
2006/12/28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page".
- Virgin Unite is the non-profit arm of Virgin. It's a charitable
organization listed in directories such as GuideStar.
The logo is a big dot with Virgin Inside: no matter if there is a big "Unite" under it, it publicize Virgin.
- Please explain what exactly the difference between visual and
textual identification of a donor is, in your opinion.
First of all, textual identification is less intrusive. Second of all: marketing works with logos. There's a reason why a logo is so important for the life of a company. Try to think to the Apple of Apple. Or the stilized Windows of Microsoft Windows. Think about how important is the Brand of Coca-Cola, used everywhere. "Visual" is more influent than text. If you take a look to recent music videos, you'll see a lot of "not-so-hidden" spot of mobile phones with logo really visible. It's not that difficult to understand.
Hoi, It is also not so difficult to understand that we could do so much more if we had more money. The philosophical question is what does hurt us more in achieving our aims. I do know of so many things we could do and do not because of a lack of funding that is partly the result of this aversion to collaborating with other organisations. Thanks, GerardM
The agreements have been signed and the Wikimedia Foundation must oblige to their terms.
Should a similar operation be carried out in a future, I'd seriously reconsider the presence of the logo (certainly the feature the donor/advertiser most wants).
The logo is more visual and intrusive - that's what it's designed for - and conveys the idea of a partnership with Wikimedia that can seriously influence the neutrality of the content. The risk of such an influence is what is setting up many users - no matter how loud we scream that Wikimedia projects won't be affected. They will anyway be, either by the self-censorship or by the over-criticism of the editors.
Finally a personal bitter note: as a steward I feel like an "apparatchik" who is bringing down the directives from the top. It's not a role I like. I already do that somewhere else for living, but it's something I'm regularly paid for.
Bye all, G. (aka Paginazero)
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is a big dot with Virgin Inside: no matter if there is a big "Unite" under it, it publicize Virgin.
A "big" dot? Are we looking at the same image? The dot of the logo is barely large enough to cover the "Uni" of "Unite".
First of all, textual identification is less intrusive.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Second of all: marketing works with logos. There's a reason why a logo is so important for the life of a company.
I agree, but we're hardly strengthening the Virgin logo. The Virgin Unite logo is barely known. In any case, we'll see what we can do with regard to logo exposure in future agreements.
2006/12/28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
A "big" dot? Are we looking at the same image? The dot of the logo is barely large enough to cover the "Uni" of "Unite".
Iperbole.
Second of all: marketing works with logos. There's a reason why a logo is so important for the life of a company.
I agree, but we're hardly strengthening the Virgin logo. The Virgin Unite logo is barely known. In any case, we'll see what we can do with regard to logo exposure in future agreements.
The Virgin logo is widely kwnon, though.
The problem is how the Foundation is working, honestly. Yesterday, some people told me to talk with my Local Chapter: "they knew it", "we've talked about it for months", etc etc. I'm not happy to understand that what has been told me was false. This deal was presented on the first day of december, on internal-l. And - as far as i understood - it has been told not to reveal anything about it. Foundation presented it in a kind of way as "We've decided, and you have to shut up", and this is not pretty fair too. What about Local Chapter? They're totally not representive. They're not even informed about what' happening and what are the decision to be made. No voice is given to local communities.
But... Do I remember wrong? Are not the local communities the real strenght of wiki?
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Yesterday, some people told me to talk with my Local Chapter: "they knew it", "we've talked about it for months", etc etc. I'm not happy to understand that what has been told me was false.
Huh?
What about Local Chapter?
Local chapters pursue their own fundraising strategies. They are independent organizations which collaborate with the Wikimedia Foundation.
2006/12/28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Yesterday, some people told me to talk with my Local Chapter: "they knew it", "we've talked about it for months", etc etc. I'm not happy to understand that what has been told me was false.
Huh?
Do I have to explain it again? What is not clear? WMI Board didn't know anything about this deal before the begin of december, and it has been told to "not tell anyone", and they didn't agree to anything. But this is not what has been told to me yesterday on #wikimedia.
What about Local Chapter?
Local chapters pursue their own fundraising strategies. They are independent organizations which collaborate with the Wikimedia Foundation.
They are independent organizations. This means "They have no voice". Then: what about this top-down decision strategy? How communities can express their opinions about Foundation choose? Directly? (Oh My God, don't answer "Yes")
And if they have no possibility to partecipate collectively to the decision about wiki-verse, what is this? "Working without being allowed to talk" is slavery, as far as I know.
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
But this is not what has been told to me yesterday on #wikimedia.
I don't know and cannot comment on what other people have said on IRC.
They are independent organizations. This means "They have no voice".
We share the same communication channels. The possibility of a chapter representative on the Board level has been discussed, but is not currently implemented.
Mind you, chapters have a geographic focus, and generally do not have any moral authority to represent a particular language community.
How communities can express their opinions about Foundation choose? Directly? (Oh My God, don't answer "Yes")
By electing Board members, and by participating in community decision processes (demanding more of those from time to time helps).
"Working without being allowed to talk" is slavery, as far as I know.
No. This is slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave...
2006/12/28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
We share the same communication channels. The possibility of a chapter representative on the Board level has been discussed, but is not currently implemented.
I think a lot of community members think that this should be implemented. As soon as possible.
Mind you, chapters have a geographic focus, and generally do not have any moral authority to represent a particular language community.
Yes, but they could represent a community, too. Or should we elect a wikiparliament made of members elected *locally*?
How communities can express their opinions about Foundation choose? Directly? (Oh My God, don't answer "Yes")
By electing Board members, and by participating in community decision processes (demanding more of those from time to time helps).
By electing some of the Board members, who are really few. Really: how much member there are? Seven? I don't think they're representive at all, especially cause there are no regular elections (zum beispiel, once a year).
Participating in community decision? And how, if decision are made and noone can complain about it? Persons are not even informed.
"Working without being allowed to talk" is slavery, as far as I know.
No. This is slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave...
Opinions. Let's call it "Modern slavery"?
Gatto Nero wrote:
2006/12/28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
How communities can express their opinions about Foundation choose? Directly? (Oh My God, don't answer "Yes")
By electing Board members, and by participating in community decision processes (demanding more of those from time to time helps).
By electing some of the Board members, who are really few. Really: how much member there are? Seven? I don't think they're representive at all, especially cause there are no regular elections (zum beispiel, once a year).
Sorry, but I really do not get it.
We are currently 7 on the board. Amongst those 7 people, 5 are community members. Jan-Bart and Michael are the only "outsiders", and god, are they precious !
Jimbo, arguably, is a community member. He has been the heart of the project since the very begining of Wikipedia, nearly 6 years ago.
Erik joined the project in 2002. I joined the project in early 2002. I am not sure when Oscar and Kat joined, but I would say they have been there for at least 2 years. Erik and I were elected to be on the board. Kat and Oscar were appointed, but they were candidates number 2 and 3 of the last elections, which make them imho, half-elected, half-appointed members. In any cases, Kat and Oscar are both people you know and who have received huge support at last elections.
That makes 4 people amongst 7 as being the nearest thing we can think in terms of representation. Plus Jimbo, who frankly, does not deserve to be told he does not listen to community feedback.
Elections are not frequent ? Of course they are not. It takes a lot of time and effort to organise an election, and being elected for 1 month does not make ANY sense. So, there is no way we can make elections more frequently than once a year.
I would like to add that the board recently took a very bold stance, written in the bylaws themselves, to garantee there will ALWAYS be a majority of community people on the board.
These people are meant to be your representants.
Anthere
I'm sorry not to agree totally with you, but I think there's a misunderstanding too. I cannot explain which (headache doesn't help), but there's.
You said: 4 of 7 members, 5 of 7 members. Nice, but that's not 7 of 7, and I think this is the first problem. I really appreciate the contribution of Jan-Bart and Michael, but they are "outsiders" (as you described them), and I cannot understand why "outsiders" should be part of a board, then. They could be "outsider helps".
Going on. Jimbo is more simbolic. Yet he's *very* important and he *must* be part of the Board, as far as I think. But he's not that representative of... for example, Chinese Community or European Community. This makes 4 members remaining.
Four members for *a lot* of editors. Quite few, proportionally. Local communities are not represented: what about spanish community? what about italian, or polish, or south-african community? Don't get it as an offense or an attact, but I don't think you represent me. I've no way to interact with you, to express my opinion. I quite don't even know you.
I think there's a problem in the way the Foundation is organized: we are *big*, and we should start to think bigger. What does this means? For example, more voice to local chapters, intended as an intermidiate organism between Foundation and local communities...
I think there's a problem in the way the Foundation is organized: we are *big*, and we should start to think bigger. What does this means? For example, more voice to local chapters, intended as an intermidiate organism between Foundation and local communities...
The way the wikimedia is structured might indeed be a point of attention. There has always been an sensitive area in this: wikipedians should not feel inhibited or controlled in what they write. NPOV should be guaranteed. Free (both ways) access for visitors and contributors should also be guaranteed. On the other hand, wikipedians should be able to influence the board.
Perhaps indeed a system of local chapters could represent the local wikipedians (and wikibooks, and dictionarists, and so on). Perhaps a system of village pumps could be brought to work, though the language.wikimedia.org sites are visited very infrequently.
teun
On 28/12/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
You said: 4 of 7 members, 5 of 7 members. Nice, but that's not 7 of 7, and I think this is the first problem.
You are actually completely and utterly wrong here. You need outsiders on a board for perspective.
- d.
2006/12/28, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 28/12/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
You said: 4 of 7 members, 5 of 7 members. Nice, but that's not 7 of 7, and I think this is the first problem.
You are actually completely and utterly wrong here. You need outsiders on a board for perspective.
Sure, but we can talk of "external perspective" only when we have a complete "internal perspective", that is what we have not.
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but we can talk of "external perspective" only when we have a complete "internal perspective", that is what we have not.
If it is so complicated that 5 of our most trusted community members, plus two more people whom they respect and trust, can not understand it... then I fear that it must be hopelessly.
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2006/12/28, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 28/12/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
You said: 4 of 7 members, 5 of 7 members. Nice, but that's not 7 of 7, and I think this is the first problem.
You are actually completely and utterly wrong here. You need outsiders on a board for perspective.
Sure, but we can talk of "external perspective" only when we have a complete "internal perspective", that is what we have not.
It is widely considered irresponsible for companies or charitable organizations NOT to have external representatives on the board of directors.
If you believe that there is an internal communications problem, then I support you publicizing it and working to end it, but getting rid of external-ish board members is a terribly wrong solution.
Gatto Nero wrote:
I'm sorry not to agree totally with you, but I think there's a misunderstanding too. I cannot explain which (headache doesn't help), but there's.
You said: 4 of 7 members, 5 of 7 members. Nice, but that's not 7 of 7, and I think this is the first problem. I really appreciate the contribution of Jan-Bart and Michael, but they are "outsiders" (as you described them), and I cannot understand why "outsiders" should be part of a board, then. They could be "outsider helps".
"Outsider" is a bit strange a term actually. During the board retreat (Frankfurt), the 20 or so people present (many from local chapters) tried to brainstorm on what "community" was. And we could come to no clear conclusion.
Is someone part of the community because he has at least 300 edits in the past 3 months (but does not care at all about the infrastructure supporting the projects ?)
Is someone part of the community when he is very involved, either by being a very active editor, a sysop, a developer, an arbitrator, a wikimania organiser etc...
Is someone part of the community as soon as he has made even one single correction ?
Is someone using the content a community member ? the community of humans finding information on our website ?
is a community member someone who *cares* and wants to help ?
It is very difficult to define what THE community is. There are numerous communities of language/project. There is also a developer community. And more and more, a foundation community. And each chapter is a community in itself.
Very difficult.
I am using the term "outsider" to identify them with well-known, long term "editors". There are not really outsiders. Michael has been helping, with much dedication, for over 2 years. He shares our vision. He was (and still is) an unvaluable asset. Jan-Bart is new, but has known the projects for quite a while. He is bringing anothe perspective and fresh air which is much needed.
You perceive these two guys as "outsiders". Just realise that in the mind of board members, they are not "outsiders". They are part of a team. Both will leave one day, and others will replace them, just as community members will also be replaced. But meanwhile, they will have brought their own qualities and input.
Going on. Jimbo is more simbolic. Yet he's *very* important and he *must* be part of the Board, as far as I think. But he's not that representative of... for example, Chinese Community or European Community. This makes 4 members remaining.
Four members for *a lot* of editors. Quite few, proportionally. Local communities are not represented: what about spanish community? what about italian, or polish, or south-african community? Don't get it as an offense or an attact, but I don't think you represent me. I've no way to interact with you, to express my opinion. I quite don't even know you.
In all democracies or republic, there is a "representation". And more parliaments are not made of 10 000 people. There is never full representation of all minorities. Never. We can not fully "represent" all languages (250) and all projects. It is just impossible.
Beyond this impossibility, I think that it would be a big error to think someone can only represent one community. You seem to consider that I only can represent the french community, that Kat can only represent the american community, Oscar the dutch community and Erik the german community.
But really... do you think even one individual can represent entirely one language community ? And don't you think that in our organisation, with projects actually trying to go BEYOND nationalities, we should try to organize ourselves according to our nationalities ? I do not think so.
I can represent certain italians much better than certain french people. You may not feel I can represent you, but perhaps all you need to do is try to get to know at least one of the board member, select this one as *your* representative and contact this person each time you want to talk.
Just as you do with parliament members.
Why do you say you have no way to interact with me, to express your opinion ? This is precisely what we are doing. You give your opinion. I listen to it. I *hear* it. I hear some people hear complaining about the logo. I hear some people saying it is advertisement and that it is not okay. I hear others saying that it is a decent compromise with "selling us" or accepting advertisement. I hear all this, I read it. Other board members hear it as well. And according to feedback, we'll think about the best move, according to what we read here, according to many people feedback, according to financial needs, according to other proposals.
None of the solutions is fully satisfying. We'll always have to make compromise. If you have other good suggestions, please speak up. But look, your proposition have to be feasible and reachable.
You have many ways to speak up and have your opinion heard. This list, other lists, direct emails, wiki, irc. Even phone (though, I would prefer to discourage that solution). There are few organisations where representants can be so easily "reached" and interacted with. You can do that everyday.
I think there's a problem in the way the Foundation is organized: we are *big*, and we should start to think bigger. What does this means? For example, more voice to local chapters, intended as an intermidiate organism between Foundation and local communities...
Well no. Not really. First because some communities have no chapters. So why would these ones be denied representation just because they have no chapter ? And second, chapters are generally self-organised. Not all members of a community vote to elect chapter representatives. So, if we were saying "from now on, the chapters are the intermediate organism between the Foundation and the communities", the communities will rightfully complain.
We can consider adding a chapter representative to the board. But again, according to you, this will not be fair representation. We can make more meetings with chapters to interact more. I would have loved to do so just a few days ago in Serbia. Instead, I spent the whole day in an airport. I had a very boring and tiring day. It was saturday, I would have preferred to be with my family. I was happy instead to go and visit a chapter and many community members. Instead, I spent 8 hours in a stupid airport, and possibly some people will think I refuse to discuss with them :-) We can also organise retreats. We can also meet in Wikimania. Or we can discuss together on the lists. That's a good start at least :-)
ant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page".
- Virgin Unite is the non-profit arm of Virgin. It's a charitable
organization listed in directories such as GuideStar.
Better not use this excuse, it won't help with the next one. ;)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 12/28/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page".
- Virgin Unite is the non-profit arm of Virgin. It's a charitable
organization listed in directories such as GuideStar.
I searched Guidestar yesterday, and couldn't find it. I figured this was because it was a UK organization. Is it really in there?
Anthony
On 12/28/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/28/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page".
- Virgin Unite is the non-profit arm of Virgin. It's a charitable
organization listed in directories such as GuideStar.
I searched Guidestar yesterday, and couldn't find it. I figured this was because it was a UK organization. Is it really in there?
http://www.guidestar.org.uk/gs_summary.aspx?CCReg=297540&strquery=Virgin... Michael
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/27/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Danny gave a very good speech about this in the Wikimedia IRC channel. He said that since we don't do advertising, we are giving up on tens of millions of dollars a year.
Wikimedia is also giving up millions of dollars a year by not going into the porno industry, too.
Now that we need money, we have Virgin Unite
kind enough to offer some really cool matching. Mentioning them in the Sitenotice is our way of saying "thank you for being so awesome."
I guess the advertising is working.
On 12/28/06, Oleg Alexandrov aoleg@math.ucla.edu wrote:
It is of course very nice of Virgin Unite to match the donations received today. I would argue however that having a logo in the site notice is basically an advertisement for Virgin.
The common usage of advertising is "to announce or praise (a product, service, etc.) in some public medium of communication in order to induce people to buy or use it: to advertise a new brand of toothpaste."
We are not announcing or praising a product or service; we are not selling a message. We are thanking a large corporate donor.
On 28/12/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We are not announcing or praising a product or service; we are not selling a message. We are thanking a large corporate donor.
Correction: A large philanthropic donor.
- d.
On 28/12/06, Oleg Alexandrov aoleg@math.ucla.edu wrote:
It is of course very nice of Virgin Unite to match the donations received today. I would argue however that having a logo in the site notice is basically an advertisement for Virgin.
Virgin Unite, under its corporate name the Virgin Foundation, is a proper tax-deductible registered charity in the UK. I assume its operations in other countries are similarly registered.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org