In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:03:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes: However, your assertion that we are doing a great job for all people on this planet is very debatable. We have little or no content for many languages and I would think it a fallacy to reject paying for content in languages like Bambara or Ossetian out of hand just because we can get content in languages like English, Dutch or Plattdüütsch. The defenition of Wikipedia is: *"Wikipedia* is a project to build free encyclopedias in all languages of the world based on a neutral point of view." Which is why I have been active in my capacity as grants coordinator to speak to the relevant parties (Guaka, for instance) to figure out ways to promote articles in those languages. In fact, Gerard, much of the Africa scholarship project idea was mine. I would not compare fostering languages with Bambara to helping individuals in affluent countries promote their personal websites. On http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia it does not say that we will always be a volunteer organisation. If anything, we are slowly getting more professionals in to make sure that what we do will grow and prosper. Yes, we need professionals, in organizational capacities. We do not need professionals to write articles. In fact, our strength is that we do not rely on professionals to do that. The discussion on paying for content has been going on for quite some time. Many people are really happy that there is some movement in getting content in languages like Bambara or Ossetian. In my opinion, it makes more sense to spend money on Bambara than on Plattdüütsch. Research on languages like Bambara are comparatively so underfunded. See my comments above. This is very different from paying for content by corporations or large groups for promotional purposes. My track record proves that I support one, if not the other. Danny