(Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with other well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information
Why not set up a (Wikipedia)^RED which would essentially be a skin through which the normal Wikipedia is viewed: it would change the colours to red (or shades thereof), have a different Main Page which explains the scheme and has inobtrusive advertisements on the side (under the interwiki links) which generate revenue to do to (Product)^RED (and Wikimedia).
I think that the aim of this is wholly consistent with that of the Wikimedia Foundation, and I would like to hear your views.
On 6/22/06, Daniel Bregman dbmag9@gmail.com wrote:
(Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with other well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information
Wow, (at least) one whole percent?!? Doesn't really seem like it would be worth the trouble of having the ads, a for-profit skin, etc. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I don't understand the proposal. --LV
On 6/22/06, Daniel Bregman dbmag9@gmail.com wrote:
(Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with other well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information
From the website:
***Established brands who license the (PRODUCT) RED mark send a portion of the profits made on (PRODUCT) RED products directly to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa. (RED) never handles this money.***
So we create a red skin, pay (RED) to use their name, handle all the money and donations to the Global Fund, and (RED) does what exactly? While I appreciate the cause, I just don't get it. --LV
I think it's that if you were to enable the RED option in your settings, you'd get a new skin, a different Main Page, and advertisements. Money earned from the ads goes towards AIDS research and partially towards Wikimedia.
It sounds like a good idea, as long as it's off by default.
On 6/22/06, Daniel Bregman dbmag9@gmail.com wrote:
(Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with other well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information
Why not set up a (Wikipedia)^RED which would essentially be a skin through which the normal Wikipedia is viewed: it would change the colours to red (or shades thereof), have a different Main Page which explains the scheme and has inobtrusive advertisements on the side (under the interwiki links) which generate revenue to do to (Product)^RED (and Wikimedia).
I think that the aim of this is wholly consistent with that of the Wikimedia Foundation, and I would like to hear your views.
-- -Daniel (meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dbmag9) dbmag9.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/22/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's that if you were to enable the RED option in your settings, you'd get a new skin, a different Main Page, and advertisements. Money earned from the ads goes towards AIDS research and partially towards Wikimedia.
It sounds like a good idea, as long as it's off by default.
Except that we have to do all of the work, pay to use the (RED) name, and put ads on Wikipedia. Who's going to volunteer to collect all the revenue and handle all the donations to the Global Fund? Why pay to use their brand name? If WMF really wanted to donate to the Global Fund, why not just make a straight donation and skip all the licensing fees? Just my thoughts though. --LV
On 6/22/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have to do all of the work, pay to use the (RED) name, and put ads on Wikipedia. Who's going to volunteer to collect all the revenue and handle all the donations to the Global Fund? Why pay to use their brand name? If WMF really wanted to donate to the Global Fund, why not just make a straight donation and skip all the licensing fees? Just my thoughts though. --LV
Optional user activated advertisements have been proposed before, the primary objection is that it wouldn't make a lot of money for us.
I, like the others in this thread, don't see any value to (RED)... it doesn't appear that participation would be in our best interest.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org