Erik wrote on wikitech-l:
I intend to edit relevant documentation and webpages to change the name of the software from "Phase III" to "MediaWiki". This is the name that Mav suggested, and it fits nicely together with "Wikimedia". Google shows that the name is unused. Any objections?
Well, my vote is a foregone conclusion, but 'Make it so!' :)
Hm. Kat suggested that only one big item should be on each press release, so maybe we can have a separate press release announcing the name change and talking about the software itself? Release it a week after the previous press release and direct it toward more techy-oriented news sites. We could also have a separate press release announcing the grand opening of the Wikimedia Foundation website and the start of our fundraising drive (since it doesn't look like that will be set-up by the time we hit 300,000).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel-
Hm. Kat suggested that only one big item should be on each press release, so maybe we can have a separate press release announcing the name change and talking about the software itself?
I disagree with this. But I think that the 300K milestone should not be the headline of the press release -- just mentioned in the first paragraph. The headline should be something like "Wikipedia goes non- profit, launches new projects".
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Daniel-
Hm. Kat suggested that only one big item should be on each press release, so maybe we can have a separate press release announcing the name change and talking about the software itself?
I disagree with this. But I think that the 300K milestone should not be the headline of the press release -- just mentioned in the first paragraph. The headline should be something like "Wikipedia goes non- profit, launches new projects".
No. We aren't '''going''' non-profit; we always have been. What exactly does saying that we are going non-profit accomplish? Incorporating Wikimedia is an administrative action which probably doesn't mean much to the general public.
As for publicity for "launching new projects", I don't think that accomplishes very much either. The other projects are mostly at an experimental stage, and as much as they may welcome new contributors a sudden influx of inexperienced people there could have unpredictable effects.
Stressing that we have a quarter million articles appeals to the bandwagon effect. Remarking about our competitive position in relation to other on-line encyclopedias makes sense because because it draws people into a competition where they can feel a part of the winning team. Being mentioned by CNN means something; being high rated by Alexa is noteworthy; having a news article say, "These guys know their stuff," says something about our credibility.
Even more important is stressing our core principles of NPOV and making knowledge broadly and freely available to everybody. Stressing also that participants can share the responsibility of safeguarding those core principles is a further strength.
I think that Wikimedia is a far more dynamic creation than one that merely trots out the same old unbelievable humdrum platitudes about being non-profit or purveying new products.
Ec
Ray-
No. We aren't '''going''' non-profit; we always have been. What exactly does saying that we are going non-profit accomplish?
We can take donations. And this is the most essential and important part of our press release. It's not like we need the publicity -- we need the money. That's no platitude, it is a simple truth: we cannot grow if we cannot afford to expand our servers. The biggest danger to Wikipedia/ Wikimedia at present is that large numbers of good contributors will be scared away by continued blackouts and system slowness. Fixing this is our *top* priority. That is why we must emphasize that Wikimedia is now able to take tax-deductible donations, but we have to package it nicely and put most of the donation info on a dedicated page.
Therein lies the true art of publicity -- get people to give you money while still keeping them interested. Granted, the non-profit part is not very appealing as a headline. Nor is the 300K milestone, though. "Yawn, Wikipedia has another X articles milestone. Dump it." That's really getting old fast.
Beyond that, we have to make people familiar with Wikimedia itself, to put that organization in the foreground instead of Wikipedia, to the benefit of our sister projects. Wikimedia is still unknown to virtually everyone except Wikipedia insiders. Everyone who reads our press release must get that name hammered into their brain. Wikimedia must be as well-known as McDonald's, as popular as Google, as erotic as Lucy Liu in a black thong, with an oiled body glistening in the heat, flashing a smile at you as she turns her luscious body away ... er, sorry, got carried away there.
As for the other projects, aside from server problems, an influx of new people has never been a problem for Wikipedia, so it will not be a problem for these projects either. Don't be afraid of being popular.
By the way, the milestone is 300K, not 250K. We have already passed the 250K milestone.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Ray-
No. We aren't '''going''' non-profit; we always have been. What exactly does saying that we are going non-profit accomplish?
We can take donations. And this is the most essential and important part of our press release. It's not like we need the publicity -- we need the money. That's no platitude, it is a simple truth: we cannot grow if we cannot afford to expand our servers. The biggest danger to Wikipedia/ Wikimedia at present is that large numbers of good contributors will be scared away by continued blackouts and system slowness. Fixing this is our *top* priority. That is why we must emphasize that Wikimedia is now able to take tax-deductible donations, but we have to package it nicely and put most of the donation info on a dedicated page.
Being registered as a "non-profit" organization is not what makes it possible to take donations. Any organization with a bank account can do that. Freely given donations with no obligation to deliver a product are capital in nature, and as such are not taxable income of the organization. Only business and investment income would be taxable. Given that expenses are bound to exceed business income, taxes are not a realistic worry.
The tax deductibility is only meningful for those people liable for US income taxes. Most donations to a foreign charitable organization are not taxable here in Canada. Are you saying that they are deductible in Germany? Even for the US the tax benefit to all but the biggest donors is much bigger than the hype. Unless a person is itemizing deductions (which most often means is paying big mortgage interest) there will be no benefit at all to the charitable deduction. Tax deductibility of charitable donations and nice packages are little more that hype and fluff.
Maybe we do "need the money", but your only guessing. We all know that it was not long ago that Jimmy added the second machine, and that there is already talk of needing a further hard drive. I can also extrapolate from that that demand in the forseeable future is likely to grow exponentially. But that's not the same as knowing the need. For that we need a budget and a business plan that will be as open to discussion as any Wikipedia article.
The biggest danger to Wikimedia is not that we will lose big contributors, but that we will lose our way. My "top" priority is not in fixing the system slowness, important as that may be. My "top" priority is in uncompromisingly maintaining the philosophical principles that Wikipedia was based on. Sometimes I even get to feeling that it is my ONLY reason for supporting the current benevolent dictatorship. My confidence that a more democratic organization would safeguard those principles and be fiscally responsible is very low.
Therein lies the true art of publicity -- get people to give you money while still keeping them interested. Granted, the non-profit part is not very appealing as a headline. Nor is the 300K milestone, though. "Yawn, Wikipedia has another X articles milestone. Dump it." That's really getting old fast.
Let's not confuse art and artifice. The world of publicity is not exactly the most trustworthy. It should be used sparingly. Wikipedia's progress thus far has been with amazingly little publicity. There is much significance to that; maybe it just makes us more trustworthy. :-)
Perhaps you're right about the X articles milestone. It can be a yawner.
Beyond that, we have to make people familiar with Wikimedia itself, to put that organization in the foreground instead of Wikipedia, to the benefit of our sister projects. Wikimedia is still unknown to virtually everyone except Wikipedia insiders. Everyone who reads our press release must get that name hammered into their brain. Wikimedia must be as well-known as McDonald's, as popular as Google, as erotic as Lucy Liu in a black thong, with an oiled body glistening in the heat, flashing a smile at you as she turns her luscious body away ... er, sorry, got carried away there.
This made me think of the Charles Schulz Lucy who also flashed a smile as she turned her body away along with the football that Charlie Brown was about to kick.
I feel no need to bring Wikimedia so quickly to the forefront. Let's let it find its own level of importance. I interpret Wikimedia as a kind of holding corporation for the various projects. A person wanting to give to Wikipedia would be advised to issue his check to Wikimedia, but our bank would be advised of the various project names to ensure that any reasonably recognizable check would go to the right account. Many of our contributors may be interested only in one project. That's fine. As much as we may welcome participation in our corporate structure, we aren't about to force them into it.
As for the other projects, aside from server problems, an influx of new people has never been a problem for Wikipedia, so it will not be a problem for these projects either. Don't be afraid of being popular.
I'm not afraid of popularity, only of how popularity changes people and their organizations.
Eclecticology
Ray-
Being registered as a "non-profit" organization is not what makes it possible to take donations.
I am fully aware of that and am not too impressed with tax-deductibility either (though I can see that it would come in handy for larger donations). However, Jimbo has always stated that he only wants to start taking donations "when the foundation is set up". Thus the time to take donations has come now.
Maybe we do "need the money", but your only guessing.
As a developer highly involved with the problems I would say that my guess is more educated than yours. I know the specifications and load of our current servers and I know that we need at least 1 or 2 new servers to appropriately handle the present amount of usage. Even software problems can be addressed more quickly by actually paying developers. And believe me, if we get more money than we "need" I have plenty of ideas on how to use it productively. Money is good. It keeps things flowing.
The biggest danger to Wikimedia is not that we will lose big contributors, but that we will lose our way. My "top" priority is not in fixing the system slowness, important as that may be. My "top" priority is in uncompromisingly maintaining the philosophical principles that Wikipedia was based on.
We talk about "maintaining the philosophical principles that Wikipedia was based on" every frelling week. Whenever a sysop or a developer does something marginally controversial, we're already on the road to a wiki police state. Whenever someone does not immediately get their wish, or is ignored, they complain about class warfare among different users. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I have never seen a project that is as paranoid about its philosophy as Wikipedia. I have seen communities deteriorate into feudalism, and I see no evidence whatsoever of Wikipedia being in any way philosophically endangered. Our philosophical principles have been expanded and refined, but no substantial principle has ever been discarded in our 2 1/2+ year history.
Paranoia about newbies not respecting NPOV or other policies is absolutely unjustified. NPOV is *not* difficult, it's just that *everyone* is a newbie at some point and has to learn the house rules. That's what the oldtimers are for, and it works well. When someone joins wiki, they get a welcome message a few minutes later, and their edits are observed carefully. Soon they will find notifications like "Your edit of .. was not neutral. Please see our NPOV policy for details .." It has worked this way since we started, and it works well.
The only principle I see violated often even by old hands is WikiLove. But that is to be expected, and if anything, many of us have learned self- discipline in the last months. There may be ways to increase our WikiLoveQuotient, but I don't think we're doing too badly.
If you want to worry, worry. But I think your concerns are completely groundless in the absence of any real world example that would justify them. While we should guard our philosophy, we should also avoid being paralyzed by it.
Sometimes I even get to feeling that it is my ONLY reason for supporting the current benevolent dictatorship.
When and what was the last decision by Jimbo? Ban Palestinian Liberator, an obvious vandal who could have been banned by a developer even without Jimbo's approval? And that was not even enforced through software. Jimbo is a moral leader more than anything else. Yes, he does in a way safeguard our principles, but it's not like Wikipedians are just waiting for an opportunity to dump NPOV, or to replace our present system of consensus seeking with arbitrary deletion power, and so on. The only un-wiki idea I've seen recently was the proposal to protect pages at a certain point, and that was dead on arrival.
Let's not confuse art and artifice. The world of publicity is not exactly the most trustworthy. It should be used sparingly.
That's exactly why I think our press release should summarize some of the Big Things that have happened in the last months.
I feel no need to bring Wikimedia so quickly to the forefront.
Then maybe you should not participate in the authoring of a *Wikimedia* press release.
I'm not afraid of popularity, only of how popularity changes people and their organizations.
Same difference. Look, the next time someone proposes an adult filter for the 'pedia because it has become so popular that schools have taken notice, I'll be here to defend freedom of information. The next time someone says we need to ban anons because we can't handle their number of edits I'll be here to offer alternatives. The next time someone says we should just add advertising to all pages I'll be here to dismiss that idea in a patronizing manner. As we become more popular, inevitably, these same problematic suggestions and others will be made more often. But we're a large community, with many thoughtful members like yourself who are aware of the problems, and I just don't see us doing anything stupid just because we become larger.
Let's compare Wikipedia to a corporation. And we all know that corporations don't become irresponsible simply because they get wealthier, more powerful, have to listen their customers less and can engage in shady business practices without being punished. Umm .. well, OK, maybe that's a bad analogy. But the thing is, on Wikipedia we all control one another. And that's the best safeguard there is.
Regards,
Erik
I agree with Erik that the biggest need is for more capacity... and I'm wary of sending out 3 or so press releases. It reaches the point where people don't care about any of them individually, so don't bother with any of them.
--Jake jnelson@soncom.com
It has been discussed (here: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_co...) that the gfdl notice on the bottom of every page needs updating. The following notice is the result of the discussion "All text is available under the terms of the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]. See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for suggested practices." I would like to request that as long as no one has any more suggestion to make on the talk page, this new notice be instituted ASAP. Also, the "Printable version" pages need to have the same notice (currently they don't).
-- Michael Becker
Ray Saintonge wrote:
No. We aren't '''going''' non-profit; we always have been.
In spirit, yes. In fact, yes. But in the law, Wikipedia was just a project of Bomis, Inc., a for-profit corporation.
Incorporating Wikimedia is an administrative action which probably doesn't mean much to the general public.
I think it means a lot to a lot of people. There was significant distrust of me for a long time. For one thing, people are not willing to 'donate' money to a for-profit corporation, and with good reason.
Stressing that we have a quarter million articles appeals to the bandwagon effect. Remarking about our competitive position in relation to other on-line encyclopedias makes sense because because it draws people into a competition where they can feel a part of the winning team. Being mentioned by CNN means something; being high rated by Alexa is noteworthy; having a news article say, "These guys know their stuff," says something about our credibility.
I do agree with all of this.
Even more important is stressing our core principles of NPOV and making knowledge broadly and freely available to everybody. Stressing also that participants can share the responsibility of safeguarding those core principles is a further strength.
That's right, but we can't put too much into a press release. For a press release to get press, it has to be "punchy", it has to have a "hook", a storyline that attracts the attention of journalists.
--Jimbo
"Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
No. We aren't '''going''' non-profit; we always have been.
In spirit, yes. In fact, yes. But in the law, Wikipedia was just a project of Bomis, Inc., a for-profit corporation.
Also there is an argument that the volunteers of Wikipedia are a collective voluntary association (in law) that while informal are still functioning as a group. The hardware might have belonged to Bomis, but the volunteers are acting independently. I think there is a strong argument to that effect, many volunteer organizations develop that way. If volunteers use the telephone to communicate the telephone company does not own their organization does it? Volunteer associations do not need any formality to exist (such as filing a corporate charter). I think it important to keep this distinction in mind as Wikimedia (which seems to be the foundation that allows Wikipedia to exist but is independent of Wikipedia in a certain way) is just a formal entity, it is not the contributions that have been made to the nexus of activity known as Wikipedia.
Incorporating Wikimedia is an administrative action which probably doesn't mean much to the general public.
I think it means a lot to a lot of people. There was significant distrust of me for a long time. For one thing, people are not willing to 'donate' money to a for-profit corporation, and with good reason.
I don't know if that is true. The people at movable type are not a non-profit operation and they are accepting "donations" via paypal, actually I run across websites every week that do this and that are usually small business operations. When I email them and ask them about it they say that since they provide their services at low cost they need to ask for donations, legally they must report these donations as income, but if they spend the money on business expenses, then their are no taxes due (as long as the IRS accepts their business status).
Alex756
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org