Which $100M? Calcanis's or the one that'd be used to liberate a lot of work from copyright?
On 11/6/06, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Aye? _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Liberatory 100M.
-S
On 11/6/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Which $100M? Calcanis's or the one that'd be used to liberate a lot of work from copyright?
On 11/6/06, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Aye? _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Steve wrote:
Liberatory 100M.
A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected. There is no further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation, but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia... it is one thing to imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but another thing altogether to think about someone doing something sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
--Jimbo
I am crossing my fingers that this comes to pass.
In the meantime, if we want to look at guerilla ways to fund raise, maybe we can take a page out of Creative Commons' playbook and use Revver. Create a few short videos about the Wikipedia cause, Revverize them, and shoot them into the webosphere. We could place links to the videos on Wikipedia.
Any thoughts?
Mitch
On 11/6/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve wrote:
Liberatory 100M.
A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected. There is no further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation, but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia... it is one thing to imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but another thing altogether to think about someone doing something sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I'm more interested in watching the development of ideas. A handful have come across this list and there are a slew @ Wikimedia (most of them rapid fire wishes). Is Wikimedia (or somewhere else) still chattering? Link?
-S
On 11/7/06, sigmaman sigmaman@gmail.com wrote:
I am crossing my fingers that this comes to pass.
In the meantime, if we want to look at guerilla ways to fund raise, maybe we can take a page out of Creative Commons' playbook and use Revver. Create a few short videos about the Wikipedia cause, Revverize them, and shoot them into the webosphere. We could place links to the videos on Wikipedia.
Any thoughts?
Mitch
On 11/6/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve wrote:
Liberatory 100M.
A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected. There is no further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation, but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia... it is one thing to imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but another thing altogether to think about someone doing something sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
You mean, for people to start mulling over the idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia?
I would expect a major, major disaster. Probably a huge fork. And unlike the one or two forks I've threatened in the past, this one would probably _not_ be initiated by myself, given the fact that I'm not extremely active anymore (I'm doing more work on reconsidering definitions for urbandictionary -- it's much clearer when something is crap there than it is on Wikipedia because they have clear guidelines and you can delete stuff or keep it without having to worry about improving existing content, though I do regret their lack of non-English versions and believe they would benefit from a more wiki-like structure).
But yeah, do we not remember Enciclopedia Libre? That happened just because people were thinking about maybe possibly sometime in the future eventually having banner ads, IIRC. To actually implement them... wow... yeah.
But if it's a sacrifice you ("we") are willing to make in the name of the almighty dollar (even if you're going to use it for good rather than evil), well then, whatever floats your ("our") boat.
Mark
On 06/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve wrote:
Liberatory 100M.
A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected. There is no further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation, but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia... it is one thing to imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but another thing altogether to think about someone doing something sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, Successfully forking Wikipedia. Let us consider; to be successful, you want to retain the international aspects of Wikipedia. This disqualifies Citizendium immediately as a success. You will want people to edit all these projects. You want to take the mantle of Wikipedia and therefore you will need to get programmers to outdo what Wikipedia will be able to do with all this extra cash. Last but not least you want to take all the traffic from Wikipedia so you need sufficient servers and bandwidth.
So suppose you make good on your threat and fork. What does it take to succeed? Hard work, persuasion and money.
Now I am sure you are as much aware as I am that there are many ways that we can make money if we want to. It is also almost certain that we can get a lot of money, probably sufficient, for quit some time to go without adverts. When there is no option we can even opt to have voluntary adds, where "die hards" like you can opt out of having adds for the time that it takes to get the advertisement money needed to keep going.
Then again there are organisations quite happy to support the Wikimedia Foundation to continue doing what is does so well. There are organisations like Kennisnet that have helped us a lot. There are many more such organisations that would help out if asked in the right way for them. The question would be, is this advertisement, partnering or cooperation? Would we be willing to say and would we be able to say thank you?
Many organisations have big amounts of what is currently proprietary content, when we find it in ourselves to work together with organisations we could get much of this content opened up, freed for all to use. Sometimes what is required are small changes to our practices, for instance what would happen if we always attribute pictures of art that is in the public domain to the organisation that has it in it's collection ?? It would be informative and people would know what museum to go to see some magnificent art. You know what, this would cost us nothing and don't you think this would work for many, many museums?
When you are able to figure out what functionality we need, you may find that there are subsidies, grants available just for those needs. We could work together with students and scientists that do this as their research. We could propose the functionality for the educational value that we would provide. One of the requirements of many of these grants is that we do this in a sustainable way. Guess what, sustaining itself on a shoestring is what the Wikimedia Foundation has proven to be good at. But for sustaining what we have, we have yet another reason to ask for a grant, subsidy or donation.
The upshot; we do not need a fork to do well. What we need is to do more of what we do well. What we need is staying personable and become more collaborative. We can do it, we just need to be convinced that we can and that we should.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson wrote:
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
You mean, for people to start mulling over the idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia?
I would expect a major, major disaster. Probably a huge fork. And unlike the one or two forks I've threatened in the past, this one would probably _not_ be initiated by myself, given the fact that I'm not extremely active anymore (I'm doing more work on reconsidering definitions for urbandictionary -- it's much clearer when something is crap there than it is on Wikipedia because they have clear guidelines and you can delete stuff or keep it without having to worry about improving existing content, though I do regret their lack of non-English versions and believe they would benefit from a more wiki-like structure).
But yeah, do we not remember Enciclopedia Libre? That happened just because people were thinking about maybe possibly sometime in the future eventually having banner ads, IIRC. To actually implement them... wow... yeah.
But if it's a sacrifice you ("we") are willing to make in the name of the almighty dollar (even if you're going to use it for good rather than evil), well then, whatever floats your ("our") boat.
Mark
On 06/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve wrote:
Liberatory 100M.
A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected. There is no further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation, but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia... it is one thing to imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but another thing altogether to think about someone doing something sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
--Jimbo
tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr!
please reread my message. we have experience with this in the past (Enciclopedia Libre), and it was moderately successful. as i noted before, there is going to be such a thing if banner ads are added, and it is _not_ my personal threat -- i guarantee you, somebody else will make it.
Mark
On 07/11/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Successfully forking Wikipedia. Let us consider; to be successful, you want to retain the international aspects of Wikipedia. This disqualifies Citizendium immediately as a success. You will want people to edit all these projects. You want to take the mantle of Wikipedia and therefore you will need to get programmers to outdo what Wikipedia will be able to do with all this extra cash. Last but not least you want to take all the traffic from Wikipedia so you need sufficient servers and bandwidth.
So suppose you make good on your threat and fork. What does it take to succeed? Hard work, persuasion and money.
Now I am sure you are as much aware as I am that there are many ways that we can make money if we want to. It is also almost certain that we can get a lot of money, probably sufficient, for quit some time to go without adverts. When there is no option we can even opt to have voluntary adds, where "die hards" like you can opt out of having adds for the time that it takes to get the advertisement money needed to keep going.
Then again there are organisations quite happy to support the Wikimedia Foundation to continue doing what is does so well. There are organisations like Kennisnet that have helped us a lot. There are many more such organisations that would help out if asked in the right way for them. The question would be, is this advertisement, partnering or cooperation? Would we be willing to say and would we be able to say thank you?
Many organisations have big amounts of what is currently proprietary content, when we find it in ourselves to work together with organisations we could get much of this content opened up, freed for all to use. Sometimes what is required are small changes to our practices, for instance what would happen if we always attribute pictures of art that is in the public domain to the organisation that has it in it's collection ?? It would be informative and people would know what museum to go to see some magnificent art. You know what, this would cost us nothing and don't you think this would work for many, many museums?
When you are able to figure out what functionality we need, you may find that there are subsidies, grants available just for those needs. We could work together with students and scientists that do this as their research. We could propose the functionality for the educational value that we would provide. One of the requirements of many of these grants is that we do this in a sustainable way. Guess what, sustaining itself on a shoestring is what the Wikimedia Foundation has proven to be good at. But for sustaining what we have, we have yet another reason to ask for a grant, subsidy or donation.
The upshot; we do not need a fork to do well. What we need is to do more of what we do well. What we need is staying personable and become more collaborative. We can do it, we just need to be convinced that we can and that we should.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson wrote:
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
You mean, for people to start mulling over the idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia?
I would expect a major, major disaster. Probably a huge fork. And unlike the one or two forks I've threatened in the past, this one would probably _not_ be initiated by myself, given the fact that I'm not extremely active anymore (I'm doing more work on reconsidering definitions for urbandictionary -- it's much clearer when something is crap there than it is on Wikipedia because they have clear guidelines and you can delete stuff or keep it without having to worry about improving existing content, though I do regret their lack of non-English versions and believe they would benefit from a more wiki-like structure).
But yeah, do we not remember Enciclopedia Libre? That happened just because people were thinking about maybe possibly sometime in the future eventually having banner ads, IIRC. To actually implement them... wow... yeah.
But if it's a sacrifice you ("we") are willing to make in the name of the almighty dollar (even if you're going to use it for good rather than evil), well then, whatever floats your ("our") boat.
Mark
On 06/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve wrote:
Liberatory 100M.
A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected. There is no further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation, but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia... it is one thing to imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but another thing altogether to think about someone doing something sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis' idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
--Jimbo
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org