[Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form New Partnership

[Jimmy Wales]

Dori wrote:
> I did ask the question, what does charter placement mean legally? 

It means that we will list their tool on that page in a position of
prominence.  I think we should list it in a fashion which makes very
explicit (as a feature, not a bug!) that using the tool brings revenue
to the Foundation.

> Yes, but when you enter into a legal contract, it's not just you that
> we have to worry about, it's the other party as well. I really don't
> think we'll be getting much revenue from this deal to justify the
> risk, and in general I don't think in the *long term* relying on
> advertising will keep Wikipedia afloat.

Please tell me more about what risks you see, because perhaps I can
answer any specific concerns that you might have.  What risks do you see
to us?

I think in the *long term* it would be extremely easy to rely on
advertising to keep Wikipedia afloat.  My own estimate is that we are
currently turning away at least $1 million per month in revenue by not
having advertisements on the site.

Nonetheless, there are no plans to do that.  What we do want to seek is
a careful balance of support from a number of different sources.

> It's asked in perfectly good faith, and I'm trying to keep the
> conversation civil (though I may have gotten a bit excited there).

Ok, good. :-)

> There are plenty of people who think the end goal of keeping all the
> projects online is the most important thing.

I think "keeping all the projects online" is the *bare minimum*.

> I'd like
> to see the line clearly drawn beforehand. If it came to accepting
> advertising or the projects going off-line/read-only, which way would
> we go?

The projects will not go offline.  The projects will not go read-only.

I do not even expect *that* to be the primary issue.  The primary issue
is how seriously we take our chosen obligations to people in the
developing world who do not have Internet connections.

> I'd like to see us plateau on the Internet first, and then worry about
> expanding off-line. Off-line distributions will be a lot more
> difficult and a lot less useful.

A lot less useful to whom and for what?

Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for
us.  It's for them.  It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives
of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's
empowered with the knowledge to do so.

> On the other hand, there is no reason
> why we couldn't start on Wikipedia 1.0, and I've yet to see that get
> off the ground.

Indeed... if we had the resources to do it, we could do it.  But we
don't, so it keeps getting pushed to the back burner.

> I think continuing with large donations from companies and individuals
> is the way to go. We shouldn't take wholesale offers of course. But I
> don't think that we've exhausted all the donation avenues yet.

Of course we haven't, and I have at least 4 "big fish on the hook".  It
takes time to reel them in, of course, and part of the reason is that we
have to find ways to make sure that the donation and our goals are
consistent.

This is what "diversity of income" is all about... if we are getting
some revenue from Answers.com's 1-click tool, and especially if that
revenue ends up being substantial in 2 years time, then we can approach
those donors from a position of strength.

> Whatever happened to the Google deal?

I'm still talking to Google... and a lot of other people.

--Jimbo