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

[Dori]

On 10/23/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> 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?

Could they sue the foundation if they deem the placement not to be
"charter" enough? If not them, how about a company purchasing them?

snip...
> > 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.

Let me be just as blunt, I think that's a fairy tale and unlikely to
happen.  The vast majority of information on Wikipedia would be next
to useless to them. Wikipedia is no "A Young Lady's Illustrated
Primer" and will not be anywhere near that kind of level for another
20 years assuming things go through best case scenario. By then I
would hope the UN and African countries have moved off their asses to
do something about it. I seriously doubt that it's information holding
back Africa; it's leadership (as in plenty of bad, and little good).
You can have all the knowledge in the World and not be able to do
anything against corruption, greed, and power.

> > 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'd much rather see the resources dedicated here, which will actually
make it more useful for people everywhere.

> > 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.

That's good to hear.

--
Dori