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

[Chris Jenkinson]

GerardM wrote:
> It is one thing to disagree (simple) it is another to address the issues
> that I have raised.
> *You quote of context and therefore you lose the main point that I made that
> we will need money for other projects than just the English Wikipedia.

I didn't lose that at all. In fact, I didn't even mention the English 
Wikipedia. I said the principles on which Wikipedia is founded (which 
applies to all projects).

> *You only rehash why you think this might be acceptable. You tell me that I
> must assume good faith but where is your good faith where you assume that it
> is only the other party that has to convince ? So far you have not convinced
> at all.

I don't understand what you're referring to. As far as I'm aware, the 
principle of "assume good faith" does not apply to corporations, but 
only to individuals. Since the partnership is between the Foundation and 
a corporation, the principle does not apply, and it is up to those 
proposing the deal to explain why it is needed and will be beneficial.

> *You assume that it goes against the ideals of the Foundation. Which ideals
> are they ? As a Foundation we have objectives and it does say what we aim to
> do. With more funding we can do more.

The ideals I am referring to include the policy of neutral point of 
view. See my other email 
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004580.html) 
which explains why reliance on companies is a bad idea.

> *If you cannot think of an admin who does not have the best interest of
> Wikipedia at heart .. Well I am not a Wikipedia admin and I am an admin.
> This does not mean that I do not have the best interest of Wikipedia at
> heart, it only shows the fallacy of your line of thinking.

I don't understand what you are talking about. You don't have the best 
interests of the project at heart? What exactly are you trying to say?

> I do consider an admin who removes these links narrow minded. He does not
> consider other things than his immediate concerns (that is what narrow
> minded means). I also fail to see a justification for these things in your
> arguments. I also miss how you would make the money that allows for the
> growth pattern that we have seen. Please be constructive; make sure that our
> projects can grow as boundless as the English Wikipedia has been allowed to
> do untill now.

I am well aware of what narrow-minded means, which is why I said in my 
previous email that removing the links would not be narrow-minded. If 
you make an accusation, it's up to you to explain why it is so, not up 
to me to explain why it is not so. Why is someone who removes the link 
narrow-minded, and how is he only considering his immediate concerns? 
You are the one who must justify why, not I.

Also, it's not up to me to budget for the Foundation. I believe there is 
someone appointed by the Board to do this. I can give you my suggestions 
if you like, but I fail to see how this is relevant.

Please, explain to me why this partnership is a good move.

Chris