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

[Jimmy Wales]

Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> I can imagine a scenario where a company which is supplying us with
> significant resources of some kind can request that we remove an
> "unfriendly" link from their Wikipedia entry. If it isn't, or someone
> readds it, then we get into a potentially ugly situation.

I will never bow to any sort of pressure of that kind, and one of the
reason partnerships like answers.com are so important is precisely to
avoid our having to rely on a few large donors.

> What is more important - that Wikipedia is online and has POV material
> on it, or that it's NPOV but offline due to lack of funds?

NPOV is non-negotiable.

> I don't know whether Answers will do this. I simply don't trust an
> entity which has its sole reason for existence as "deliver maximum
> profit to our shareholders" to act in the best interests of the Foundation.

Of course not.  This is why it is  so important that we pursue many
different modes of funding.

--Jimbo