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

[Chris Jenkinson]

Anthere wrote:
> I fully understand this concern, Chris, but at least in my part of the 
> world, it is to the ones making an accusation to prove a person is wrong 
> (or should I say guilty ?). By showing facts. Proofs. Numbers.

I'm not accusing anyone of guilt. I simply believe that the Board should 
make the case for putting this material on the various Wikimedia 
websites, as they are the ones who want to change something.

The analogy to guilt/innocence is not applicable - I think a more 
appropriate analogy would be "scientific proof"; in other words, if you 
have an idea, you should say why you believe it is correct, not just 
mention the idea, assume it is good, and wait for others to prove you wrong.

> Right now, your fears may be understandable, and I am ready to listen to 
> them, but your fears are words. Only words. They are suppositions. They 
> are fears.
> There is no way we can *prove* or *demonstrate* to the community that 
> this deal is NOT gonna influence how the Foundation operates, but by 
> telling you that this is not gonna change the way we think or act.

I highlighted why I believe that advertising or reliance on corporate 
donations may lead to undue influence on the Foundation with my car 
review on the BBC story. It's not just supposition - it happens in real 
life.

> You, as an editor, have more power in raising a riot to have editors 
> leave the project, than Answers.com have power to influence which 
> decisions we will take. You, as an editor, have the power to kick Angela 
> and myself from the board if you are not happy with us at next elections 
> (and each time editors are not happy, they are quick to remind that to 
> both of us). Any developer has more power to put the site to a halt if 
> they are not happy with us. Answers.com can not do this.  Any admin on 
> the english wikipedia has more power to protect an article than Bob has.

You can be sure I will never vote for anyone who believes that any 
corporation contributing to a non-profit organisation is a good idea. 
The only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver profit to its 
shareholders. I believe it's a fundamentally bad idea to rely on a 
corporation's goodwill.

> The way we can demonstrate it will be a good move is precisely by giving 
> it a trial, showing the results and showing that Answers.com does *not* 
> make decisions for us.

The way you can demonstrate it is a good move is to make a page which 
clearly sets out why it is needed, why Answers is the correct 
corporation to have a partnership with, and what will happen if anything 
goes wrong. I think it would be a bad idea to jump in, cross our fingers 
and hope for the best.

> The way *you* can demonstrate you are correct in your fear that 
> Answers.com will be our boss from now is to provide mails where they 
> actually tell us what to do. Can you do this ? You can't because it is 
> only a fear. It has no reality. Are we always gonna do nothing because 
> of *fears* ? I am sorry, but no. The very idea of having a project 
> editable by anyone, including jerks and pov people is more dangerous and 
> crazy than the current deal. It was good enough 4,5 years ago.

I'd prefer to be afraid and right, than unafraid and wrong.

Chris