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

[GerardM]

On 10/24/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> 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).


As you assume that it is enough to have your own point of view and do not
need to consider what others say and as you do not bring alternatives that
addresses the negative side-effects of your stance. I fail to see what
principles you are referring to; the primary goal is to bring good NPOV Free
information to all people in all languages.. What are you referring to?

> *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.


Why does it not apply to corporations and, why have all individuals the
moral high ground ? From my perspective organisations including corporations
can do good and I hate the idea that every cooperation needs to be
considered evil.

> *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.


You have to assure that you do not become beholden to one source of revenue.
So let us have many corporate sponsors. Let us have many organisational
sponsors. Let us get loaded with money, let us be able to do good, the good
that we do not do because of lack of funds.

> *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?


The project as far as I am concerned is not Wikipedia. We are bigger than
that. Please read what I say; I am an admin NOT a Wikipedia admin.

> 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.


We disagree strongly. I try to explain why removing these links wrong and
you do not want to know. The lack of revenue will disproportially hurt
projects other than the English Wikipedia. You must be an
en.wikipediaadmin, I do not see andy consideration for the other
projects or languages.
I fail to see how your stance helps us get information that is NPOV, free
and available in all languages to all people of this world. I only see that
your stance prevents us from getting aditional funds. Funds that are needed.

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.


It is cheap to only consider your POV and not consider the implications.
Money is needed and money from *MANY* sources prevents us from becoming
reliant on any one of them. Your argument that the consequences of your POV
are for someone else is inconsiderate.

You have read the arguments why this partnership is a good move. You do not
accept these arguments, it does not mean that it was not explained to you
and it does not mean that the reasons are not valid. It only shows that you
disagree.

Thanks,
GerardM