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

[Poe, Marshall]

Just a quick question. 

Isn't it the case that Google Adsense (and similar programs) basically
cut the tie between specific advertisers and specific publications?  As
I understand it, the ads are dynamically generated by Google--neither
the advertiser nor the website owner have much say in placement, nor do
the advertiser or website owner have any contact with one another.

If this is so, it's pretty hard for me to understand how putting Adsense
ads on Wikipedia pages could ever lead to any of the editorial-influence
scenarios being described here. Adsense makes the "wall" between
editorial and advertising that stronger than it already is (and I work
for a magazine where it is very strong without Adsense).

Best, 

Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW 
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe at theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Jenkinson
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form
NewPartnership

GerardM wrote:
> 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?

I don't assume that at all; I would be interested to know how you came
by that assumption (because it is absolutely wrong). The principles I am
referring to are the exact same as you have said there - free access to
uninfluenced information.

> 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.

It doesn't apply to corporations because corporations are legal entities
whose reason for existence is to deliver profit to shareholders. By
definition, they are not required to "do good".

I don't think every corporation is evil or should be considered evil,
and I never said that. Of course corporations can do good, they aren't
required to - which is exactly why we shouldn't assume that they are in
existence to "do good".

This is why the Board needs to explain why the partnership is good for
the continued existence of the various projects.

> 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.

Yes, let's - but let's not compromise on our core beliefs.

> 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 still have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you try
rephrasing it in a different way?

> 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.

Yes, I am an admin on the English language Wikipedia, but that's not
relevant. I would be making the same points if it were a different
language Wikipedia or one of the other projects (in any language).

> 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.

My stance is that we shouldn't compromise on our key beliefs - free
access to information which is not influenced by individuals,
governments or corporations. If we have to scale back our operations or
reject some funding because it might affect this in some way, then so be
it. Money is not our goal here.

> 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.

I don't have the legal skills nor financial skills to budget for an
organisation like this. It's not inconsiderate for me to constructively
criticise the Board or the Foundation. It's not only inconsiderate but
socially negligent of me not to.

> 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.

I have heard some arguments regarding this partnership, but not all, and
not all the arguments are complete. I agree with some of what I have
heard, disagree with other bits, and believe there is more information
on this to come - as with anything. Please don't tell me what I do or do
not believe, and let me be the judge of what I think is valid.

Chris
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l