[Foundation-l] Attempt at a compromise (Re: Advertising)
titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com
Sat Dec 30 04:29:20 UTC 2006
Perhaps the "Foundation is evil" calls would be quelled a little bit by some
examples of donation ideas that were rejected. After all, we've only heard
about the donations that were accepted, so we can't measure them against
(Without having to disclose names and embarrass potential donors, of course)
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:20 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attempt at a compromise (Re: Advertising)
On 30/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, but you need both. As I said earlier, donations almost always
> > follow a power law, like Alexa ratings or whatever. And you don't get
> > the first without the thank-yous, because they're used to them.
> So let's retrain them. Don't charitable entrepeneurs want to break the
> traditional paradigms?
Note that the first round of donations was matched by precisely the
sort of anonymous donor you describe.
But you know, I have no problem saying "thank you" quite loudly to
someone giving us tens of thousands of dollars - if it was someone we
would have a problem saying "thank you" quite loudly to, then we
wouldn't accept it. And I understand Danny has said "no thanks" to
more than a few bad ideas that might have netted us substantial cash.
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l