[Foundation-l] This is not an Advertisement @ pgunn

James Hare messedrocker at gmail.com
Tue Jan 2 11:55:24 UTC 2007

Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the sponsoring
charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that officially
crossing the line?

On 1/2/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/01/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> > But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing
> > promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
> > Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.
> This is an example of violating expectations as opposed to violating
> policy. The former is actually more problematic, because policy rules
> are breakable and formable, but violating expectations is an
> "everything you knew about this world was wrong" moment. People feel
> the ground shifting under their feet, and they get much more upset.
> That's what's happening here, I think.
> (my own position: naming a matching company in text is fine, issuing a
> press release is important, I'd really rather not have a corporate
> logo there at all ... and make sure they understand that Virgin
> Unite's site was knocked off the net 12 minutes after the link went up
> and to be ready for it ;-)
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list