[Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice
Peter van Londen
londenp at gmail.com
Sun Jan 7 19:43:42 UTC 2007
GerardM and community
I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious
issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more
matching donations this fundraiser.
I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is and it
is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is
now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects can
do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed
expand on some further ideas.
I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on this
idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative outcome,
if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an
alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think about it
and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is
doing good with this way of funding.
2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen op gmail.com>:
> Oldak Quill schreef:
> > On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen op gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Oldak Quill schreef:
> >>> On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <anthere op anthere.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hello everyone.
> >>>> Just for a head up (or down)
> >>>> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more
> >>>> donors in that fundraiser.
> >>>> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
> >>>> reaction of some members in the community.
> >>> Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is
> >>> an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the
> >>> Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no
> >>> bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like
> >>> ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
> >>> Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent
> >> Hoi,
> >> I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you
> >> only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited
> >> funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
> >> This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or
> >> not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no
> >> serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires.
> >> And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed
> >> best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current
> >> In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
> > IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove
> > from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me
> > that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week:
> > there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this
> > reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate
> > responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the
> > community can, to an extent, heal.
> > I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be
> > named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the
> > anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
> Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund
> raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to
> understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of
> our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community
> that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our
> organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its
> books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do.
> An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to
> accommodate the growth that it could have.
> I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary
> reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want
> to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an
> even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing
> to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is
> deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for
> money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle
> even more damaging.
> The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes
> no material difference. It does not help as money would.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l