[Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 8 06:37:22 UTC 2007
The problem with your answer is that the proposal was brought as a way
of making some serious money. Now you complain because I destroyed the
basic assumption that a fanpedia will make sufficient money to make a
difference. You now state that you do not have a clue how much money is
needed but also that is does not need to be the only source of revenue.
My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and the
arguments used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they
do not, have not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been
asked is there no compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want
advertisement per se, I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation
in order to be able to continue to grow. For a compromise there is a
need to water down positions. The question is therefore: are you willing
to sacrifice our growth by preventing the corresponding need for funding?
There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current
Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is
a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we
explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to
wiggle any more.
Now consider, a website with Pokemon stuff without a picture of
charmander .. how is that to make us money ?
Peter van Londen schreef:
> I think this idea doesn't deserve such an answer, but hey I asked for it:
> 1) I have not said that it should be the only way of funding, I think it
> would help though as one out of the several funding possibilities to
> generate the amount of cash, which you envision.
> 2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and
> so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow.
> 3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these
> mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share
> the same ideals as we have.
> 4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved
> in Wikia might have an answer though.
> 5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much
> answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per
> fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point
> in the necessity of loads of money, but there must be alternatives for
> advertising on all projects.
> This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash
> so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to
> be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and
> therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with
> advertising on the projects.
> I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make
> a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would
> Kind regards
> 2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>> In your assertion that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding, you
>> immediately indicate what the problem is with the proposal; it is being
>> done and quiet successfully by others (not only Wikia). The problem with
>> the proposal is also that in order to benefit from the proposal, the WMF
>> has to seriously invest in these projects. It must because this is then
>> how we make some of our money. The people who are not interested in the
>> "fanstuff" will not be interested in doing this and seriously, why would
>> the people who ARE interested in this stuff be willing to work on this;
>> the Wikipedia crowd exorcised them into another project? Why should they
>> be willing to do profit the WMF, when they can go elsewhere to nice
>> established communities..
>> We know how much money the Foundation needs.. It needs $1.500.000,- at
>> this moment in time.. Do you really think the fanstuff proposal will
>> make us the money that will be sufficient for the /increased /need for
>> money of the Foundation that is the consequence of the growth of its
>> projects?? This does not even consider the investments we would like to
>> make to make a difference in other ways (administrative for instance) If
>> you think the scheme will work for all this, please show us the math.
>> You explicitly asked for people to consider the proposal.. Sorry, to be
>> this dismissive.
>> Peter van Londen schreef:
>>> 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
>>> now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects
>>> 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
>>> idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative
>>> 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
>>> doing good with this way of funding.
>>> Kind regards
More information about the foundation-l