[Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
> @GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of
> money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and
> even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a
> compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does
> sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to
> back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but
> because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of
> the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the
> community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation
> or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further
> if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by
> working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do
> so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate
> matching donations.
> 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
>   
For the record: I have no doubt that you did not sabotage the fund-raiser.

When you ask me do I want advertisements, then the answer is no. When 
you ask me "am I willing to sacrifice our growth by preventing the 
corresponding need for funding" then I do not know what you mean because 
We ARE growing and this results in a need for funding and we are NOT 
investing where it is most needed. We need to invest more in the 
languages where we do not have an organisational presence. It is for 
this reason that I am glad that our Wikimania 2007 will be in Taiwan, 
you will appreciate that I would not mind it to be in Nairobi next year 
and Brazil the year after. I would be glad to prevent growth where it is 
least needed. This would be the English Wikipedia but the problem is 
that you cannot prevent this growth. I would not advise anyone to try to 
limit this growth because the backlash would be phenomenal.

Where you say: "you can only do so much", I agree. The problem is that 
you propose a project that is not viable as a consequence. Personally I 
expect that you can not make a community in the way you propose. I want 
you to be realistic. How would you limit the growth, what will be the 
consequences. We have an overstretched organisation it is not rocket 
science to understand that the sheer amount of work will only grow. 
People are organising themselves to get functional Wikipedias for 
Africa. There are NGOs paying money for the translation of Wikipedia 
content to other Wikipedias. You do not have a clue how the tsunami of 
our growth is continuing. You cannot put your finger in the dike and 
prevent this from flooding you.

The fact that we are struggling with the notion of advertisement is 
exactly what is preventing a lot of cooperation with organisations. Even 
not for profit organisations and universities welcome to be publicly 
thanked. It makes a difference to them. Many people confuse saying 
"thank you" with advertising. Many people think that our editorial 
freedom will be compromised when we give in to the demands of others. 
Hell, we have situations where our content is completely removed because 
of legal reasons. We have to cope with what others think and want 
already. The question that was not asked is: do you really think that 
the Foundation can stop people writing as they do? Do you have a notion 
what would happen if our editorial independence was compromised?? You 
will find me on the barricades when that happens !!

> @GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome.
> 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.
>
> I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which
> could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside
> the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical
> opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language
> to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to
> find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.
>
> So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not
> backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds
> are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.
Adds would be introduced to work on improving the WikiMedia-content !!!

Thanks,
    GerardM