[Foundation-l] About transparency

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 12/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> For example, I assume it is not the case that
> >> the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
> >>
> >> Derrick Farnell
> >
> > It is a good question.
> >
> > Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to
> >  add advertisements :-)
> >
> > But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to
> >  introduce ads.  Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to
> > request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads
> > placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and
> > then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so
> >  much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced
> >  by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
> >
> > "Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal
> > perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical
> > perspective.
> >
> > I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my
> > position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to
> > this.
> >
> > Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize
> > that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not
> > be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is
> > quite significantly below what we will need this year. And in front of
> > such a situation, we probably have three paths (other paths exist, but
> > require investments, additional human resources or will take too much
> > time).
> >
> > Path 1 is diet. As in "serious diet". Diet will mean that the websites
> > which have been working very smoothly for the past 18 months or so, will
> >  not work so well. Sluggish, perhaps even down sometimes. A sluggish
> > site  will automatically lose audience, which will lighten the pressure.
> > Diet will also mean losing some staff. I am not quite sure which one we
> > can really afford losing right now.
> >
> > Path 2 is business deals. Such as advertisements. If ads on articles is
> > too controversial, perhaps a consensus position will be to put ads on
> > the search pages.
> >
> > Path 3 is relying on big donors. But big donors have a serious drawback,
> >  which is called "loss of independence". There is no mystery, when a
> > donor give you 25% of your annual revenue, it is quite expected that
> > they will try to influence you. Perhaps will it be light, or perhaps
> > will it be much heavier. Perhaps big thank yous on the website, perhaps
> > pushing so that the board accepts as its treasurer someone of big donnor
> >  staff, perhaps asking for exclusive use of our trademarks, perhaps
> > asking that "annoying" board members be removed from the board, perhaps
> > suggesting certain partnerships rather than others. Loss of independance
> >  would be a terrible thing to happen. Much more dangerous than
> > advertisement actually, because it may not be reversible at all.
> >
> > I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency.
> > I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore.
> > As for the good old regular transparency, I wish there was more
> > willingness to provide it.
> >
> > Ant
>
> The problem is the slippery slope one. It is assumed that if there is
> advertising we would go whole hog. A limited program could raise enough
> money, but not overdo it. For example, the Foundation could accept
> advertising from selected non-profits and charities.
>
> Fred
>

Two things I would add to what Fred and Florence said above.

First, if the money were to be raised by adding adverts to search
functionality, a good part of the raised money would have to be
allocated specifically to making wikipedias search more functional.

Currently wikipedias search is its greatest (non-content) achilles
heel. Adding adverts to it without making search functionality
itself better would be little short of disastrous, though conceivably
it would lead more people to use other search engines to search
wikipedia, which is of course possible even today. But if that were
the result; it would certainly take pressure off from the servers,
but simultaneously reduce the financial gain, as people wouldn't
be using it.

The problems with search are lack of wildcards, logical operatives
etc. as well as evaluating significance of relusts contextually.

The second thing is that though the psychological impact of
advertisements could be ameliorated by strictly limiting the
advertisers on a non-rofit, charitable and or ethical good
standing framework, the brunt of the impact would be at
the place which least needs it, and specific consultation
ought to be made with those quarters, to find out what
specific things can be done to ensure they recieve a greater
proportion of the added usable revenue.

I am talking specifically about the smaller projects, which
are only beginning to grow. It is conceivable that small
projects growth might be critically stunted through the
perception problem that we are no longer charitable
with advertisements. One thing which might help is
education about what non-profit means. Another would
be ear-marking ad-revenue specifically to aid beginning
projects.

The project from which the majority of the revenue
likely would be engendered, namely the english language
wikipedia, would also be the one least vulnerable. This
is very clear to my mind. If anything, it might be arguable
that the concommittant slowing down of hte growth of
the english wikipedia, due to people leaving in droves
out of disgust, might benefit its adaptation due to not
having to grow up its institutions in such a hurry to
scale up.

But to emphasize and strenuously agree with Freds
point, if we do start with adverts, the right way to
go about it is to get the camels nose into the tent
by way of strictly limiting the adverts to screened
charities and non-profits.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]