[Foundation-l] Fundraising & Networking updates

[Erik Moeller]

On 1/15/08, simonpedia <simon at cols.com.au> wrote:
> 1.           I know that advertising is a no no, even though when a do a
> Google on most organisations/companies it brings me back a Wikipedia page,
> usually in the top five, adorned with a company logo. This advertising (or
> product placement) goes on for many products and services, from aeroplanes
> to universities. Is there any reason the WMF wouldn't create a
> company/product templates, so it's made plain to an occasional reader, and
> charge for it?

I think this is a very odd definition of "advertising" or "product
placement"; the logos are there because these are the official
identifying marks of the company, and thereby add to a comprehensive
encyclopedic description thereof. They are added by our readers under
"fair use", and there's no top down decision that we want them - it's
the community that judges them to have informational value. Turning
this into any kind of officially sponsored content seems highly
problematic, as it would blur the line between content and ads much
more than even Google ads would.

> 2.            As one reads through this monthly thread, and tries to make
> some sense of all the semi related conversation (between the usual suspects)
> before they are archived after 30 days, does it ever occur to the team how
> impossible it is for a newbie to get orientated? The idea of a forum in
> which threads aren't cut (I,e, where discussions go back years) and
> conversations can be related (redirected) across elists and the workers
> identified, has been raised quite often. Is there any reason why they aren't
> used? (Apart from "We don't want to change!!!")

I don't understand your question; what archiving are you talking about?

> 3.            The aim of the Foundation is to spread knowledge. Its major
> costs are hardware and software development. It wants to continue its
> projects, unencumbered by commitments to private donors, while ensuring they
> are kept forever, hopefully in the context in which they are created.
> Logically, the only alternative to 'pan handling to privates' is for WMF's
> projects' contents to become part of the global networks of NRENs, which are
> funded by the public purse.

Erm, no. There are many revenue sources that can be combined to
sustain the organization in the long run. For example, institutional
support from charitable foundations, grants, and business development
all do not qualify as "panhandling to privates". On the hosting front,
we are actively building relationships with non-profits, public
organizations & for-profits to support & expand our infrastructure.

> 4.           Considering all the never-ending talk going back years, about
> improving Communications in and between projects and groups, will you be
> revisiting your Jan 2007 proposal? HYPERLINK
> "http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026707.html"
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026707.html

Probably not in this form - if that was a good idea, the community
would have picked it up and run with it already. But I do think we
should find new ways to facilitate volunteer promotional activities.
These don't initially need to take place in a dedicated project;
improving the self-organization tools e.g. on Meta and more
prominently pointing people to the right places seem like good
beginnings.

Best,
Erik