[Foundation-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia

[Florence Devouard]

Nathan wrote:
> I can understand that, and I appreciate that you are following the issue,
> but I stand by the fact that I think relying on individual donations in
> perpetuity to preserve the work and mission of the Foundation does not
> constitute responsible stewardship. 

But Nathan... already today, we are no more uniquely relying on 
individual donations.

In terms of donations, I would roughly say that 2/3 are individual 
donations, and 1/3 are big donations (from other foundations or business 
companies). Sue should have more detailed figures.

Sponsorship of Wikimania comes uniquely from foundations, business 
companies or governemental grants.

On top of that, there is a small beginning of further differenciation of 
revenue, with some money being collected from services (data feed) and 
royalties. I expect this % of our revenue to get more important in the 
future. Sue knows it is an area to explore and Kul has been hired 
precisely for this.

Already today, we are not ONLY relying on individual donations, but 
actively seeking for more sources of funds.

Simply, the various options we have must take into account three major 
caracteristics

1) the fact we are together producing content under a free licence
2) the fact the Foundation is a non profit charity (which implies 
certain limitations in terms of revenu sources and diversity)
3) the fact we must not piss off the community :-)

There are certain paths possible which take into account 1, 2 and 3, and 
these paths will be explored in priority.

Advertisment is potentially both a problem with 2 and 3. So, I'd say it 
should only be considered if we have failed to support Wikimedia 
Projects by all the other possible means. We are not yet there at all.
Let's wait to see first how we improve our fundraising abilities, our 
grant seeking abilities, our business deals abilities.

Ant


This isn't to say that the current
> method is irresponsible - but if change and improvement is resisted without
> even consideration (because we say "We know the community is against this"
> before we really look into it and ask them to evaluate options) then I
> strongly believe that this is not the right way forward. Childish, in that
> sense, is stomping your foot and saying "no way!" - which isn't an
> accusation against the Board, but at some individuals who have already
> expressed this attitude now and in the past.
> 
> George Hebert mentions short-circuiting the community, and I wouldn't ask or
> expect that at all. But the community is made up of people who are not
> professionals in operating and funding a non-profit foundation. In order to
> make an educated decision about this sort of issue, the Foundation needs to
> provide the community with as much information and as many options as
> possible without dismissing the question out of hand.
> 
> Nathan
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Nathan wrote:
>>> FYI. The discussion about advertising will never be completely closed,
>>> expect it to come up again and again. Conservative advertising could
>> easily
>>> be managed through relatively minimal use of Google ads or another ad
>>> server, particularly now that we have a professionalizing staff.
>> Involving
>>> contributors by asking for donations is great - relying on the continued
>>> generosity of these contributors to put the foundation on a sound
>> footing
>>> for the long term is irresponsible.
>>>
>>> Nathan
>> I am not super motivated to discuss any issue
>> 1) when every one knows it is controversial
>> 2) and the discussion starts by calling "irresponsible" and "childish"
>> those who are following another path
>>
>> But I'll be happy to read what others have to say on the topic.
>>
>> Ant
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>