No subject

relevant sources for more information. However, from their point, we
are promoting their products. From their point of view, for example,
Google search field at the left up corner of Firefox has (more or
less) the same value as our search option.

And this has *some* value, which shouldn't be wasted.

BTW, "take money for WMF from Google for promotion on the search page"
is not something which I invented in the previous mail. It is an idea
from at least the first half of 2006 which I heard from Delphine.

On 3/12/08, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
> We are not promoting such engines as part of any quid pro quo. We are
>  doing what we always do, presenting what in our judgement is the best
>  available resources available.
>
>  If there were equivalently reliable and comprehensive widely used
>  open source non-profit search engines, that worked with the sytems our
>  users and editors have available to them, we would I hope mention them
>  primarily, and we would primarily use them. Using Google and Yahoo the
>  way we do is like any other external reference: we link to whatever
>  site best serves the needs of the users and editors.  There are cases
>  where w do not have to do this, as for books, where we have the isbn
>  referral system; for maps, there is an active discussion on how to do
>  similarly. We give directions for how to use the system with Windows
>  and  OSX, as well as with open source operating systems, because that
>  is what is in the opinion of the people writing the help pages as
>  appropriate for the users and editors.
>
>
>
>
>  On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 3/12/08, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > > On 12/03/2008, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  >  As a community member, I *want* to be asked about content-related
>  >  >  >  matters (like licenses are; for which I am *not* asked);
>  >  >
>  >  > Really? Commons community worries about the CC 3.0 licenses actually
>  >  >  got CC to issue a clarified version in specific response to those
>  >  >  concerns; and the Foundation certainly wasn't going to try to force
>  >  >  Commons to accept or not accept a given license version.
>  >
>  >  I said that nobody asked me about intention for switching from GFDL to
>  >  CC-BY-SA, which means not only changing the legal code, but changing a
>  >  license provider, too. I just saw in my mail Board's resolution. (And
>  >  I don't care what CC is doing, I care what WMF Board is doing.)
>  >
>  >  But, my intention was not to raise this question again, but to compare
>  >  for what community has to be asked and for what community's position
>  >  should be considered, but shouldn't be mandatory.
>  >
>  >
>  >  > I wouldn't mind ads either, personally, and we could certainly do with
>  >  >  the money. But I fear a lot of the community just getting up and
>  >  >  *leaving* if we did put ads on.
>  >  >
>  >  >  I think (I have no data) that the general public would still love us,
>  >  >  but they'd sigh in disappointment. (So they should give us more money
>  >  >  then ;-p )
>  >
>  >  We are promoting search engines on our search page for free. So,
>  >  firstly, we should start to take money from them like Mozilla.
>  >
>  >  After that we may think about other possibilities. And I am sure that
>  >  if WMF has ads, it will have enough money to give it to important
>  >  contributors. So, everybody would be happy ;)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
> >  _______________________________________________
>  >  foundation-l mailing list
>  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>