[Foundation-l] Ads and monobook

[Geoffrey Plourde]

I would support self determination. It sounds like a better solution than sitting here bickering over a global determination.



----- Original Message ----
From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:57:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ads and monobook

Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Chad wrote:
>>> Let's assume projects can opt-out, and this must be approved
>>> by the Board (as they are ultimately responsible for fiscal
>>> matters). For the sake of arguments, let's pretend enwiki came
>>> to a fairly clear consensus that they wished to opt-out of WMF
>>> ads. Wouldn't this basically kill the entire ads cash-cow right
>>> there?
>>>
>>> Now, continuing this scenario, I can imagine the Board would
>>> probably reject an opt-out from the largest project. This begs
>>> the question: does the Foundation see all projects in an
>>> equal light?
>>>
>>> -Chad
>>
>> That's an excellent question !
>>
>> I am tempted to return it back first.
>>
>> If all the languages were voting independently from one another, for
>> opt-in or opt-out... how would you feel if en.wiki would vote for "no
>> ads", whilst ja.wiki vote for "yes" ?
>> Would you rather consider the global project, or would you be willing to
>> accept diversity ? Should it be a global decision, or a local one ?
>>
>> I guess that a global decision would make the issue a "core principle"
>> whilst a local decision would make the advertisement issue a "mild
>> principle".
>>
> 
> To date it would appear that the WMF has been very intolerant to community
> variations or differentiation on funding matters.  Unless you are suggesting
> that the WMF actually might allow individual projects to control their own
> advertising initiatives, then I think this particular thread of the
> conversation is pointless.
> 
> To raise a similar example, as far as I know individual projects have never
> been asked whether or not they want to participate in Foundation fund
> drives, or how they want them to be run.  When the last fund drive was
> launched with that abominable scrolling marquee (which gave a jittery
> appearance for most users and outright crashed some older browsers), enwiki
> discussed unilaterally removing it and people were threatened with instant
> desysopping on the basis that project admins aren't allowed to interfere
> with Foundation initiatives.
> 
> Obviously the immediate fundraiser issues were resolved eventually, but the
> impression some of us were left with was that the Foundation would simply
> impose these funding initiatives from above (with little concern for
> community input or feedback) and with no tolerance for community
> interference.
> 
> There are reasonable arguments for why funding drives ought to be run from
> above, but let's be clear, if you are actually suggesting that
> projects might be given local control over advertising and funding
> initiatives then that is very different from how things have been run
> historically.
> 
> -Robert Rohde


There is a time for brainstorming. And there is a time for decision.

Usually, during brainstorming times, it is suggested to welcome any 
suggestions and questions, regardless of how crazy they appear to be, 
because they can bring fresh ideas. Also, severe criticism during 
brainstorming is usually not recommanded because it tends to frighten 
the more hesitant and timid into not giving their ideas.

(note that I am not timid, but others may be :-))

ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ