[Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Gregory Maxwell]

Geni is speaking of the huge banner on Enwp at the moment featuring Craig of
craigslist. Hit reload a few times if you haven't seen it.  It links to a
clearly spoken statement of support for wikipedia.


To avoid you haivng to click and goofing up the counters, here is what it says:
"
I'm a proud supporter of Wikipedia, and I encourage you to make a
donation to support their work too. Wikipedia is an accomplishment of
major proportions. It's become the "first draft of history," a vital,
living repository of human knowledge.

How did we ever manage without it? Wikipedia makes it easy to learn
about anything. It's dramatic proof of the supreme effectiveness of
collaboration: people from all around the world work together on
Wikipedia to build articles with one purpose - to provide free
knowledge.

But the work has just begun. And Wikipedia needs our financial support.

If you read it, if you edit it, if you visit it more than once a
month: please join me in supporting Wikipedia today.
"

There is are no hyperlinks to anything but WMF donation stuff, from the target.


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:50 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why?

Your post makes me sad: I think the banner is doing the right thing and if we
complain about moderate and well considered actions then we lose credibility
when something more foolish is done.  I normally respect and
appreciate your comments
but I this one is not a fair one.

The banner isn't a link to craiglist, it's 'The founder of this other
widely known
(and I think usually well respected) organization endorses wikipedia,
here is why...'

Arguably craiglist is only known and credible to much of the same
subculture that WMF's
message has already reached— I suppose the results will have to be left
to speak for themselves— but is this an add for craigslist? Hardly.

It's a craig-of-craigslist ad for Wikipedia, speaking about the
virtues of Wikipedia, not
craig or craigs-list (other than the virtue of his support, which is being used
as social proof).

I accept that there can be a reasonable discussion about the wisdom of
this kind of
messaging, but I don't think that such a discussion could be had with
your rather
extreme characterization overhanging.  Might I convince you to restate
it in a way
more conducive of discussion than dispute?