[Foundation-l] Fundraiser update

geni geniice at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 00:01:52 UTC 2009

2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller <wegge at wegge.dk>:
> geni <geniice at gmail.com> writes:
>> 2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller <wegge at wegge.dk>:
>>>  Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
>>> opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
>>> this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your
>>> assesment. And since you haven't mentioned it by now, I will not
>>> accept any delayed claims to the opposite.
>> This only works if you are seriously trying to suggest that there
>> are people who feel that large banners add to the wikipedia
>> experience.
>  I think that the large majority who doesn't feel the need to whine
> about them accepts them as a nescesary thing to fund WM.
>> Most people come to wikipedia to read articles. Generally having
>> font-size: 33 banners between the top of the page and the article is
>> not a good way to facilitate this.
>  Having no banners and no servers to serve the artuicles are even
> worse. Having payed the dangeld to get rid of them, I think most are
> happy being acknowledged for the fact.

You miss the point. The banners are not fundraising any more (unless
you collapse them)

>  I don't agree on that point. Having extorted 6+ million $ out of the
> readers with a Jesus headline, and then switching the thank you note
> to leagal flyspeck, would send the wrong signal. If we NEED Joe Bloggs
> meney, we'd better THANK him in the same way. Otherwise he may
> OVERLOOK the plea next time it comes around.

Any evidence for those claims? And how about thanking him by not
degrading his wikipedia experience?


More information about the foundation-l mailing list