[Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

[Fred Bauder]

Well, it is nice that our editors are not getting paid $100,000 a year to
write from the perspective of whoever is paying them. There is a
connection between well-paid writing and editing and control of content.
Wealthy, or powerful, people don't usually put out big money for the
publishing of material that does not agree with their interests.

Fred

> I sincerely doubt that poverty is anyones attraction to wikipedia.
>
> --
> Dan Rosenthal
>
> Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity.
>
> On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>>> church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>>>> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to
>>>> raise
>>>> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
>>>> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
>>>
>>> There's a fairly easy solution: raise less money. It costs about $2
>>> million/year to keep the Wikimedia wikis running. That gets raised
>>> fairly
>>> quickly (it took about five days for the 2010 fundraiser) without many
>>> annoying banners. :-)
>>
>> I was just thinking the same when I saw this post. Can someone explain
>> why we need to raise so much money each year, then hire people to
>> raise even more, which means we need more money to pay them?
>>
>> The attraction of Wikipedia -- to editors, readers, and donors -- was
>> that it was run on a shoestring by a bunch of volunteers, for the
>> benefit of other people.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>