[WikiEN-l] Advertising on Wikipedia

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

George Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Yes, Nathan, please answer Steve's question; because it is my question as
>>> well. Just what exactly are these "long-term goals" that would require an
>>> increased, steady source of funds?
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Any long term goals require a steady source of funds. People are fickle with
>> donation
>> money, and relying on individual donors for the duration is not sound
>> policy. If we
>> want the Foundation to exist and be relevant in 20 or 40 years, then it
>> needs a way
>> to meet its spending needs without relying on the charitable giving climate.
>>
>> I and others have written lists of worthwhile tasks that the Foundation
>> could perform
>> if it had the money, in the times that the advertising issue has been
>> discussed previously
>> on this list. Since you were both subscribed to the list at that time, there
>> seems to be
>> no reason to rehash it. Even if you completely forgot and are unable to
>> search for the
>> last thread on your own, I'm sure you are imaginative enough to come up with
>> one or two
>> things that would significantly further the goals of the Foundation but
>> require more and
>> more regular funding than it currently has.
>>     
>
>
> As a matter of statistical fact, people aren't that fickle with
> donation funding...   Large nonprofits generally don't have that much
> uncertainty on a short term basis.
>
> Long term statistical trends are observable and manageable.
>
> Ultimately, the stability question gets solved by forming a endowment.
>  Which is probably premature here, but on the appropriate solutions
> palate.
>
> Sure, we could "sell out", and make a very significant (tens of
> millions of dollars or more) income stream.  The customers (users who
> don't edit) wouldn't mind it if it was done in a limited and tasteful
> manner.
>
> But the community would rip itself apart and a large portion of those
> involved would leave, forking and never coming back.
>
> There's nothing we can do with that amount of money, towards the goals
> of the Foundation or projects, which would make up for the community
> damage that would be caused.
>
>
>   

I'll go out on a limb here, monkey traveling to the west
style...

The situation in terms of the cost/benefit of advertising
is much more stark, clear and unequivocal than that
even.

In an IRC conversation with Jimbo, which I doubt he
recalls, with his mercifully short memory span...

I expressed the problem of advertising, in terms of
eating seed grain.

We could never have written what content we have
written, by paying people the money that we have
received as donations, never mind the frigging
servers...

No amount of donations could have payed people to
write our content. Period.

I stop here. Because if you can't connect the dots from
there on in, to the obvious conclusion... No amount of
argument can get you to see you have a nose in front
of your eyes...


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



>