[Foundation-l] Attempt at a compromise (Re: Advertising)

[The Cunctator]

How about sponsors get listed in the order of the percentage of their
net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
donates $200K.

Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the idea.

You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
just because you're richer.

On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'd like is a link to a list of donors, and big sponsors like Mr.
> Anonymo and Virgin Unite can be listed by the top then following that is a
> generic list of the other donors. I also like how there's a thank-you letter
> on the WMF wiki for Virgin Unite.
>
> On 12/29/06, Tom Holden <thomas.holden at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think it is worth remembering that both sides of this discussion
> > ultimately want the same thing, namely for the WMF's assorted projects
> > to retain the independence (both financial and otherwise) they need
> > for their continued success. One side has maybe been guilty of
> > threatening to throw their toys out of the pram, but the other side
> > has equally damaged their position by adopting a rather patronising
> > tone.
> >
> > Proposing that "editors who don't like it just leave" is never a valid
> > solution. There will always be people with differing opinions to the
> > Foundation, and it is vital for the continued success of the project
> > that these people feel there is a forum where their views will be
> > seriously considered. We will always need every editor we can get. The
> > gradual reform of WMF's political structure from (benevolent)
> > dictatorship to democracy is obviously a key part of this process.
> >
> > Now having Virgin's name and logo on every page is certainly not the
> > end of the world. Wall Street bankers are not yet rubbing their hands
> > together with glee. That said it does represent a significant change
> > in the WMF's fund-raising strategy. Whether or not Virgin hoped to
> > benefit from their donation, the fact is that the message both
> > increases brand awareness and gives the brand positive connotations.
> > Contrary to the repeated dogmatic assertions of some on this list,
> > like it or not this is effectively advertising. (Think of the last few
> > Honda adds say. Not a purchasable product in sight...) Rightly or
> > wrongly, I like many others feel this should have had more public
> > discussion a significant time before the event.
> >
> > It is important to remember that people's objections to advertising go
> > a long way beyond just "they're annoying" or "they're the tools of the
> > capitalist scum". There is a real risk of them introducing biases and
> > distortionary pressures which would severely damage the credibility of
> > the WMF's projects. Furthermore, it is always dangerous for a site to
> > mix its factual content with advertising, as one can easily be
> > mistaken for the other. I'm sure you could all think of many further
> > arguments, which, broadly, is why WMF has shied away from advertising
> > in the past.
> >
> > Certainly though it is only polite to thank our donors. However, it is
> > just as important we thank Paul from Michigan who gave $2 as it is we
> > thank Virgin who gave $200,000 (or however much it was). The way WMF
> > has traditionally done this is by posting a thank you notice along
> > with a link to a list of donors. I do not see any reason why this is
> > not as adequate for Virgin as it is for Paul from Michigan. If I was
> > to give an ordinary (non-matching) donation of $200,000 would I get a
> > day long thank you notice?
> >
> > In future I propose that matched donation days be advertised by
> > something like the following:
> > "All donations today will be matched by a
> > (corporate/charity/individual) third party sponsor. The WMF offers
> > them and all its other donors its sincerest thanks."
> >
> > I really do not believe this would have any significant impact on our
> > ability to attract matching donors, and it would certainly have spared
> > us the past few days of arguments here and elsewhere.
> >
> > As for further funding ideas, I still think our best bet is to
> > continue on towards becoming a devolved, democratic, membership based
> > organization. I would much rather give a regular donation to a UK
> > charity in exchange for the benefits and rights of membership, than a
> > one off donation to an organization that will spend the money without
> > the guarantees of a written constitution and full democratic
> > accountability, and I am sure many would agree with me.
> >
> > Yours in peace,
> >
> > Tom Holden
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>