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

[Teun Spaans]

shall we please refrain from personal remarks? thx.

On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/29/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This sounds very socialist and even more impractical.
>
> I don't think you understand socialism very well.
>
> > Give anyone with a gift > 100.000$ a sitenotice of 1 day. If our costs
> have
> > doubles, double the amount to get a sitenotice mention. It doesnt hurt
> to
> > thank our friends. But we should communicate clearly, timely and in an
> open
> > mind with the community. That communication lacked.
> >
> > teun
> >
> > On 12/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>