[Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

[David Strauss]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 31/12/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
> 
>>> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
>>> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
>>> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
>>> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
>>> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
>>> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
>>> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?
> 
>> Apparently, you do.
> 
> 
> I think it's clear that even if someone can mathematically prove that
> "sponsorship" is technically not identical to "advertising", it looks,
> walks and quacks enough like it to risk similar objectionableness.
> 
> Arguing the definition of the word "advertising" is missing the point
> of the objection.

That's not what I'm saying. There's a distinction between 1) whether the
site notices constitute advertising and 2) whether the foundation should
run advertisements.

My positions:
1) The site notices are not advertising because the donors do not
control their representation.
2) I don't think the technical status of "advertisement" matters. All
that matters is how much income the foundation receives versus how the
action affects Wikipedia and other project's effectiveness and perception.

Just because I'm expressing an opinion on #1 doesn't mean I think #2
hinges on it.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/e5addbe8/attachment-0001.pgp>