[Foundation-l] Fundraising & Networking updates

[simonpedia]

Thanks for this Erik,

Let me keep the threads together.

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Moeller [mailto:erik at wikimedia.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2008 8:40 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising & Networking updates

On 1/15/08, simonpedia <simon at cols.com.au> wrote:
> 1.           I know that advertising is a no no, even though when a do a
> Google on most organisations/companies it brings me back a Wikipedia page,
> usually in the top five, adorned with a company logo. This advertising (or
> product placement) goes on for many products and services, from aeroplanes
> to universities. Is there any reason the WMF wouldn't create a
> company/product templates, so it's made plain to an occasional reader, and
> charge for it?

I think this is a very odd definition of "advertising" or "product
placement"; the logos are there because these are the official
identifying marks of the company, and thereby add to a comprehensive
encyclopedic description thereof. They are added by our readers under
"fair use", and there's no top down decision that we want them - it's
the community that judges them to have informational value. Turning
this into any kind of officially sponsored content seems highly
problematic, as it would blur the line between content and ads much
more than even Google ads would.

>>> You're quite right. It is an odd definition of advertising, and
presentation isn't what I'm making a point about. It's just that we ARE
seeing a blurring between the lines of info and ads, in ALL media. If a wiki
wants to promote a company, then it should be made clear. At the same time,
by taking this approach companies can easily justify the expense, as they
can simply do a Google and see its usage. 

I can't see how it could become problematic. By creating a company or
product template all it does is allow a company to say "we support the WMF",
while knowing full well that they can't lie due the beady eyes and open edit
policy around here. It allows them an easy way to take from the advertising
account rather than the feeble donation account. It also gives their
PR/advertising teams a reason to take interactive stuff more seriously than
they do with the overrated and costly broadcast media.

I could go on about how things have changed in media over the past 30 years,
and how your response is typical of discussions about "media support" for
government and non government promotions these days. But all that changes is
the way value is allocated. If the new model isn't recognized by something
like this, then it tends to be undervalued (in all its meanings), if not
ignored. I'm sure your German eyes will glaze over as you learn the US
media's concept of running (advertising) for (a) President.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  

> 2.            As one reads through this monthly thread, and tries to make
> some sense of all the semi related conversation (between the usual
suspects)
> before they are archived after 30 days, does it ever occur to the team how
> impossible it is for a newbie to get orientated? The idea of a forum in
> which threads aren't cut (I,e, where discussions go back years) and
> conversations can be related (redirected) across elists and the workers
> identified, has been raised quite often. Is there any reason why they
aren't
> used? (Apart from "We don't want to change!!!")

I don't understand your question; what archiving are you talking about?

>>>I'm talking about the elists. If you get the daily digest, one is
naturally led back to a block of monthly archives. Every thread is cut in
this manner. And if you believe that this conversation is not watched by
people who are both internal and external, trying to make sense of the
community culture ... (let's not go there, I'm sure you do). So when
someone, who understands the internal WMF dynamics well, starts (for
example) talking about improving the communication tools and processes in
and between projects (all of which are created "bottom up"), its broader
context will be lost to 'externals', unless they can track back and learn
what's been discussed over years. 

Like any culture, it's a bit hard to explain the utility of using one forum,
which combines and directs the subject matter of threads from different
groups' conversations, and compare it to elists which, around here, are
separated by project (and necessarily, language). But it's easy to compare
between the utility each approach provides to archiving. This example goes
back to June 2001. http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=71

This means that, to give one latest example
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil, when a small group wants to pick
up the threads of a past beginning, that they needn't begin from scratch,
and overwhelm their talk page with the same kind of conversations. They need
only to understand that their idea was just a bit early for the mainstream,
and like your comms idea, can be picked up where it was left, as the need
becomes more obvious to the general community. I had chase all over the
place TO GET ORIENTATED and find your comms prop. Who knows what golden
ideas could be renovated into today's contexts?    

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

> 3.            The aim of the Foundation is to spread knowledge. Its major
> costs are hardware and software development. It wants to continue its
> projects, unencumbered by commitments to private donors, while ensuring
they
> are kept forever, hopefully in the context in which they are created.
> Logically, the only alternative to 'pan handling to privates' is for WMF's
> projects' contents to become part of the global networks of NRENs, which
are
> funded by the public purse.

Erm, no. There are many revenue sources that can be combined to
sustain the organization in the long run. For example, institutional
support from charitable foundations, grants, and business development
all do not qualify as "panhandling to privates". On the hosting front,
we are actively building relationships with non-profits, public
organizations & for-profits to support & expand our infrastructure.

>>> OK, Excuse my "panhandling' terminology. What I'm saying here is that
you can only have one of two approaches if you want to "expand our
infrastructure", which is the costly bit just now. Either the WMF looks at
success as getting more servers and bandwidth, or says that they are just
means to an end. If it's the latter, then they're saying, "We're in the
content business" and by content I include software development, and media
in all its formats. 

I've spent as few years monitoring the development in some NRENs, for whom
Wikimedia is a drop in the ocean (bandwidth and CPU wise). Regardless
whether you talk P2P or grids, they need a global org who looks at building
libraries like Wikipedia, not trying to chase the old National centric
dream. http://www.worlddigitallibrary.org/project/english/index.html
Your ideas about communications and FloNight's ideas about a global council
are the beginnings of a new global institution, which many large non profits
and government agencies are trying to get their head around. So long as we
can get past the domain centric idea of what is "our infrastructure" and
"their infrastructure", and identify which groups are shared between them we
might recognize the public utility.

All I see is global groups, like this one, who have poor communications. But
my comments above presuppose that knowledge is just a tool to get something
done, not a library to be "delivered".   

> 4.           Considering all the never-ending talk going back years, about
> improving Communications in and between projects and groups, will you be
> revisiting your Jan 2007 proposal? HYPERLINK
>
"http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026707.html"
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026707.html

Probably not in this form - if that was a good idea, the community
would have picked it up and run with it already. But I do think we
should find new ways to facilitate volunteer promotional activities.
These don't initially need to take place in a dedicated project;
improving the self-organization tools e.g. on Meta and more
prominently pointing people to the right places seem like good
beginnings.

>>> I think you're right, and made one suggestion. But I will repeat that
timing is everything, and 12 months is a long time in this immediate world.
Your new position proves cream rises to the top pretty quickly these days.
The (half) joke I make is that in an overly promoted world we need to
develop the science of InReach. "The right tools" will be the one's
preferred for the occasion, e.g IRC, skypecast, mebeam, or vrvs for the
regular stuff and accessgrid if communities want to share Atlantean and
Alexandrian conferences. Like wikipedia, it's a matter of sucking and
seeing.

Anyhow, I'll use the cpg as the basis of my endeavours to present tools
global groups can play with, and hopefully in time, agree upon. Ultimately
it's up to them and the bright network geeks I've spoken with in NRENs to
figure out what is utility, what is valuable and (ergo) what is sustainable.


Regards, simon

Best,
Erik



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.5/1228 - Release Date: 16/01/2008
9:01 AM