[Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

[Strainu]

What do they get when they donate? What do they get when they "adopt"
wildlife?

Still, some people are donating and/or are adopting wildlife.

Strainu


2013/3/30 Peter Southwood <peter.southwood at telkomsa.net>

> Why would anyone want to sponsor a page?
> What would they get out of it?
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Darnell" <jane023 at gmail.com>
> To: <cfranklin at halonetwork.net>; "Wikimedia Mailing List" <
> wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
>
>
>  As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard
>> to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
>> to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
>> advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
>> placed ones get a higher "price". That said, does the sponsorship only
>> apply to the page in one language? And how long does the sponsorship
>> stay with the page? Forever? That doesn't seem right. Putting the
>> sponsor's name visibly on the page can also be confusing, because most
>> readers will assume sponsor=writer, and this is incorrect. You could
>> create a donor's list though that links to the pages and have the
>> sponsor names listed there with the year of their sponsorship, with
>> each year an update possible with the amount paid (or amount block in
>> a scheme of bronze, silver, gold). This way high profile pages could
>> have more sponsors. With the sponsor amounts as a guide, individual
>> Wikipedia contributors may apply for a mini-grant to cover costs of
>> source books, etc for future work based on past work in these pages.
>>
>> 2013/3/30, Craig Franklin <cfranklin at halonetwork.net>:
>>
>>> It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project
>>> like Wikipedia is.  Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
>>> promote volunteerism?  If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
>>> encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
>>> particular page, then that's a possibility that we ought to make
>>> ourselves
>>> open to.  Volunteerism, of course, has served the movement well and got
>>> us
>>> to where we find ourselves today, but it is not and should not be
>>> considered an end unto itself.
>>>
>>> Of course, as has been pointed out, there are potential pitfalls with
>>> this
>>> model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential COI
>>> issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing in
>>> others.  However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those sort
>>> of possibilities out of hand.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig Franklin
>>>
>>> On 30 March 2013 11:29, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas at googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  It's a weird dichotomy.
>>>>
>>>> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
>>>> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>>>>
>>>> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>>>>
>>>> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
>>>> benefit.
>>>>
>>>> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
>>>> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
>>>> this
>>>> entire field in GAs in a year.
>>>>
>>>> Without that it will take me a good five years
>>>>
>>>> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
>>>> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
>>>> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > How so?
>>>> >
>>>> > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
>>>> > written encyclopedia.
>>>> >
>>>> > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
>>>> editors.
>>>> > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
>>>> whole
>>>> > concept would be extremely divisive.
>>>> > ______________________________**_________________
>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org><javascript:;>
>>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**
>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>> >
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>>
>>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5713 - Release Date: 03/29/13
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>