[Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

[Peter Southwood]

How would sponsorship money for a page be spent to make the sponsorship 
meaningful?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Walling" <steven.walling at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"


> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:
>
>> Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're 
>> adopting
>> an animal you don't  get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
>> Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
>> the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
>> you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at
>> all.
>>
>> I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's 
>> been
>> discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this
>> idea with paid editing.
>
>
> Big +1 to this comment.
>
> There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and none
> of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing. For
> example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of this
> article. "This article sponsored by 70 Wikipedia readers like you.
> Contribute today by editing or donating." Or something like that.
>
> Anyway this discussion should be on a public wiki, ideally Meta, and we
> should invite Megan, Zack, and the rest of the fundraising team, not to
> mention the wider community.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton 
>> <morton.thomas at googlemail.com<javascript:;>>
>> a
>> scris:
>> > 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:;><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 <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 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: 2641/5714 - Release Date: 03/30/13
>