[Wikipedia-l] Donation History

[Erik Moeller]

Jaap-
>> People will just have to get used to it.

> It's not new.

True, but it's now more ubiquitous than ever.

> Why not raise much more using advertising and pay the authors
> some?

But which authors do you want to pay? The guy who writes 200 Star Trek  
episode summaries? The one who collects bird photos? The one who spends 6  
months researching a single subject and then writes a 500 word article  
about it? It would end up being unfair one way or the other.

Authors can eventually be paid using a "Free Software Bazaar" like model,  
where people can describe specific projects and individuals supply  
(pooled) funding. Basically WikiMoney without the Wiki.

> There still seem to be enough people willing to be amateur
> writers for a couple of hours a day, but you can't expect
> professional writers to write for money all day and then
> write for free in their spare time.

Oh, but I am a professional writer, and I do write for free in my spare  
time. I'm working on a book and simulatenously checking RC to look for  
stuff to edit. We've beaten Britannica in terms of quantity in less than 3  
years, and we'll beat them in terms of quality as well, without payment if  
necessary.

> It's probably less bother than having to raise money through
> charity drives etc.

It's no bother at all. We just need to automate it to some degree, which  
is also true for ads.

> I'm against the government subsidizing anything that should
> be able to gain it's own money.

I'm against silly philosophical justifications for not accepting good hard  
cash ;-). The money would likely go to some arms manufacturer, or some  
poorly conceived EU initiative otherwise. I agree that it's not hard to  
raise money. I also think that it's always a good idea to tap additional  
sources.

> What is your fundamental problem with advertising, since you
> seem to have one?

I won't rehearse all the arguments that have been posted a billion times.  
But if you nag me again, maybe I'll put it into an FAQ somewhere. For  
starters, see the K5 discussion:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/12/29/55411/573

> Advertising when applied properly is also additional information.

Sure, but it's also propaganda.

> But why? In heaven's name? Please consider that every euro
> that you would get, will have gone through several layers
> and eacah layer will have taken his part of the loot.

Damn lawyers! Kill them, kill them all!

Oh, you said layer. That's OK then.

> your project will only get
> money as long as it's hip and that can change anytime.

Exactly. So let's get it while we're hot!

> What when the big regular encyclopedia publishers find out
> and send their flock of lobbyists to Brussels?

None of them is as international as we are, none of them is non-profit and  
open content. And the only company that we should be worried about is  
Microsoft, the others do not have the resources to fight us.

>> This model of voluntary giving will become much more wide-spread. It's
>> called the [[gift economy]].

> Like in shareware, which never really worked on a big scale? ;-)

It didn't? I know shareware authors who've made 100K or more only on the  
basis of more or less voluntary donations, and that was before the web and  
PayPal. The key are ease of transaction, reputation mechanisms and some  
kind of feedback. The Dean campaign just made >$1.5 million in one week.  
We can learn a lot from them.

I find it rather funny when people point to the examples of donation  
campaigns that didn't work to prove that gift economies can't work. That's  
like pointing to a failed company to argue that capitalism can't succeed.

Regards,

Erik