Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pleased to accept the epithet. Pro-freedom dogmatist describes me nicely with respect to many areas of life, including both sexuality and access to information. I think it comes close to describing most of the people at Wikipedia in matters of personal life and of information. I agree with access to information - and further concede that shining light on dark concepts helps to destroy them. I agree also with pro-freedom concepts, though I must ask that you concede my point that being dogmatic is not as good as being intelligent. And that's not to mention that dogmatists will often do more damage to their cause than help. Those who support censorship are obviously not going to be our sources of funding. Well we did turn down that NAMBLA funding for *some reason - was it because they were not pro-freedom? - Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
Dark concepts? Really? As encyclopedists, it is rarely our job to judge, rather we are here to document from a neutral point of view. Please remember that darkness is subjective, I'm sure there are practices you consider dark that I do not and probably vice-versa. Anyhow, David Goodman said those who support censorship are obviously not going to be our sources of funding, NOT we will gladly accept funds from anybody who is opposed to censorship. Mark On 8/3/09, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pleased to accept the epithet. Pro-freedom dogmatist describes me nicely with respect to many areas of life, including both sexuality and access to information. I think it comes close to describing most of the people at Wikipedia in matters of personal life and of information. I agree with access to information - and further concede that shining light on dark concepts helps to destroy them. I agree also with pro-freedom concepts, though I must ask that you concede my point that being dogmatic is not as good as being intelligent. And that's not to mention that dogmatists will often do more damage to their cause than help. Those who support censorship are obviously not going to be our sources of funding. Well we did turn down that NAMBLA funding for *some reason - was it because they were not pro-freedom? - Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:52 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting points. And yes, accepting government or institutional money would probably come with conditions like improving overall article quality, and maybe even getting rid of our fetish and other destructive-sexuality / pro-depravity articles and images - something our great many pro-freedom dogmatists just don't want to do. As opposed to you, who'd just love to destroy that content to get money? -Matthew ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote: As opposed to you, who'd just love to destroy that content to get money? Destroy what content? Recall I used the terms fetish and other destructive-sexuality / pro-depravity articles and images and referred to people who support their ubiquitous access as pro-freedom dogmatists. Granted there are light, grey, and also black areas within the overall realm of what might loosely be called sexuality, and we need to deal with most of them, but thats not to say we need to deal with every destroyed se x attached concept as if it were a ubiquitous part of any loving relationship. Wikipedia is censored after all. The question then is about scale and degree. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
W dniu 31.07.2009 01:16, stevertigo pisze: It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it? Why do you think so? Any basis for that? masti ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
I'm pleased to accept the epithet. Pro-freedom dogmatist describes me nicely with respect to many areas of life, including both sexuality and access to information. I think it comes close to describing most of the people at Wikipedia in matters of personal life and of information. Those who support censorship are obviously not going to be our sources of funding. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote: As opposed to you, who'd just love to destroy that content to get money? Destroy what content? Recall I used the terms fetish and other destructive-sexuality / pro-depravity articles and images and referred to people who support their ubiquitous access as pro-freedom dogmatists. Granted there are light, grey, and also black areas within the overall realm of what might loosely be called sexuality, and we need to deal with most of them, but thats not to say we need to deal with every destroyed se x attached concept as if it were a ubiquitous part of any loving relationship. Wikipedia is censored after all. The question then is about scale and degree. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
2009/7/31 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it? -Steven Nope. Many charities of various sizes rely on year to year donations. Financial self-sufficiency is mostly limited to various internet projects that manage to replace donations with ads and merchandise. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: Nope. Many charities of various sizes rely on year to year donations. Financial self-sufficiency is mostly limited to various internet projects that manage to replace donations with ads and merchandise. Keep in mind Geni, that Wikipedia is not so much an internet project as it is an encyclopedia - the most important general information resource on the planet - if not yet the most accurate and substantive. The internet is just the recently-developed efficient content delivery system - just as the wiki software is just an interface to manage the databased content. The project transcends both wiki and internet - which are just the tools that make it work. - Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
2009/7/31 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: My impression is that Wikimedia currently lives year to year on donations, and that reserves are sufficient to pay a skeleton crew of fundraisers. I'm sure its been discussed before though, but yes, it would seem to make sense for Wikimedia - established as its flagship project is - to build an endowment or trust - donation-seeded and transparently managed of course - to cover most yearly costs. My understanding is it was pretty much hand-to-mouth for ages, and that one of Sue Gardner's big projects is making it less so, precisely as you describe - which would be why the WMF has hired quite a few fundraisers in the past year or so. The idea being to build up a reserve and then make that something we might be able to live on. I can't see donations ending, though - and remember that the last one pulled in over its target quite nicely. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
stevertigo schreef: It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it? -Steven Wikipedia Co lives on donations (mainly) as a matter of choice. It is the NPOV on the Foundation level. Commercializing Wikipedia to earn an income is nearly a taboo subject. An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for 2009-2010 is 9,4 million US dollar. That is not a lot on a global scale. I find it very normal that institutions are government funded. Probably because from where I am from, Belgium, that is the way it is. But I know that is not so everywhere. In some places the musea, schools, Churches, hospitals and so need to receive donations to function. So that approach would also not be acceptable for some because the have some problem with using public funds for public services. So donations it will be. -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Walter Vermeirwal...@wikipedia.be wrote: An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for 2009-2010 is 9,4 million US dollar. That is not a lot on a global scale. I find it very normal that institutions are government funded. Probably because from where I am from, Belgium, that is the way it is. But I know that is not so everywhere. In some places the musea, schools, Churches, hospitals and so need to receive donations to function. So that approach would also not be acceptable for some because the have some problem with using public funds for public services. Interesting points. And yes, accepting government or institutional money would probably come with conditions like improving overall article quality, and maybe even getting rid of our fetish and other destructive-sexuality / pro-depravity articles and images - something our great many pro-freedom dogmatists just don't want to do. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The end of donations
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it? -Steven ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
stevertigo wrote: It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it? Do you mean building an endowment? Because the Foundation management believes that donors expect their money to be spent on charitable activities, and that reserves should only be sufficient to cover income fluctuations over the next few years. I'm told that this is the prevailing wisdom in the non-profit world. However, the reserve is enough that if one income source were to stop, others could be developed before money to pay the fundraising staff dried up. So it's self-sufficient in that way. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
