Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Ellie Young as Conference Coordinator
Quite agree about the lack of benefits for most of the population. The Cape Town stadium is now a large burden on the ratepayers as they built it in one of the most inappropriate places for functionality. It is now a virtually unused and unusable monument to corruption, greed and stupidity, but it doesn't look like anyone is likely to gain by the lesson except the corrupt. Cheers, Peter in Cape Town - Original Message - From: Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Ellie Young as Conference Coordinator Wikimania in Brazil in 2015, so no problems. ;) And, yeah, some strange sport... On 29 March 2013 20:09, Everton Zanella Alvarenga everton.alvare...@okfn.org wrote: [off-topic] 2013/3/29 Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org I hear 2014 will be a very busy year in Brasil Some sport thing with a ball and a large green pitch :) Yeah, we are going to have the world cup, where millions and millions of reais (our currency) is going to corrupts to an event that lasts only a few days and only high middle class to rich people (and foreigners, hey!) will have access to. And silly people believe in the silly arguments of economical benefits from this crap. Just hace a look at South Africa case. :( Fortunately, I hope I will stay far from Brazil to don't see this, because only who live here and use Brazilian public services (I am not mentioneing the blind middle class) will see the consequences in the mid and long term of so much corruption. Hopefully hotels will be so expensive that Wikimania here won't be sustainable. Tom -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) OKFN Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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: 2641/5712 - Release Date: 03/29/13 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
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. Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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 monom...@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@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
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.tho...@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 monom...@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@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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 cfrank...@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.tho...@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 monom...@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@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
On Mar 30, 2013 9:46 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, It is worth remembering that we don't actually have a problem with fundraising. We can raise enormous amounts of money incredibly easily by putting banners on the fifth most visited website on the world. (I don't want to diminish the work of the foundation and chapter fundraising teams, but they only have to work really hard because we have so few people working on fundraising compared to other charities with similar budgets.) The kind of people that would sponsor a page probably donate anyway because of the banners. You might manage to increase their donation size, but that's not really important. If you want to come up with new fundraising strategies, try and think of ones that attract donors we wouldn't otherwise get. For example, legacies (donations left in people's wills) would be a great way to diversify our revenue. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] reminder: Office Hours at 11PST, 6PM UTC
Sue and I will be having office hours in a few hours to answer questions on her decision and the Transition Team and the next steps. (Europeans: please note that different implementations of daylight savings time has made the current difference between PST and CET 8 hours rather than 9!) Regards Jan-Bart ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
Why would anyone want to sponsor a page? What would they get out of it? Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com To: cfrank...@halonetwork.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@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 cfrank...@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.tho...@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 monom...@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@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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: 2641/5713 - Release Date: 03/29/13 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
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.southw...@telkomsa.net Why would anyone want to sponsor a page? What would they get out of it? Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com To: cfrank...@halonetwork.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org wikimedia-l@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 cfrank...@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.tho...@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 monom...@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@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgjavascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
[Wikimedia-l] questions on the use of banner space to promote a cause
In today's Office Hour[1] I had some questions about the Promotional Use of Website Assets section of the Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline[2] which I'm not sure were addressed in accordance with what that guideline actually says. And it was made clear that decisions about it have been made in one-on-one and small group discussions, instead of the wider consultations which the guideline contemplates. I've asked similar questions on the Advocacy Advisors list which weren't directly answered. So I want to ask some specific questions and a general question of the community at large: (A) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to CISPA advocacy?[3][4] (B) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to CALEA advocacy?[5] (C) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to CFAA advocacy?[6] (C) As there are economic issues on which advocacy would support the broad volunteer editor community, but which could in some cases be seen as politically partisan, where should the line be drawn on economic advocacy? As a more specific practical reformulation of this question, how bad would poverty in developed countries have to become before it would be appropriate for the Foundation to advocate on the issue? Is it already appropriate? Would it only be appropriate if the proportion of editors leaving the project due to personal poverty was increasing? Would it never be appropriate? Sincerely, James Salsman [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2013-03-30 [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline#Promotional_Use_of_Website_Assets [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/consequences-cispas-broad-legal-immunity [4] http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/03/22/pro-cispa-lawmaker-deletes-retweet-about-money-received-from-pro-cispa-groups/ [5] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/26/andrew_weissmann_fbi_wants_real_time_gmail_dropbox_spying_power.html [6] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/congress-new-cfaa-draft-could-have-put-aaron-swartz-jail-decades-longer-he-was ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a Wikipedian in residence who is brought in to do a mixture of training other people, and paying special attention to articles in a particular area of interest. I imagine this avoids trouble in most cases mainly because the goals are aligned: if we believe the cultural organization is, like us, only aiming at high-quality, accurate, NPOV coverage of their subject area, rather than any kind of self-aggrandizement or POV-pushing, then we have much in common. -Mark On 3/30/13 1:55 AM, Mono wrote: Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't get attention. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote: Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved. On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its pages for adoption (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the donations queue, but I was wondering if this has ever been discussed/considered before. Thanks, Strainu ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a Wikipedian in residence who is brought in to do a mixture of training other people, and paying special attention to articles in a particular area of interest. I believe Wikipedians in Residence generally avoid actually editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. They just provide support to others, that aren't conflicted, to edit them. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
How would sponsorship money for a page be spent to make the sponsorship meaningful? Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@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.tho...@googlemail.comjavascript:; 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 monom...@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@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] questions on the use of banner space to promote a cause
On 30 March 2013 20:57, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: In today's Office Hour[1] I had some questions about the Promotional Use of Website Assets section of the Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline[2] which I'm not sure were addressed in accordance with what that guideline actually says. And it was made clear that decisions about it have been made in one-on-one and small group discussions, instead of the wider consultations which the guideline contemplates. I've asked similar questions on the Advocacy Advisors list which weren't directly answered. So I want to ask some specific questions and a general question of the community at large: (A) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to CISPA advocacy?[3][4] (B) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to CALEA advocacy?[5] (C) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to CFAA advocacy?[6] No since none of those have any impact on our core issues. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] questions on the use of banner space to promote a cause
I too would say (A) no, (B) no, (C) no and never. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
Replying off my phone here, so no signature or lengthy response... For Wikipedians in Residence, it varies I believe. I've seen some WiRs edit articles directly, whereas others, including WMUK's WiRs, don't edit articles about their institution at all, instead focussing on training, digitisation, or making sources easily available. On Mar 30, 2013 10:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a Wikipedian in residence who is brought in to do a mixture of training other people, and paying special attention to articles in a particular area of interest. I believe Wikipedians in Residence generally avoid actually editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. They just provide support to others, that aren't conflicted, to edit them. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
