I see several issues/concerns re sponsoring pages.
Firstly it is a form of advertising, even if we don't name the sponsor on
the page (and there will be pressure to do so) then we will have headlines
along the lines of car maker x launches new peregrine car - sponsors
Wikipedia page on Peregine
On 30 March 2013 20:57, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Hi Asaf, WSC made several points here that address your question and that are
very similar to my own views.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124824.html
After re-reading my email to Jessie and looking again at some of the recent WMF
Monthly Reports, I think I may
Hmm. Once again, I largely agree with WSC. Unless I'm missing something, this
idea is largely about fundraising, and I think it could introduce more problems
than it solves.
The evidence that I've seen suggest that WMF is very successful at fundraising,
but has ongoing difficulties with making
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:36 AM, 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,
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 2:46 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Thirdly there is the vexed issue of paid editing, here the important thing
is to avoid COI.
In my personal opinion it's as important to avoid even the *appearance* of
COI, as that can be just as damaging to
