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.org><javascript:;> >>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/** >>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://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-l<https://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-l<https://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-l<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 <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<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
