How would sponsorship money for a page be spent to make the sponsorship
meaningful?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Walling" <[email protected]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[email protected]>
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
<[email protected]<javascript:;>>
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" <[email protected]
>> <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
>> [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [email protected] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected] <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
