I like the idea, and I can see the benefit to the local organizations - having quality T-shirts that are unique to the local area, that are both pretty and informative, and are more worthwhile than the standard name+picture etc. It's worth noting that this can be done without WMF approval so long as the logos aren't used (i.e. you can use the pictures and text, giving attribution, and still get 70% of the benefit). It's worth bearing in mind, thought, that Wikipedia text is not written in a particularly exciting/interesting way. ;-)
The central question, though, is whether this helps us achieve WMUK's main objective - collecting and spreading free knowledge. Money isn't the main aim here, really, as there is lower hanging fruit there (e.g. applying for grants from foundations, as the WMF is showing can be done well at the moment, or from generic funding agencies for specific projects). Offline visibility of content in general, though, is good - it helps to spread informative content into places that people might not expect it. At the moment, the balance seems to be skewed a bit too much towards the money side of things though, from what I can see. I also wonder whether doing this in concert with charity shops in touristy areas, rather than for-profit tourist shops, might be a better approach from a charity/non-profit-minded perspective. Mike P.S. With volunteer time: Tango, it's worth remembering that the first step towards having more of this is to support volunteers with ideas. ;-) On 25 May 2010, at 03:27, Brian McNeil [Wikinewsie] wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 03:30 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> On 24 May 2010 03:28, Brian McNeil [Wikinewsie] >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Why not? >> >> The main reason not to do it is the amount of work involved in setting >> it up. At the moment, we are limited far more by volunteer time than >> money. We need convert money into time by hiring staff, not time into >> money by forming this kind of partnership. I think there needs to be a >> benefit in addition to the money if this is going to be worth doing. > > I have to disagree. And, will try to do so as reasonably as I can. > > You are quite correct that the WMF, and chapters, having staff is a key > priority. I am, thankfully, not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV). It > is the expertise of such people that could see boilerplate agreements > drawn up that volunteers/members such as myself could take to local > suppliers. From there, you might only build a £300-400 pound/year income > with one supplier. But, join the dots, ... Take it around the UK. How > many cities? How many articles for local places? A few hours of a > lawyer's time to craft good 'standard' contracts, an hour or two of the > time of volunteers like myself; it pays for itself very quickly, > establishes a steady income stream, and encourages people to contribute > because a tourist from the other side of the world might go home with > the text, or picture, from an article they've contributed to. > > It fits with the attempts at some sort of rapport with museums. Their > gift shops will sell T-shirts; think the "British Museum" doing a tee > with an excerpt from the [[w:Howard Carter]] article, a related picture > they've donated to Commons, and a payment to the WMF to put the enWP > logo on it. > > Cafepress sucks, is overpriced, and 'over there'. Long-term I'm not > talking about shifting a few dozen T-shirts; more like thousands > per-year, per-city. To the intelligent tourist, it is embarrassing to go > home with an "I visited X, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" - with > a "Made-in-China" label on it. > > No. With a little luck, and some help from a UK-based equivalent to Mike > Godwin or Dan Rosenthal, you could have a lot of local companies looking > to give money to the WMF, and protecting the trademarks for us. > > Seriously, just look at your local city, and its heritage. Look at the > Wikipedia[1], and Commons[2] stuff for Edinburgh's most famous green > space. Nothing featured pic/article-wise there. Good enough for a > T-shirt though, and a real incentive for people to get featured material > around that. > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Street_Gardens > [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Princes_Street_Gardens > > This ended up overly-long; but, I assume people will see why I > immediately thought of Thomas as 'doing an an Iain (Dr No) Paisley > impression'. > > Again, Kul is CC'd. I know how busy he's usually kept, and how careful > the WMF is in entering into any agreements. It may be quite some time > before he could comment on what I'm suggesting, but this is preemtive > action; such businesses are usually poor when it comes to respecting > copyright. More likely they'll defy the requirements to work within the > legal framework and hope they don't get caught. > > It doesn't have to be like that, but a flat "no" is opening the door to > the Wild-Wild-East flooding the EU and US with counterfeit goods bearing > WMF logos. What, above all, we can't afford is volunteer time policing > that. > > > > Brian McNeil. > -- > "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news." > · Freelance, community-accredited, journalist. > > Wikinewsies do not officially represent the Wikimedia Foundation, its > chapters, or any of the officially registered projects; all work is > done on a freelance basis. > > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil | http://www.wikinewsie.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
