<CPOV> post-10 years' celebrations, the add debate once again?
hfordsa at gmail.com
Mon Feb 7 01:45:10 CET 2011
I agree with you (mostly), Dror. I was a part of the Wikimedia
Foundation Advisory Board once and an enthusiastic contributor as you
were. I'm still enthusiastic about the potential - I just feel like
there are problems here that will not be solved by money alone.
On 2011/02/06 12:25 PM, Dror Kamir wrote:
> Wikipedia is only one of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> Their goal, as they present it, is to encourage free content policy
> and to support the creation and distribution of free content
> worldwide. They do manage to collect more donations each year
> (although they present it as "money for Wikipedia", since this is the
> "brand" that everyone knows), and they do spend more every year. And
> yet it would be wrong to judge the usefulness of these spending by the
> activity on Wikipedia. The question is whether they are successful in
> promoting the entire aspects of their goal. I don't have a decisive
> answer to that, partially because some of their new ideas are in a
> very early stage (that is, money is already spent for hiring people
> and planning, but it is hard to tell whether there will be fruits at
> the end of the road).
> Disclosure: I used to be an enthusiastic volunteer of the WM
> Foundation and even traveled to conferences on their expanse. I'm
> still involved in some of their project, though much less than I used
> too. To be honest, I have never been in full agreement with the
> Foundation's policy, but I value their work.
> בתאריך 06/02/11 19:41, ציטוט Heather Ford:
>> Re. Hunter's piece, seems amazing to me how much there is about how
>> Wikipedia could better raise its money without looking at the
>> Foundation's rapidly increasing operating budget. Hunter says that
>> Wikipedia 'depressingly, seems to be perpetually on the fringe of
>> solvency'. But if you look at the Wikimedia Foundation Financial
>> Reports http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports you'll
>> see how well they're doing financially and how every year seem to
>> make comments about how they raised more money than they ever wanted.
>> See below:
>> 'The total operating budget for the 2010-11 annual plan is $20.4
>> million. In comparison, 2009-10 projected spending will be $8.7
>> million (against a plan of $9.4 million). In 2008-09, the Foundation
>> spent (cash expenses excluding depreciation and in-kind expenses)
>> $5.2 million; in 2007-08, $3.0 million; in 06-07, $1.4 million; in
>> 05-06 $0.5 million; in 04-05 $0.1 million. In general, spending has
>> increased every year, as the projects and the organization have grown.'
>> Um. But Wikipedia - at least the English version - is stagnating,
>> right? Is all this extra spending necessary/worthwhile? Would love to
>> have this debate before working out how to feed the ever-growing beast.
>> On 2011/02/06 12:01 AM, Dror Kamir wrote:
>>> I tend to agree with the first talkback - This idea is even worse
>>> than introducing ads, it is actually a proposal to introduce covert
>>> Ads are not merely an aesthetic nuisance (on the contrary - in many
>>> cases they are very artistic and aesthetic). Ads are a tool used for
>>> persuading people, and as such they can turn into harassment (like
>>> having a group of people going with you wherever you go, each of
>>> them try to persuade you to do something or think something. Unless
>>> these "people" are ads, such an experience justify calling the
>>> police or having a psychiatric examination). Ads are also, by
>>> definition, biased, while Wikipedia still tries to adhere to neutral
>>> point of view (hopefully).
>>> Marking ads and/or separating them from the regular content of
>>> newspapers, magazines, TV shows etc. is a common practice to ensure
>>> fairness. Commercial productions sometime use covert advertisement,
>>> but WP is not a commercial production, and if regular ads seem
>>> inappropriate to many Wikipedians, covert advertisement would be
>>> even worse.
>>> בתאריך 05/02/11 23:42, ציטוט Geert Lovink:
>>>> cpov mailing list
>>>> cpov at listcultures.org
>>> cpov mailing list
>>> cpov at listcultures.org
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
UC Berkeley School of Information
http://hblog.org | https://twitter.com/hfordsa
New blog on information privacy and identity:
More information about the cpov