| |
|
  |
 "Wikipedia Forever" - fundraising campaign, or non-stop laff riot? |
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:47pm) 
Rand Montoya seems to donate $1.00 a lot[/url]. What's up with that?
He's in charge of fundraising, and also in charge of delegating responsibility of the Fundraising Survey to volunteers who (prior to my aid) didn't know how to field a proper survey, so I suspect he's just field testing his various rotating fundraising notices on various Wikimedia projects. (He'll probably submit those donation receipts to petty cash for reimbursement.) Also, Sue Gardner's breakin' out the big bucks... donating at least one-third of one percent of her annual income (not including travel benefits!) back to the Foundation: QUOTE Ms. Susan Gardner
Wikipedia is a treasure! I am happy to support the work of the people who built this amazing repository of information, the biggest the world has ever known. 20:38, 10 November 2009
USD 500.00 "Treasure" or "treasure chest"? Also, it would seem that she's never heard of Google or the Library of Congress (at 20 terabytes, not including manuscripts, photographs, maps, and sound recordings; compare to Wikipedia at 10 to 15 terabytes). This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:05pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 11th November 2009, 3:46pm) This comment is a classic! QUOTE
John Hevelin
Wikipedia is indispensable for my historical and autobiographical projects. I use this site daily. 02:08, 11 November 2009 USD 100.00
… at least he gave a hundred bucks … He doesn't have a BLP. I wonder what his autobiographical projects consist of? And how many might there be? Reminds me of that old IQ test question … maybe it was MMPI — - What would you do if you were walking along the street and found a stamped, self-addressed envelope lying on the sidewalk?
Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/idea.gif) Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/banned.gif) Ja |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 4:02pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:52pm) Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward). Quite: don't they know the difference between banned and indefinitely blocked by Teh Community? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) The Fool (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Casliber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 3,559
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th November 2009, 10:31am) As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects. Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information. Now that would be a damn fine idea. I come across this problem repeatedly. I can access articles of many (but by no means most) medical journals quite easily but other stuff is frustratingly hard. Cas |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 13th November 2009, 1:30am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 12th November 2009, 11:31pm)
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?
That was extensively discussed on wikien-l last December. Of course nothing came of it, because "the community" has virtually no say on how the Foundation uses the donations they receive. Well, I once worked for an organization which had a Lexis/Nexis site license. From what I understand, the license was fairly expensive. I don't know how much the ProQuest site license is, but it may be cheaper because NewsStand, I believe, has less capability than Lexis/Nexis. NewsStand covers about 350 newspapers while Lexis/Nexis covers a number of newspapers and magazines, if I understand correctly. I would think that an organization trying to use volunteers to build a credible encyclopedia would try to help them out with it in some way, but again, the Foundation seems to keep trying to prove that Greg's criticisms of them are right. |
|
|
|
|
|
| carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
I don't want to read too much into Brion's responses here, but I do detect a faint hint of "fuck you, Erik"? QUOTE Also, can I ask explicitly: what exactly is the 2009 funding drive doing to secure the long-term ("forever") future of Wikipedia? It sounds a bizarre promise to make, like a toothbrush giving you eternal life. But if there is a long-term plan being funded, shouldn't the landing page at least try to explain it? Right now it's "Wikipedia forever" / Click / "Huh? What happened to forever?" Why did you use a "forever" hook and then not even try to justify it? Rd232 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC) As far as I know there's nothing particularly different about the actual fundraising or spending targets from previous years; as before the targets are for covering next year's budget and maybe a little extra. --brion 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So "forever" is just marketing? There's no special long-term planning substance? That doesn't really matter as long as you've got something to point to try and justify the hook. But if you don't even try it makes the claim really weird (quite separate from the linguistic criticisms made, that "Wikipedia forever" sounds tweeny). Rd232 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've asked Rand to provide some details on this; all I can do myself is point at the FAQ which indicates we're targeting about 3/4 of this fiscal year's budgeted expenses for the public donation campaign. --brion 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous editor |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 678
Joined:
Member No.: 7,398
|
hilariously awful ads. I laughed at reading the discussion. Several users thought the banner was vandalism/a hack. Idiotic decision. The community's input was requested, they clearly opposed it, and it was put up anyway. Someone should start an article about some of the memorably terrible Wikipedia ad campaigns. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources to draw from. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Blocked CODE upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice and it's gone, thankfully. This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Brutus |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 96
Joined:
Member No.: 3,898
|
They seem to list corporate donations here. Donate/BenefactorsIs the Foundation choosy from who they take money from? Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate, (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:49pm) Proof that Wikipedia is a cult: Domas Mituzas' pledge. QUOTE Domas Mituzas
consider taking my soul too. It appears this donation has been removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
