We can discuss the matter of obscene materials on wikipedia in another thread if you like. But note that your comment alledging my prudishness is both out of place and innaccurate. -Steven
On 8/10/09, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cmon, keep your whining prudishness for another thread. Sheesh. > > On 7/31/09, stevertigo <stv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Walter Vermeir<wal...@wikipedia.be> >> wrote: >> >>> An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international >>> body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for 2009-2010 is 9,4 million US >>> dollar. That is not a lot on a global scale. >>> I find it very normal that institutions are government funded. Probably >>> because from where I am from, Belgium, that is the way it is. But I know >>> that is not so everywhere. In some places the musea, schools, Churches, >>> hospitals and so need to receive donations to function. So that approach >>> would also not be acceptable for some because the have some problem with >>> using public funds for public services. >> >> Interesting points. And yes, accepting government or institutional >> money would probably come with conditions like improving overall >> article quality, and maybe even getting rid of our "fetish" and other >> destructive-sexuality / pro-depravity articles and images - something >> our great many pro-"freedom" dogmatists just don't want to do. >> >> -Stevertigo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
