Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not appealing to the PR benefits here, or to the way this action would promote the climate change cause in general. I'm just saying that as an organisation composed of rational, moral people, Wikimedia has as much responsibility to act as does any other organisation or individual. Even accepting the premise that subsidizing renewable energy is a moral duty, that doesn't mean Wikimedia should fund it, any more than it should be spending its budget on feeding starving children. Wikimedia should not be spending any significant amount of donated money on things that do not directly advance its mission, because people donate to fund its mission, not unrelated causes (however important). It's very different from a private individual or company in this respect -- Wikimedia has a duty to spend its money on the things it's accepting donations for. (If anyone else wants to spend money on this sort of thing, though, I entirely agree that subsidizing renewable energy makes much more sense than trying to cut power usage. Society is not just going to cut its energy usage by 90% -- the resulting drop in quality of life would probably exceed any caused by global warming. The only way to achieve drastic cuts in CO2 emissions is to stop using fossil fuels for power, and that will only happen when there are economical alternatives. Widespread private subsidization of renewables is a relatively direct and reliable way to help make that happen -- although breakthroughs in fundamental research would obviously be preferable, they're uncertain.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not appealing to the PR benefits here, or to the way this action would promote the climate change cause in general. I'm just saying that as an organisation composed of rational, moral people, Wikimedia has as much responsibility to act as does any other organisation or individual. Even accepting the premise that subsidizing renewable energy is a moral duty, that doesn't mean Wikimedia should fund it, any more than it should be spending its budget on feeding starving children. Wikimedia should not be spending any significant amount of donated money on things that do not directly advance its mission, because people donate to fund its mission, not unrelated causes (however important). It's very different from a private individual or company in this respect -- Wikimedia has a duty to spend its money on the things it's accepting donations for. While the major program spending that Wikimedia performs should be defined by its mission, I think small spending decisions, relating to day-to-day operations, can be made without recourse to our mission. For instance, the office staff should be able use recycled paper without there being a Board resolution to put it in the mission statement. In terms of the ethics, there's a big difference between inaction on an issue, say poverty in Africa, and taking direct action in order to make things worse. Wikimedia is not paying people to take food from children's mouths, but it is paying people to burn coal for electricity. I don't think we can claim to be mere bystanders. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: How about moving the servers (5) from Florida to a cold country (Alaska, Canada, Finland, Russia) so that they can be used to heat offices or homes ? It might not be unrealistic as one may read such things as the solution was to provide nearby homes with our waste heat (6). Or Switzerland not only because it's a cold country but in Switzerland it's already in place the idea to use green energy with a small additional cost. In this case the power supplier assure that this energy is produced with zero CO2 emission (i.e. hydroelectric energy). In my case (I am IT manager) I have provided my data center with a system of air conditioned with free cooling, in this case when the external temperature is lower than 17 °C, the system of air conditioned is supplied with external air without consumption of energy. I have the energy costs reduced of 40% (my location in Switzerland has less than 17 °C at least for 50% of total days because the nights in Switzerland are cool). It could be 50% but I reuse the 10% to have green energy. In any case the total amount is more than 50% of savings because the hot air is addressed in the offices (only during the Winter and Autumn) and the maintenance of system of air conditioned is drastically reduced with less problem of damage. At start it's a big cost to have a system of free coling, but after two or three years it's already refunded with the saved money. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not appealing to the PR benefits here, or to the way this action would promote the climate change cause in general. I'm just saying that as an organisation composed of rational, moral people, Wikimedia has as much responsibility to act as does any other organisation or individual. Even accepting the premise that subsidizing renewable energy is a moral duty, that doesn't mean Wikimedia should fund it, any more than it should be spending its budget on feeding starving children. Wikimedia should not be spending any significant amount of donated money on things that do not directly advance its mission, because people donate to fund its mission, not unrelated causes (however important). It's very different from a private individual or company in this respect -- Wikimedia has a duty to spend its money on the things it's accepting donations for. While the major program spending that Wikimedia performs should be defined by its mission, I think small spending decisions, relating to day-to-day operations, can be made without recourse to our mission. For instance, the office staff should be able use recycled paper without there being a Board resolution to put it in the mission statement. In terms of the ethics, there's a big difference between inaction on an issue, say poverty in Africa, and taking direct action in order to make things worse. Wikimedia is not paying people to take food from children's mouths, but it is paying people to burn coal for electricity. I don't think we can claim to be mere bystanders. I agree with both of you. Funding renewables isn't really a small thing, and so doesn't seem discretionary. At the same time, Wikimedia isn't a bystander, and it does contribute to the problem. We are a charity distributing a free public good to the world. I don't think it is out of whack with that to want to also act as responsible citizens. So perhaps something like this actually should be in the mission. Would it be crazy to have a board resolution that said, in essence, Wikimedia should take reasonable and cost-effective steps to reduce or offset its carbon footprint and other impacts on the environment? Assuming the Board and the executive director can share a similar idea of what is reasonable (a few percent of the budget perhaps?), then taking a position like that actually feels like a responsible thing for a thoughtful charity to do. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
I personally support any initiative that would reduce energy consumption. I wonder though (in the pure sense of the term, i.e. I have no idea) if the biggest consumption of energy for the Wikimedia Foundation isn't actually travel. Cars consume huge amounts of fossil fuels, and don't get me started on airplanes (I do seem to recall reading somewhere though that the next Wikimania aims to have near zero impact, which is a Good ThingTM). Александр Дмитрий Alexandr Dmitri This message and any attachments (the message) are intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you have received this message by mistake, please delete it and immediately inform me by replying to this email address. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except after formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. I can not therefore be held liable for the message if it is modified. Ce message et toutes les pièces-jointes (ci-après le « message » ou « courrier email ») sont établis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci de le détruire et de m'en avertir immédiatement en répondant à cette adresse email. Toute utilisation de ce message non conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. L'internet ne permettant pas d'assurer l'intégrité de ce message, je décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message, dans l'hypothèse où il aurait été modifié. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
On 12/14/2009 05:50 AM, Tim Starling wrote: In terms of the ethics, there's a big difference between inaction on an issue, say poverty in Africa, and taking direct action in order to make things worse. Wikimedia is not paying people to take food from children's mouths, but it is paying people to burn coal for electricity. I don't think we can claim to be mere bystanders. I think that's the key distinction here. Our mission is to make the world better in a pretty specific way, and we should stick to that. However, that's not a license to make the world worse in other ways. For example, when we get rid of old servers, we can't just dump the toxic components in the nearest river, even if that's cheaper. We have to dispose of them responsibly, even if polluting is nominally better for our mission. The same principle would seem to apply to the CO2 we currently emit. The tricky part is the extent to which it's practical for us alone to take action, as opposed to waiting for society to catch up. Assuming Domas's number (which seems ballpark correct) and the numbers in our article on green tags, we'd be looking at an expense of circa $20k/yr. That's real money, but at 4% of our hosting budget, it doesn't seem crazy. There are definitely a lot of thorny questions about the quality of the tags, so good ones could be more, but perhaps not much more. If we get interested in this, I know an expert in the field, and I'm glad to put someone at the foundation in touch. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
I strongly encourage those who are interested in this to create a proposal for strategic planning consideration... Http://strategy.Wikimedia.org . The strategic planning initiative is thinking about the wmf's next five years... This type of conversation is very welcome there. Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Teofilo wrote: You have probably heard about CO2 and the conference being held these days in Copenhagen (1). You have probably heard about the goal of carbon neutrality at the Wikimania conference in Gdansk in July 2010 (2). You may want to discuss the basic and perhaps naive wishes I have written down on the strategy wiki about paper consumption (3). Paper production has a net negative impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration if the wood comes from a sustainably managed forest or plantation. As long as people keep their PediaPress books for a long time, or dispose of them in a way that does not produce methane, then I don't see a problem. Do we have an idea of the energy consumption related to the online access to a Wikipedia article ? Some people say that a few minutes long search on a search engine costs as much energy as boiling water for a cup of tea : is that story true in the case of Wikipedia (4) ? No, it is not true, which makes what I'm about to suggest somewhat more affordable. Given the lack of political will to make deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, and the pitiful excuses politicians make for inaction; given the present nature of the debate, where special interests fund campaigns aimed at stalling any progress by appealing to the ignorance of the public; given the nature of the Foundation, an organisation which raises its funds and conducts most of its activities in the richest and most polluting country in the world: I think there is an argument for voluntary reduction of emissions by the Foundation. I don't mean by buying tree-planting or efficiency offsets, of which I am deeply skeptical. I think the best way for Wikimedia to take action on climate change would be by buying renewable energy certificates (RECs). Buying RECs from new wind and solar electricity generators is a robust way to reduce CO2 emissions, with minimal danger of double-counting, forward-selling, outright fraud, etc., problems which plague the offset industry. If Domas's figure of 100 kW is correct, then buying a matching number of RECs would be a small portion of our hosting budget. If funding is nevertheless a problem, then we could have a restricted donation drive, and thereby get a clear mandate from our reader community. Our colocation facilities would not need to do anything, such as changing their electricity provider. We would, however, need monitoring of our total electricity usage, so that we would know how many RECs to buy. I'm not appealing to the PR benefits here, or to the way this action would promote the climate change cause in general. I'm just saying that as an organisation composed of rational, moral people, Wikimedia has as much responsibility to act as does any other organisation or individual. Ultimately, the US will need to reduce its per-capita emissions by around 90% by 2050 to have any hope of avoiding catastrophe (see e.g. [1]). Nature doesn't have exemptions or loopholes, we can't continue emitting by moving economic activity from corporations to charities. [1] http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp9.htm#tab9_3, and see chapter 4.3 for the impacts of 550 case. -- Tim Starling ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: While the major program spending that Wikimedia performs should be defined by its mission, I think small spending decisions, relating to day-to-day operations, can be made without recourse to our mission. For instance, the office staff should be able use recycled paper without there being a Board resolution to put it in the mission statement. If the sums we're discussing are so small that they can be reasonably compared to the difference between using recycled and regular paper, I don't think they're worth spending much time or effort on either way. How much money would we be talking about to offset Wikimania alone? In terms of the ethics, there's a big difference between inaction on an issue, say poverty in Africa, and taking direct action in order to make things worse. Wikimedia is not paying people to take food from children's mouths, but it is paying people to burn coal for electricity. I don't think we can claim to be mere bystanders. By that logic, Wikimedia is actively supporting war (or whatever other government policy you dislike) by withholding income tax from its employees' paychecks to give to the US government. Sure, it has no real choice about paying taxes; but it has no real choice about using electricity, either. If using electricity makes you personally responsible for funding renewable energy, why doesn't paying taxes make you personally responsible for funding antiwar organizations? Of course, paying taxes funds war in a very direct way. The money goes to the feds and then straight to the military, where a large fraction is immediately spent on guns and bombs, which are possibly used to kill people within a year or two. In contrast, by emitting carbon dioxide, you're contributing to an effect that won't be a big deal for at least a few more decades. And that will probably become no big deal again a few decades after that when everyone's adapted to it. And that won't directly kill anyone in any event, mainly just cause economic harm. And that might not happen anyway if some clever soul comes up with a good enough fossil fuel replacement at any point in the next thirty years. Or if it becomes economical to pump greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Or if some cheap scheme is devised to reduce warming some other way, like releasing particles to block sunlight. Or if some unforeseen negative feedback causes warming to not get too bad after all. And of course maybe we've already hit a critical threshold and cutting emissions is pointless by now. Plus you can add the fact that Wikimedia's contribution to the affair isn't likely to be even measurable, especially if the major damage is from catastrophic changes (e.g., ice caps melting) rather than incremental ones. How much money do you owe for increasing mean global temperature by a billionth of a degree fifty years from now? All in all, I'd say Wikimedia has a lot more culpability for people being shot. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
The next strategic planning office hours are Tuesday from 20:00-21:00 UTC (12-1PM PST, 3-4PM EST). Office hours are on #wikimedia-strategy on freenode. You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net/ and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. Another option is http://chat.wikizine.org. You can also, of course, use your favorite IRC chat client. See you there! Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454) Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Secret Santa!
Hello Wikimedians, Austin and I thought it might be fun to have a Secret Santa New Year's drawing among Wikimedia friends! We're basing it on the MetaFilter community Secret Santa drawing, which has 256 participants and uses a website called Elfster. Totally optional of course, but totally fun to get random things in the mail from other community members. Here's the link to sign up and join the group, if you want to participate: http://www.elfster.com/apps/exchange/Join.aspx?euid=D78EF055-CF27-4E8F-8E29-205AE28927F6 How it works: * Sign up at Elfster by Saturday, December 19 if you want to participate. This part is important -- we'll do the automagical drawing that day. Don't forget to add your address! (address settings are under you on the site; only the person who draws your name will be able to see your mailing address. But do remember that if you want to participate, you'll have to make your postal address available to at least one other person. The name you register with is visible to other group members, but not email.) * Elfster sends you the name of your secret santa recipient (from sa...@elfster.com) * buy, make or find a gift -- price guideline $10ish or less (+postage); it's just a guideline but don't go crazy. Small gifts are fine. * the deadline to get your present to your recipient is Saturday, January 16th (since we're starting so late -- and yes, the international mail will have delays). Happy New Years! -- Phoebe and Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Secret Santa!
phoebe ayers wrote: Austin and I thought it might be fun to have a Secret Santa New Year's drawing among Wikimedia friends! We're basing it on the MetaFilter community Secret Santa drawing, which has 256 participants and uses a website called Elfster. ... * buy, make or find a gift -- price guideline $10ish or less (+postage); it's just a guideline but don't go crazy. Small gifts are fine. Anyone on the list who uses eBay (or similar site) can purchase online and have the seller send the item directly to the recipient. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
Aryeh Gregor wrote: In contrast, by emitting carbon dioxide, you're contributing to an effect that won't be a big deal for at least a few more decades. It's a big deal already, and by the time it becomes an even bigger deal, it will be too late to act. The global climate takes decades to respond to changes in forcing factors. Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions now, the earth would continue to warm for decades because the heat capacity of the ocean slows down the lower atmosphere's response to increased radiation. And that will probably become no big deal again a few decades after that when everyone's adapted to it. Increased temperatures will cause a drop in rainfall and thus a reduction in food generating capacity in Australia, the Mediterranean, Mexico, and north-west and south-west Africa. High temperatures also damage crops directly. In the no-mitigation case, the Garnaut Review (which I've recently been reading and linked to earlier) projects a loss of half of Australia's agricultural capacity by around 2050. Also in Australia, species will be lost as cooler mountain habitats disappear from the continent, the Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed, and significant freshwater coastal wetlands will be inundated by the sea. And that won't directly kill anyone in any event, mainly just cause economic harm. The World Health Organisation disagrees: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595674_eng.pdf You just sound gullible when you recycle such claims without showing any awareness the opposing viewpoint. And that might not happen anyway if some clever soul comes up with a good enough fossil fuel replacement at any point in the next thirty years. Like what? Nuclear fusion? Talk about pie in the sky. Or if it becomes economical to pump greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. The Garnaut Review suggests that it may well become economical in a few decades, but only because mandatory targets will raise the price of carbon to several times its current value. This will happen when cheaper measures, like shutting down fossil fuel power stations, are exhausted. Economical doesn't mean cheap. Or if some cheap scheme is devised to reduce warming some other way, like releasing particles to block sunlight. And cause famine due to a reduction in tropical rainfall? http://edoc.mpg.de/376757 Or if some unforeseen negative feedback causes warming to not get too bad after all. The other side of that probability distribution, of course, is that positive feedback will cause it to be even worse than the high-end IPCC predictions and that the sea level will rise by tens of metres. There are studies on which of these two outcomes is more likely. Some of us do not want to roll the dice. And of course maybe we've already hit a critical threshold and cutting emissions is pointless by now. There isn't such a threshold. The more you emit, the hotter it gets. As the temperature rises, the outcomes for both humans and for biodiversity become steadily worse. Plus you can add the fact that Wikimedia's contribution to the affair isn't likely to be even measurable, especially if the major damage is from catastrophic changes (e.g., ice caps melting) rather than incremental ones. How much money do you owe for increasing mean global temperature by a billionth of a degree fifty years from now? The cost per capita can be derived from the total cost using a complex mathematical process known as division. Maybe you've heard of it? -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Secret Santa … and Env ironment
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:51 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Wikimedians, Austin and I thought it might be fun to have a Secret Santa New Year's drawing among Wikimedia friends! We're basing it on the MetaFilter community Secret Santa drawing, which has 256 participants and uses a website called Elfster. Totally optional of course, but totally fun to get random things in the mail from other community members. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/WaldfogelDeadweightLossXmas.pdf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Secret Santa … and En vironment
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:51 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Wikimedians, Austin and I thought it might be fun to have a Secret Santa New Year's drawing among Wikimedia friends! We're basing it on the MetaFilter community Secret Santa drawing, which has 256 participants and uses a website called Elfster. Totally optional of course, but totally fun to get random things in the mail from other community members. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/WaldfogelDeadweightLossXmas.pdf LOL. Is this the dreaded sweater return problem in economics? :) Anyway, such economic analysis make the assumption that the gift is worth a fixed, intrinsic value to start with. A piece of paper, envelope and (domestic) stamp costs about 50 cents, but a letter from a friend is, as the commercials say, priceless. I like to sign up for gift exchanges, send postcards when on vacation, and keep penpals because all of these activities help build community and friendship, and it's a lot of fun to receive something that you know someone thought about and wanted to surprise you with, and to do the same for someone else. I blogged my thoughts on gift-giving, from a U.S. non-religious-but-still-celebrates-Christmas perspective, last year at this time: http://www.phoebeayers.info/phlog/?p=566 But the reason I said this exchange was optional is because, obviously, it's optional :) only people who find such things fun and valuable should sign up. I also forgot to mention that I can set up do-not-draw lists for people if you're concerned about not getting paired with someone. -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] My new blog and foundation-l
As people may (or may not) have noticed, I haven't posted to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing list except the UK one) since the list was taken off moderation a month ago. For my observations and thoughts during that month and my suggestions for the future, please see the first post on my new blog: http://thomas-dalton.com/blog/2009/12/14/my-new-blog-and-foundation-l/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
Geni's referring to a fundraiser sitenotice with a picture of Craig Newmark, and the text Craig of Craigslist urges you to support Wikipedia. Why? On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: care to give some context to your question? [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why? -- geni ___ 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 -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
Geni is speaking of the huge banner on Enwp at the moment featuring Craig of craigslist. Hit reload a few times if you haven't seen it. It links to a clearly spoken statement of support for wikipedia. To avoid you haivng to click and goofing up the counters, here is what it says: I'm a proud supporter of Wikipedia, and I encourage you to make a donation to support their work too. Wikipedia is an accomplishment of major proportions. It's become the first draft of history, a vital, living repository of human knowledge. How did we ever manage without it? Wikipedia makes it easy to learn about anything. It's dramatic proof of the supreme effectiveness of collaboration: people from all around the world work together on Wikipedia to build articles with one purpose - to provide free knowledge. But the work has just begun. And Wikipedia needs our financial support. If you read it, if you edit it, if you visit it more than once a month: please join me in supporting Wikipedia today. There is are no hyperlinks to anything but WMF donation stuff, from the target. On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:50 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why? Your post makes me sad: I think the banner is doing the right thing and if we complain about moderate and well considered actions then we lose credibility when something more foolish is done. I normally respect and appreciate your comments but I this one is not a fair one. The banner isn't a link to craiglist, it's 'The founder of this other widely known (and I think usually well respected) organization endorses wikipedia, here is why...' Arguably craiglist is only known and credible to much of the same subculture that WMF's message has already reached— I suppose the results will have to be left to speak for themselves— but is this an add for craigslist? Hardly. It's a craig-of-craigslist ad for Wikipedia, speaking about the virtues of Wikipedia, not craig or craigs-list (other than the virtue of his support, which is being used as social proof). I accept that there can be a reasonable discussion about the wisdom of this kind of messaging, but I don't think that such a discussion could be had with your rather extreme characterization overhanging. Might I convince you to restate it in a way more conducive of discussion than dispute? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] My new blog and foundation-l
Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia aggregator? Steven On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: As people may (or may not) have noticed, I haven't posted to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing list except the UK one) since the list was taken off moderation a month ago. For my observations and thoughts during that month and my suggestions for the future, please see the first post on my new blog: http://thomas-dalton.com/blog/2009/12/14/my-new-blog-and-foundation-l/ ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
The banner can be seen at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/viewtemplate=2009_Craig_Appeal1 -Robert Rohde On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: care to give some context to your question? [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why? -- geni ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
It's certainly free publicity for Craigslist, one way or the other. Anybody who does not know what Craigslist is now will see it every time they see the banner, may google it or look it up on WP to find out what it is, and start using it. Any time we put the name of any kind of person or organization there, that is free publicity so I think it is imperative that we think about what effect that publicity will have in the end. If we put a quote from Nelson Mandela there, for example, it isn't very likely that he will get any money or website traffic or any quantifiable benefit from our banner. If we put an impassioned plea from The CEO of Webbooks.com, it is very possible that will result in additional traffic and exposure for that website. Although the banner is not intended as an ad, I must admit that when I saw it I instantly disliked it. If it were up to me, it would not be there. I can certainly understand the reasons for keeping it up and I also don't think this is a terrible situation or anything so I won't argue about this but I wanted to make it known that Geni isn't the only one of the opinion that it's not a good thing. Mark skype: node.ue On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:50 PM, geni wrote: I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why? I fail to understand how acknowledging the existence of a company founded by an advisory board member who kindly consents to begging for money on our behalf constitutes advertising for it? Would the banner have been as effective if it had said Craig asks you to support...? Geez. Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454) Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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
