Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment

[Tim Starling]

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> I said "directly".  Militaries kill people directly.  Global warming
> kills people indirectly.

I'll take my reply offlist. I have a blog post at tstarling.com where
I've been canvassing this issue, I think that would be a better home
for this debate than private email, since other people will be able to
read it and comment.

-- Tim Starling


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Office hours Thursday, December 17

[Cary Bass]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

This Thursday's office hours will feature Sara Crouse, the
Wikimedia Foundation's Head of Partnerships and Foundation Relations.
Sara's biography is available at
.

Office hours on Thursday are from 1700 to 1800 UTC (9:00 AM - 10:00 AM
PST).  *Please note: This will be the last office hours of 2009.  Office
hours will start back after the New Years!*

If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser:  First is using the Wikizine chat gateway at
.  Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.

Also, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel.   You may be prompted to click through a security warning.
It should be all right.

Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.

- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksoGyQACgkQyQg4JSymDYk5ZgCgh8JyDfpDhEOf9PR8TzddWwyq
CW4AnjRCzEoptTBvpm2h2V25hKp0/bjv
=V6KW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
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

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Nathan  wrote:
>...
> Can you explain why you think you should decide what content is and is
> not displayed on an off-site blog aggregator? I'm just curious. The
> control page seems like a convenient way for people to sign themselves
> up, not an invitation to Wikipedia editors to intervene when they find
> some content inappropriate.

Nick set it up on a wiki so readers can edit it.

And they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini&diff=299378686&oldid=299065918

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini&diff=207102202&oldid=206990658

I tried to filter David Shankbone's feed to only include his wiki
related posts, but it didn't seem possible.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] some attention regarding our ad placement

[David Gerard]

2009/12/15 Judson Dunn :

> http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/12/wikis-fundraising-ads-send-wrong-message.html
> Ah, well. :)


Hey, free publicity! *cough*


- d.

___
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

[Nathan]

>
> I removed David Shankbone's blog because the most recent blog post (at
> the time) was excessively nasty towards a living person who we have a
> biography about.
>
> My edit was in no way an Arbcom edit.  It even came after I resigned
> from en:wp Arbcom.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini&diff=330197740&oldid=325150787
>
> David Shankbone subsequently _deleted_ that post from his blog.
>
> I have a saved copy of the deleted blog post in case anyone wants to
> review whether my edit was appropriate.
>
>> Suggest moving control page to Meta.
>
> I can edit on Meta too.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>

Can you explain why you think you should decide what content is and is
not displayed on an off-site blog aggregator? I'm just curious. The
control page seems like a convenient way for people to sign themselves
up, not an invitation to Wikipedia editors to intervene when they find
some content inappropriate.

Nathan

___
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

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:20 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Steven Walling :
>
>> Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia
>> aggregator?
>
>
> The en:wp arbcom have started messing with the Open Wiki Blog Planet,
> on the pretext that if the control page is on en:wp then they must own
> it.

I removed David Shankbone's blog because the most recent blog post (at
the time) was excessively nasty towards a living person who we have a
biography about.

My edit was in no way an Arbcom edit.  It even came after I resigned
from en:wp Arbcom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini&diff=330197740&oldid=325150787

David Shankbone subsequently _deleted_ that post from his blog.

I have a saved copy of the deleted blog post in case anyone wants to
review whether my edit was appropriate.

> Suggest moving control page to Meta.

I can edit on Meta too.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[William Pietri]

On 12/15/2009 11:20 AM, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
> I for one have never heart of Craigslist before and I don't think I have heart
> anybody talking about it before in real life.
>

This may be a regional thing.

According to Alexa, Craiglist is the 11th most popular US web site, 
while Wikipedia is 7th. Compete.com's numbers, which I think are pretty 
US-centric, show Craigslist with 50m monthly users. It has also been 
popular for a relatively long time, predating Wikipedia by a number of 
years. Like Wikipedia, it gets a fair bit of media coverage not just for 
what it is, but because it has a lot of interest for journalists; 
Craiglist is frequently mentioned as major cause of declining US 
newspaper revenues because it destroyed much of the classified ads market.

William

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Delphine Ménard]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 23:00, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> Indeed; and arguably Craig Newmark is much, much more famous in San
> Francisco (where he's a local celeb) than he would be pretty much
> anywhere else. That might be part of the issue here. If you know who
> he is in the SF-tech-community-philanthropy context, it might strike
> you as more of a clear use of his good name to generously support a
> cool project. If you don't, it might look like more of a clear
> advertisement for Craigslist.

Yes, that would be my main "criticism" about this all. Not that I
think it's advertising, but I think Greg mentionned it earlier in the
thread, rather that Craigslist has probably an audience that (apart
from being centered in the US, SF etc.) has a lot in common to our
contributing community. ie. people who already have desactivated the
site notice long ago ;)

>
> Regardless this is basically the same debate we had over Virgin Unite
> -- the name of any commercial organization (and probably any other
> nonprofit organization, too, if we're honest with ourselves) being
> displayed on the site provokes intense dislike and debate among a
> large section of the community -- for various reasons, but mostly
> summarized as we don't want to use the resources of Wikipedia to
> advocate or advertise for another organization.


Sooo true. Parochialists, are we? :D

Delphine
-- 
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Mike.lifeguard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> Sorry to be blunt but, Why is this question so Wikipedia-centric? Other
> projects have proved ideal testing grounds for usability and such.
> 

Because Wikipedia is the cash cow.

I was going to rant, but it became too depressing because it wouldn't
have consisted of cheap shots - they were all true. Hopefully that will
change one day.

- -Mike
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksoCP0ACgkQst0AR/DaKHuEEQCgi5lNdigCZ6W+ESCDYqmn59Rc
3LoAnRB7Tr7ovfi/8qAT12qw1PtyO9Et
=d4JK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:
> geni wrote:
>> 2009/12/15 Michael Snow :
>>
>>> That's a strangely limited notion of who has the capability to help -
>>> only people who are quantitatively more famous than us? For a project
>>> that's built around lots and lots of individual contributions (whether
>>> we're talking content, finances, or publicity), none of them especially
>>> huge in the overall scheme of things, it seems completely backwards to
>>> suggest that such things are useless if they don't dwarf what has
>>> already been achieved.
>>>
>> The argument was that it was his fame that was helpful and that it
>> rose to the level that we should overlook the obvious problem. If you
>> wish to take my comments out of that context I can't stop you but you
>> are attacking a strawman.
>>
> I don't see why it would be out of context, or attacking a straw man, to
> challenge this understanding of what fame entails, or how much is needed
> for it to be helpful. As it's been said about this interconnected age,
> most of us end up being famous for perhaps 15 people, and sometimes to a
> wider audience for 15 minutes. Clearly less than the overall fame of
> Wikipedia, yet when it comes to endorsements or testimonials, that has
> been a big part of achieving it, something marketers would call
> word-of-mouth or buzz. Fame is highly context-dependent, so both the
> magnitude and the usefulness vary with the circumstances. (That's part
> of the reason to test different fundraising approaches against each other.)

Indeed; and arguably Craig Newmark is much, much more famous in San
Francisco (where he's a local celeb) than he would be pretty much
anywhere else. That might be part of the issue here. If you know who
he is in the SF-tech-community-philanthropy context, it might strike
you as more of a clear use of his good name to generously support a
cool project. If you don't, it might look like more of a clear
advertisement for Craigslist.

Regardless this is basically the same debate we had over Virgin Unite
-- the name of any commercial organization (and probably any other
nonprofit organization, too, if we're honest with ourselves) being
displayed on the site provokes intense dislike and debate among a
large section of the community -- for various reasons, but mostly
summarized as we don't want to use the resources of Wikipedia to
advocate or advertise for another organization.

-- phoebe


-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
 gmail.com *

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] Strategy Question of the Week: Dec 14

[Eugene Eric Kim]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Brian McNeil
 wrote:
> Sorry to be blunt but, Why is this question so Wikipedia-centric? Other
> projects have proved ideal testing grounds for usability and such.

The question is meant to be about all Wikimedia projects. The data
itself is Wikipedia-centric. There's simply more of it right now. I'd
like to see much more data from other projects, and I hope folks here
can help us identify it on the strategy wiki.

=Eugene

-- 
==
Eugene Eric Kim  http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates  http://www.blueoxen.com/
==

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] Strategy Question of the Week: Dec 14

[Brian McNeil]

On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 14:08 -0600, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Question_of_the_week
> 
> 
> Last week's Question of the week focused on how Wikimedia could change
> its technology to enable a friendlier and more welcoming environment.
> Certainly new technology and increasing the friendliness is one tactic
> that Wikipedia might use to increase participation. The following
> graph shows that there are some key countries with a large online
> populations where Wikipedia still has significant room to increase the
> number of users and active participants. Specifically, in China,
> Brazil, France, South Korea, Turkey and Indonesia, Wikipedia.org
> ranking is below 10. What tactics do you think could be used to
> increase participation in a specific country?

Sorry to be blunt but, Why is this question so Wikipedia-centric? Other
projects have proved ideal testing grounds for usability and such.

> 
> 
>  at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Question_of_the_week>
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> wikinew...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l



-- 
Brian McNeil 
Wikinewsie.org


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Can we kill this thread? It appears quite clear that the Foundation staff have 
decided to run the Craig ad, and nothing here will affect their decision. 





From: Waerth 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 11:02:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

If I were a rich and famous person that wanted to help out the WMF I 
would get shitscared by this list and wouldn't touch the foundation with 
a 10 foot pole 

W


___
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] some attention regarding our ad placement

[Judson Dunn]

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/12/wikis-fundraising-ads-send-wrong-message.html

Ah, well. :)

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Strategy Question of the Week: Dec 14

[Philippe Beaudette]

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Question_of_the_week

Last week's Question of the week focused on how Wikimedia could change  
its technology to enable a friendlier and more welcoming environment.  
Certainly new technology and increasing the friendliness is one tactic  
that Wikipedia might use to increase participation. The following  
graph shows that there are some key countries with a large online  
populations where Wikipedia still has significant room to increase the  
number of users and active participants. Specifically, in China,  
Brazil, France, South Korea, Turkey and Indonesia, Wikipedia.org  
ranking is below 10. What tactics do you think could be used to  
increase participation in a specific country?

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Question_of_the_week 
 >

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

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Bryan Tong Minh]

Domas Mituzas  writes:

> 
> Erik,
> 
> > The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English
> > Wikipedia. 
> 
> How much known is Craigslist outside of US, in other English speaking
countries, or countries where
> English is used as second/primary language on the web?  :)
> 
I for one have never heart of Craigslist before and I don't think I have heart
anybody talking about it before in real life.

What particularly annoys me, is that the banner invites people to to click on
them, but when I click on it I get to the Dutch donation page, which does not
answer my question at all "Why Craig of Craigslist urges me to support 
Wikipedia".


Bryan





___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Waerth]

If I were a rich and famous person that wanted to help out the WMF I 
would get shitscared by this list and wouldn't touch the foundation with 
a 10 foot pole 

W


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Michael Snow]

geni wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Michael Snow :
>   
>> That's a strangely limited notion of who has the capability to help -
>> only people who are quantitatively more famous than us? For a project
>> that's built around lots and lots of individual contributions (whether
>> we're talking content, finances, or publicity), none of them especially
>> huge in the overall scheme of things, it seems completely backwards to
>> suggest that such things are useless if they don't dwarf what has
>> already been achieved.
>> 
> The argument was that it was his fame that was helpful and that it
> rose to the level that we should overlook the obvious problem. If you
> wish to take my comments out of that context I can't stop you but you
> are attacking a strawman.
>   
I don't see why it would be out of context, or attacking a straw man, to 
challenge this understanding of what fame entails, or how much is needed 
for it to be helpful. As it's been said about this interconnected age, 
most of us end up being famous for perhaps 15 people, and sometimes to a 
wider audience for 15 minutes. Clearly less than the overall fame of 
Wikipedia, yet when it comes to endorsements or testimonials, that has 
been a big part of achieving it, something marketers would call 
word-of-mouth or buzz. Fame is highly context-dependent, so both the 
magnitude and the usefulness vary with the circumstances. (That's part 
of the reason to test different fundraising approaches against each other.)

The importance of context, and the existence of multiple contexts, also 
undermines the second half of the premise (whether it's yours or you're 
arguing against it, it's the wrong argument to have). It assumes this 
has a binary and zero-sum nature, and ignores the clear disagreement 
about whether there's a problem in the first place, let alone whether 
anything here is obvious enough to overlook. Yes, different kinds of 
fame interacting in a public setting will affect all the parties, it's a 
fundamental aspect of how society works. There will always be side 
effects and unintended consequences, because public attention is not 
something we can contain or control. Attempting to reduce it to an 
economic transaction is a very limited understanding of the dynamic, 
even if entire sectors of the web devote themselves to just that.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:55 AM, geni  wrote:
> The text of the advert:
> "Craig of Craigslist urges you to support Wikipedia. Why?"
>
> In that context the separation between person and company is rather weak.

The name "Craig Newmark" is web-searchable but many people not in the
web industry won't connect the name instantly with Craigslist.

The point is to get attention.  Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist,
gets attention.  Craig Newmark, Joe Q Citizen, gets less attention.

We could do this exercise with everyone on the Advisory board - does
the uninvolved public recognize the name with, or without,
affiliations listed?  The only name with any chance of name
recognition WITHOUT affiliation on either current or prior advisory
board is Mitch Kapor, and that's likely limited to within the geek
community.

It does us no good at all to use what are effectively celebrity
endorsements if we can't provide enough context to disambiguate the
celebrity.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[geni]

2009/12/15 Philippe Beaudette :
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:55 AM, geni wrote:
>
>> So you are okey with adverts on wikipedia as long as they are ah
>> ""supporting" a good cause"?
>
>
> Noun
> advertisement (plural advertisements)
> (marketing) A commercial solicitation designed to sell some commodity,
> service or similar.
>
> I really don't see how a banner asking someone to give US money is an
> advertisement, Geni.
>
> Philippe
>

Not everything can be fully described through a dictionary definition.
The activity falls well within what is described in wikipedia's
article on the subject. I supose if you really want to get technical
it's propaganda so if it helps you answer the question:

So you are okey with third party propaganda on wikipedia as long as
they are ah ""supporting" a good cause"?

-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:55 AM, geni wrote:

> So you are okey with adverts on wikipedia as long as they are ah
> ""supporting" a good cause"?


Noun
advertisement (plural advertisements)
(marketing) A commercial solicitation designed to sell some commodity,  
service or similar.

I really don't see how a banner asking someone to give US money is an  
advertisement, Geni.

Philippe



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

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM, geni  wrote:

> 2009/12/15 Delphine Ménard :
> > And whether it is Craig Newmark, the Dalai Lama, the Pope or my
> > neighbours, if their "supporting" a good cause actually works and
> > money comes in and awareness rises, frankly, I say "go ahead" and
> > "thanks for all your help".
> >
>
> So you are okey with adverts on wikipedia as long as they are ah
> ""supporting" a good cause"?


Personally, I am.  Especially if they fall under the category of "qualified
sponsorship payments" (
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p598/ch03.html#en_US_publink100067505) with
regard to the IRS.  (For liability reasons I am not making nor will I make
any judgment as to whether or not this particular "ad" does qualify as
such.)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[geni]

2009/12/15 Delphine Ménard :
> Just so I understand your argument. Were Jimmy Wales to lend his name
> and good will to support a cause {insert here name of noble cause you
> believe in}, I suppose you would summarize his help as "oh, he's
> trying to get his company to get a better image"? Wait, I'm probably
> starting a troll here. Replace Jimmy Wales with "whatever known
> person" you can think of.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that real people _aren't_ the company they
> founded/bought/are taking care of?

The text of the advert:
"Craig of Craigslist urges you to support Wikipedia. Why?"

In that context the separation between person and company is rather weak.

> And whether it is Craig Newmark, the Dalai Lama, the Pope or my
> neighbours, if their "supporting" a good cause actually works and
> money comes in and awareness rises, frankly, I say "go ahead" and
> "thanks for all your help".
>

So you are okey with adverts on wikipedia as long as they are ah
""supporting" a good cause"? Third parties supporting wikipedia is one
thing. At the cost of advertsing their company on one in five page
views of wikipedia? No that is quite another.


-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Delphine Ménard]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 16:47, geni  wrote:
> Craig Newmark has around  300K google results. Jimbo is at half a
> million. Craigslist is at about 65 million wikipedia is at about 300
> million. For groups that almost entirely exist online that's a fair
> solid way of showing which is more significant. In terms of using fame
> to push us forwards about the only web company owners who might be
> able to do that would be  Mark Zuckerberg and google's co-founders.
> And no they wouldn't be a good idea either.
>
> Craigslist has some PR problems at the moment what with all the scams
> and the various law enforcement agencies objecting to some of their
> personal ads. Associating with a project with some of the most
> titanium hardened community driven altruism credentials on the web is
> a valid strategy for trying to return to the image they like to
> maintain.

Just so I understand your argument. Were Jimmy Wales to lend his name
and good will to support a cause {insert here name of noble cause you
believe in}, I suppose you would summarize his help as "oh, he's
trying to get his company to get a better image"? Wait, I'm probably
starting a troll here. Replace Jimmy Wales with "whatever known
person" you can think of.

Did it ever occur to you that real people _aren't_ the company they
founded/bought/are taking care of?

And whether it is Craig Newmark, the Dalai Lama, the Pope or my
neighbours, if their "supporting" a good cause actually works and
money comes in and awareness rises, frankly, I say "go ahead" and
"thanks for all your help".

Geez,

Delphine

-- 
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/12/15 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/12/15 Steven Walling :

>> Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia
>> aggregator?

> I've asked for it to be added to Planet Wikimedia. I've never heard of
> the other one.


http://open.wikiblogplanet.com/

Control page: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM, geni  wrote:

> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM, geni  wrote:
> >
> >> Craig Newmark has around  300K google results. Jimbo is at half a
> >> million.
> >>
> >
> > Yizhao Lang has about 1,000.  But I guess you didn't mention the company
> he
> > works for.  The horror.
>
> With Yizhao Lang it was what they were saying rather than the person
> who said it that was significant. In addition there is no evidence
> that when Yizhao Lang made the comment in question he knew it was
> featured so prominently.
>

Yes, it's different.  But as long as this was done in the best interest of
the Wikimedia Foundation (and no one has presented any evidence it hasn't),
I still don't see the problem.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Thomas Dalton]

We've advertised third party for-profits in the past with prominent
matched donations notices before (albeit controversially). This isn't
that different. Craigslist gets some publicity and we get some money
(hopefully - it's more definite in the matched donations case, of
course). I don't see a problem.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[geni]

2009/12/15 Anthony :
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM, geni  wrote:
>
>> Craig Newmark has around  300K google results. Jimbo is at half a
>> million.
>>
>
> Yizhao Lang has about 1,000.  But I guess you didn't mention the company he
> works for.  The horror.


With Yizhao Lang it was what they were saying rather than the person
who said it that was significant. In addition there is no evidence
that when Yizhao Lang made the comment in question he knew it was
featured so prominently.

-- 
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]

2009/12/15 Michael Snow :
> That's a strangely limited notion of who has the capability to help -
> only people who are quantitatively more famous than us? For a project
> that's built around lots and lots of individual contributions (whether
> we're talking content, finances, or publicity), none of them especially
> huge in the overall scheme of things, it seems completely backwards to
> suggest that such things are useless if they don't dwarf what has
> already been achieved.

The argument was that it was his fame that was helpful and that it
rose to the level that we should overlook the obvious problem. If you
wish to take my comments out of that context I can't stop you but you
are attacking a strawman.


-- 
geni

___
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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/12/15 Steven Walling :
> Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia
> aggregator?

I've asked for it to be added to Planet Wikimedia. I've never heard of
the other one.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment

[Pharos]

Might I suggest that we're getting a bit off-track here with these
broad debates on climate change issues?

I think if we're considering spending $20k/yr on environmental
initiatives, then the most effective way for us and the path most in
line with Wikimedia's core mission would be to spend that money
directly on special efforts to increase high-quality free content
about environmental topics on Wikipedia and the other projects.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Aryeh Gregor
 wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Then we agree that cutting greenhouse gases is not a very effective solution?
>
>> The World Health Organisation disagrees:
>>
>> http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/
>> 
>
> I said "directly".  Militaries kill people directly.  Global warming
> kills people indirectly.
>
>> You just sound gullible when you recycle such claims without showing
>> any awareness the opposing viewpoint.
>
> I don't think I'm recycling claims.  I have a fairly unusual view on
> global warming, actually.
>
>> Like what? Nuclear fusion? Talk about pie in the sky.
>
> Or just more effective photovoltaic cells.  Or, well, anything other
> than fossil fuels.  Solar and wind power, for instance, are much more
> viable now than they were thirty years ago.  Wikipedia says global
> photovoltaic power production was 500 kW in 1977.  It's not a stretch
> to suppose that they or other energy sources will be much more viable
> thirty years from now.  In fact, it would be very surprising if we
> didn't have much better alternatives to fossil fuels by then than we
> have now.
>
>> And cause famine due to a reduction in tropical rainfall?
>>
>> http://edoc.mpg.de/376757
>
> Sure, maybe.  Maybe not.  Everything has costs and benefits.  Blocking
> sunlight is a scheme that can be deployed very quickly and cheaply,
> and could not just completely stop future warming, but reverse warming
> that's already occurred before deployment.  Cutting CO2 is immensely
> more expensive, slower, and less effective.  You were just telling me
> how cutting carbon will never stop warming, and many people will die
> to famine if warming doesn't stop.  Doesn't that imply people will die
> of famine either way?  The costs need to be weighed against the
> benefits.
>
> Of course, the experts at large-scale cost-benefit analysis are
> economists, not climatologists.  One panel of economists that set out
> to systematically examine the issue based on data provided by
> climatologists is the Copenhagen Consensus:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
> http://fixtheclimate.com/
>
> The Copenhagen Consensus' Climate Change Project asked a panel of five
> economists (three of them Nobel laureates) to consider the costs and
> benefits of various schemes to mitigate or prevent global warming.
> They took climatologists' predictions for granted, and all agreed that
> anthropogenic global warming is occurring.  The number one solution
> was to reflect more sunlight (by cloud whitening).  Seven of the
> fifteen schemes involved carbon-cutting; they placed at positions nine
> through fifteen.
>
> The Copenhagen Consensus was and is controversial, of course.  But the
> issue is far from open-and-shut.  Even if cutting GHG emission is part
> of the solution, it's not at all clear that it makes sense to spend
> money on it now, rather than invest in alternative energy so we can
> make larger-scale cuts later.
>
> Are you aware of any groups of experts that have done a systematic
> cost-benefit analysis on the various options, and reached opposite
> conclusions to the Copenhagen Consensus?  "Experts" here means, say,
> economists, not climatologists.  (And preferably not political
> appointees either.)  Climatologists are experts at predicting climate
> outcomes, not evaluating the quality-of-life effects of those
> outcomes.  They have no expertise in that.  Economics is the
> discipline concerned with welfare assessment.
>
>
> By the way, you didn't actually address the point of my last post.  If
> involuntarily releasing greenhouse gases creates a moral obligation to
> undo the harm caused by that, why doesn't involuntarily paying taxes
> create the same moral obligation?  This is independent of whether
> cutting GHGs is actually effective (which isn't something I meant to
> get into, but oh well).
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://list

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM, geni  wrote:

> Craig Newmark has around  300K google results. Jimbo is at half a
> million.
>

Yizhao Lang has about 1,000.  But I guess you didn't mention the company he
works for.  The horror.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Michael Snow]

geni wrote:
> 2009/12/15 David Gerard :
>   
>> Craig Newmark's on the WMF advisory board. Craigslist is already
>> famous. I really think it's pushing us forward, not the other way
>> around.
>> 
> Craig Newmark has around  300K google results. Jimbo is at half a
> million. Craigslist is at about 65 million wikipedia is at about 300
> million. For groups that almost entirely exist online that's a fair
> solid way of showing which is more significant. In terms of using fame
> to push us forwards about the only web company owners who might be
> able to do that would be  Mark Zuckerberg and google's co-founders.
>   
That's a strangely limited notion of who has the capability to help - 
only people who are quantitatively more famous than us? For a project 
that's built around lots and lots of individual contributions (whether 
we're talking content, finances, or publicity), none of them especially 
huge in the overall scheme of things, it seems completely backwards to 
suggest that such things are useless if they don't dwarf what has 
already been achieved.

--Michael Snow

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/12/15 Steven Walling :

> Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia
> aggregator?


The en:wp arbcom have started messing with the Open Wiki Blog Planet,
on the pretext that if the control page is on en:wp then they must own
it. Suggest moving control page to Meta.


- d.

___
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]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling  wrote:
> 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.

Then we agree that cutting greenhouse gases is not a very effective solution?

> The World Health Organisation disagrees:
>
> http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/
> 

I said "directly".  Militaries kill people directly.  Global warming
kills people indirectly.

> You just sound gullible when you recycle such claims without showing
> any awareness the opposing viewpoint.

I don't think I'm recycling claims.  I have a fairly unusual view on
global warming, actually.

> Like what? Nuclear fusion? Talk about pie in the sky.

Or just more effective photovoltaic cells.  Or, well, anything other
than fossil fuels.  Solar and wind power, for instance, are much more
viable now than they were thirty years ago.  Wikipedia says global
photovoltaic power production was 500 kW in 1977.  It's not a stretch
to suppose that they or other energy sources will be much more viable
thirty years from now.  In fact, it would be very surprising if we
didn't have much better alternatives to fossil fuels by then than we
have now.

> And cause famine due to a reduction in tropical rainfall?
>
> http://edoc.mpg.de/376757

Sure, maybe.  Maybe not.  Everything has costs and benefits.  Blocking
sunlight is a scheme that can be deployed very quickly and cheaply,
and could not just completely stop future warming, but reverse warming
that's already occurred before deployment.  Cutting CO2 is immensely
more expensive, slower, and less effective.  You were just telling me
how cutting carbon will never stop warming, and many people will die
to famine if warming doesn't stop.  Doesn't that imply people will die
of famine either way?  The costs need to be weighed against the
benefits.

Of course, the experts at large-scale cost-benefit analysis are
economists, not climatologists.  One panel of economists that set out
to systematically examine the issue based on data provided by
climatologists is the Copenhagen Consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
http://fixtheclimate.com/

The Copenhagen Consensus' Climate Change Project asked a panel of five
economists (three of them Nobel laureates) to consider the costs and
benefits of various schemes to mitigate or prevent global warming.
They took climatologists' predictions for granted, and all agreed that
anthropogenic global warming is occurring.  The number one solution
was to reflect more sunlight (by cloud whitening).  Seven of the
fifteen schemes involved carbon-cutting; they placed at positions nine
through fifteen.

The Copenhagen Consensus was and is controversial, of course.  But the
issue is far from open-and-shut.  Even if cutting GHG emission is part
of the solution, it's not at all clear that it makes sense to spend
money on it now, rather than invest in alternative energy so we can
make larger-scale cuts later.

Are you aware of any groups of experts that have done a systematic
cost-benefit analysis on the various options, and reached opposite
conclusions to the Copenhagen Consensus?  "Experts" here means, say,
economists, not climatologists.  (And preferably not political
appointees either.)  Climatologists are experts at predicting climate
outcomes, not evaluating the quality-of-life effects of those
outcomes.  They have no expertise in that.  Economics is the
discipline concerned with welfare assessment.


By the way, you didn't actually address the point of my last post.  If
involuntarily releasing greenhouse gases creates a moral obligation to
undo the harm caused by that, why doesn't involuntarily paying taxes
create the same moral obligation?  This is independent of whether
cutting GHGs is actually effective (which isn't something I meant to
get into, but oh well).

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment

[David Gerard]

2009/12/15 Tim Starling :
> 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.


I commend to you all John Birmingham's take:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/the-sky-is-falling--oh-wait-its-just-an-apocalyptic-asteriod/20091214-kr6c.html

(huh, so Blunt Instrument runs nationally? Good stuff!)


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[geni]

2009/12/15 David Gerard :
> 2009/12/15 Mark Williamson :
>
>> If that's true, I am even more against this... what does that say about us?
>
>
> Didn't we have this discussion around Virgin Unite?
>
> >http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Wikimedia_Foundation_to_introduce_paid_editing
>

To an extent. Of course Virgin Unite has since been used in regular
Virgin adverts which further strengthens the case of those that
opposed it.

> Craig Newmark's on the WMF advisory board. Craigslist is already
> famous. I really think it's pushing us forward, not the other way
> around.

Craig Newmark has around  300K google results. Jimbo is at half a
million. Craigslist is at about 65 million wikipedia is at about 300
million. For groups that almost entirely exist online that's a fair
solid way of showing which is more significant. In terms of using fame
to push us forwards about the only web company owners who might be
able to do that would be  Mark Zuckerberg and google's co-founders.
And no they wouldn't be a good idea either.

Craigslist has some PR problems at the moment what with all the scams
and the various law enforcement agencies objecting to some of their
personal ads. Associating with a project with some of the most
titanium hardened community driven altruism credentials on the web is
a valid strategy for trying to return to the image they like to
maintain.

-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> I assume Mr. Newmark made a significant donation.
>

Looking at "Craig's appeal", now I see what gave me that impression:  "I'm a
proud supporter of Wikipedia, and I encourage you to make a donation to
support their work too."  Could be just a play on words, but I assume in
good faith that he made a monetary donation, and that it wasn't just $50.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Anthony]

It says that you're willing to acknowledge your sponsors?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Mark Williamson  wrote:

> If that's true, I am even more against this... what does that say about us?
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Mark Williamson 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's certainly free publicity for Craigslist, one way or the other.
> >
> >
> > Who says it's free?  I assume Mr. Newmark made a significant donation.
> >
> > Maybe that assumption is wrong, though.
> > ___
> > 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

[David Gerard]

2009/12/15 Mark Williamson :

> If that's true, I am even more against this... what does that say about us?


Didn't we have this discussion around Virgin Unite?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Wikimedia_Foundation_to_introduce_paid_editing

Craig Newmark's on the WMF advisory board. Craigslist is already
famous. I really think it's pushing us forward, not the other way
around.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Mark Williamson]

If that's true, I am even more against this... what does that say about us?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Mark Williamson 
> wrote:
>
> > It's certainly free publicity for Craigslist, one way or the other.
>
>
> Who says it's free?  I assume Mr. Newmark made a significant donation.
>
> Maybe that assumption is wrong, though.
> ___
> 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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Mark Williamson  wrote:

> It's certainly free publicity for Craigslist, one way or the other.


Who says it's free?  I assume Mr. Newmark made a significant donation.

Maybe that assumption is wrong, though.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[geni]

2009/12/15 Nathan :
> Personally, I'm glad the Foundation doesn't have the reflexively
> absolutist anti-capitalist stance that some on this list would like
> them to have. Happy to see an endorsement from Craig Newmark. Now, if
> it were Tiger Woods...
>
> Nathan

Who on this list do you think thinks the foundation should have that attitude?



-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Mark Williamson]

Is it really anti-capitalist to be against giving Craigslist free publicity?

Mark

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> Personally, I'm glad the Foundation doesn't have the reflexively
> absolutist anti-capitalist stance that some on this list would like
> them to have. Happy to see an endorsement from Craig Newmark. Now, if
> it were Tiger Woods...
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> 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

[Nathan]

Personally, I'm glad the Foundation doesn't have the reflexively
absolutist anti-capitalist stance that some on this list would like
them to have. Happy to see an endorsement from Craig Newmark. Now, if
it were Tiger Woods...

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[K. Peachey]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Peter Gervai  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 14:42, Domas Mituzas  wrote:
>>> The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English
>>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> How much known is Craigslist outside of US, in other English speaking 
>> countries, or countries where English is used as second/primary language on 
>> the web?  :)
>
> Not at all?
>
> grin
It's known of in Australia but not that much, For example Gumtree
(owned by ebay) is more popular over here. Each country kind of have
their own things, some will know of others, but most sites like that
aren't really popular in more than one geographical location.

-Peachey

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Peter Gervai]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 14:42, Domas Mituzas  wrote:
>> The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English
>> Wikipedia.
>
> How much known is Craigslist outside of US, in other English speaking 
> countries, or countries where English is used as second/primary language on 
> the web?  :)

Not at all?

grin

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Domas Mituzas]

Erik,

> The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English
> Wikipedia. 

How much known is Craigslist outside of US, in other English speaking 
countries, or countries where English is used as second/primary language on the 
web?  :)

Domas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[K. Peachey]

May I ask why that message appears to be not following out standard
template and having a image as the background? all the others I've
seen only have the logo's in them Images like that just make them
even more distracting and disliked.

-Peachey

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[geni]

2009/12/15 Erik Moeller :
> Just as a bit of general background for this thread:
>
> The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English
> Wikipedia. It's a pilot to see how our audience responds to
> endorsements and testimonials by third parties. (So far, it is doing
> reasonably well, but not fantastically so; we will likely move on to
> different messages soon.) We're not running a large endorsement
> campaign this year, but we wanted to at least get some data on a
> banner of this type to help us determine whether we want to run more
> such messages in the future.
>
> We approached Craig and asked him whether he would help us with this,
> and he generously agreed. We chose Craig because he represents, to
> many people, a philosophy of the web that is comparable to ours. In
> spite of huge web traffic, Craigslist is run with a staff of 32 and
> carries no ads, and Craig founded a non-profit organization, the
> Craigslist Foundation, to support other non-profits. (CraigsList
> itself is a for-profit.) We're pleased that Craig has joined our
> Advisory Board, and we're happy he agreed to this endorsement.  That
> said, any kind of personal endorsement can certainly polarize.

I'm aware of Craigslist's PR image there is no need to repeat it.  If
you wanted to test endorsements there is no shortage of worthies who
could provide one without needing an advert for their website
appearing on several million page views. Heck if all else failed you
could have dug out those UNESCO contacts we've picked up.

You are helping  Craigslist carry out classic Edward Bernays
propaganda/PR and they are not even having to pay you. I mean yes I'm
quite impressed that Craigslist managed to pull that one off but there
was no need you you to make it so easy for them.

-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Mark Williamson]

Key phrase for me in this e-mail was "CraigsList itself is a for-profit",
despite the fact that it was hidden in a parenthetical remark after lots of
glowing praise... The "Craigslist Foundation" is not Craigslist.

According to the Wikipedia article on Craigslist:

"The company does not formally disclose financial or ownership information.
Analysts and commentators have reported varying figures for its annual
revenue, ranging from $10 million in 2004, $20 million in 2005, and $25
million in 2006 to possibly $150 million in 2007"

"It is believed to be owned principally by Newmark, Buckmaster, and eBay
(the three board members). eBay owns approximately 25%, and Newmark is
believed to own the largest stake."

We put the name of a for-profit organization flashing across the top of the
site... What you said: "In spite of huge web traffic, Craigslist is run with
a staff of 32 and carries no ads, and Craig founded a non-profit
organization, the Craigslist Foundation, to support other non-profits."
seems like it is intended to distract the reader from the truth, which is
that Craigslist is for profit and owned partly by corporations like eBay.

Mark

skype: node.ue


On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Just as a bit of general background for this thread:
>
> The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English
> Wikipedia. It's a pilot to see how our audience responds to
> endorsements and testimonials by third parties. (So far, it is doing
> reasonably well, but not fantastically so; we will likely move on to
> different messages soon.) We're not running a large endorsement
> campaign this year, but we wanted to at least get some data on a
> banner of this type to help us determine whether we want to run more
> such messages in the future.
>
> We approached Craig and asked him whether he would help us with this,
> and he generously agreed. We chose Craig because he represents, to
> many people, a philosophy of the web that is comparable to ours. In
> spite of huge web traffic, Craigslist is run with a staff of 32 and
> carries no ads, and Craig founded a non-profit organization, the
> Craigslist Foundation, to support other non-profits. (CraigsList
> itself is a for-profit.) We're pleased that Craig has joined our
> Advisory Board, and we're happy he agreed to this endorsement.  That
> said, any kind of personal endorsement can certainly polarize.
>
> If, in future, we decide to run more such endorsements, we'll likely
> want to come up with a rich mix of different kinds of people with very
> different backgrounds, both to appeal to different segments of our
> audience, and to get a better understanding of the overall trends.
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: 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

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Erik Moeller]

Just as a bit of general background for this thread:

The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English
Wikipedia. It's a pilot to see how our audience responds to
endorsements and testimonials by third parties. (So far, it is doing
reasonably well, but not fantastically so; we will likely move on to
different messages soon.) We're not running a large endorsement
campaign this year, but we wanted to at least get some data on a
banner of this type to help us determine whether we want to run more
such messages in the future.

We approached Craig and asked him whether he would help us with this,
and he generously agreed. We chose Craig because he represents, to
many people, a philosophy of the web that is comparable to ours. In
spite of huge web traffic, Craigslist is run with a staff of 32 and
carries no ads, and Craig founded a non-profit organization, the
Craigslist Foundation, to support other non-profits. (CraigsList
itself is a for-profit.) We're pleased that Craig has joined our
Advisory Board, and we're happy he agreed to this endorsement.  That
said, any kind of personal endorsement can certainly polarize.

If, in future, we decide to run more such endorsements, we'll likely
want to come up with a rich mix of different kinds of people with very
different backgrounds, both to appeal to different segments of our
audience, and to get a better understanding of the overall trends.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l