Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
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
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
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 e...@wikimedia.org 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
2009/12/15 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: 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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 14:42, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 14:42, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com 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
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
Is it really anti-capitalist to be against giving Craigslist free publicity? Mark On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com 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
2009/12/15 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com: 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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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] Wikimedia and Environment
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org 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/ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595674_eng.pdf 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] My new blog and foundation-l
2009/12/15 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com: 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] advertising craigslist
geni wrote: 2009/12/15 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 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] advertising craigslist
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com 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] Wikimedia and Environment
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 simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org 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/ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595674_eng.pdf 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] My new blog and foundation-l
2009/12/15 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com: 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] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: 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] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com 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
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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/15 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com 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] My new blog and foundation-l
2009/12/15 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/12/15 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com: 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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 16:47, geni geni...@gmail.com 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] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/15 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: 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
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
geni wrote: 2009/12/15 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: 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
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
Domas Mituzas midom.li...@... 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
[Foundation-l] Strategy Question of the Week: Dec 14
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? Graph and link to participate are 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 ___ 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
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
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
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 wae...@asianet.co.th To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] Strategy Question of the Week: Dec 14
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org 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] advertising craigslist
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: geni wrote: 2009/12/15 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: 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 at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
-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
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 23:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com 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] advertising craigslist
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] My new blog and foundation-l
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/15 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com: 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.inidiff=330197740oldid=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] My new blog and foundation-l
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.inidiff=330197740oldid=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] some attention regarding our ad placement
2009/12/15 Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org: 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
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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.inidiff=299378686oldid=299065918 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.inidiff=207102202oldid=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
[Foundation-l] Office hours Thursday, December 17
-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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Sara_Crouse. 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 http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi. 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] Wikimedia and Environment
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
