I see several issues/concerns re sponsoring pages.
Firstly it is a form of advertising, even if we don't name the sponsor on
the page (and there will be pressure to do so) then we will have headlines
along the lines of car maker x launches new "peregrine" car - sponsors
Wikipedia page on Peregine
Replying off my phone here, so no signature or lengthy response...
For Wikipedians in Residence, it varies I believe. I've seen some WiRs edit
articles directly, whereas others, including WMUK's WiRs, don't edit
articles about their institution at all, instead focussing on training,
digitisation,
I too would say (A) no, (B) no, (C) no and never.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 30 March 2013 20:57, James Salsman wrote:
> In today's Office Hour[1] I had some questions about the "Promotional Use
> of Website Assets" section of the Foundation Policy and Political
> Association Guideline[2] which I'm not sure were addressed in accordance
> with what that guideline actual
How would sponsorship money for a page be spent to make the sponsorship
meaningful?
Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message -
From: "Steven Walling"
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
On Saturday, March 30, 2013, S
On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, "Mark" wrote:
>
> There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not
counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is
that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a
"Wikipedian in residence" who is broug
There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board,
not counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common
case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds
for a "Wikipedian in residence" who is brought in to do a mixture of
training other p
In today's Office Hour[1] I had some questions about the "Promotional Use
of Website Assets" section of the Foundation Policy and Political
Association Guideline[2] which I'm not sure were addressed in accordance
with what that guideline actually says. And it was made clear that
decisions about it
On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:
> Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
> an animal you don't get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
> Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
> the content. At the bottom en
What do they get when they donate? What do they get when they "adopt"
wildlife?
Still, some people are donating and/or are adopting wildlife.
Strainu
2013/3/30 Peter Southwood
> Why would anyone want to sponsor a page?
> What would they get out of it?
> Cheers,
> Peter
> - Original Messag
Why would anyone want to sponsor a page?
What would they get out of it?
Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message -
From: "Jane Darnell"
To: ; "Wikimedia Mailing List"
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is
Sue and I will be having office hours in a few hours to answer questions on her
decision and the Transition Team and the next steps.
(Europeans: please note that different implementations of daylight savings time
has made the current difference between PST and CET 8 hours rather than 9!)
Regar
On Mar 30, 2013 9:46 AM, "Jane Darnell" wrote:
>
> As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea,
It is worth remembering that we don't actually have a problem with
fundraising. We can raise enormous amounts of money incredibly easily by
putting banners on the fifth most visited website on
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard
to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
placed ones get a higher "pric
It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project
like Wikipedia is. Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
promote volunteerism? If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
particul
Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
an animal you don't get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
you could
16 matches
Mail list logo
