Delirium | 1 Jan 01:35 2006

Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

Steve Bennett wrote:

>>In any case, Jimbo already explicitly promised that there 
>>will never be 
>>ads on Wikipedia as long as he has a say in it, so I don't 
>>see why this 
>>is an issue.
>>    
>>
>
>Has he? I thought it was just "There won't be ads as long as the
>community doesn't want them". I'd like to read more of the history of
>this topic, if anyone has a link.
>  
>
I'm having trouble finding the original mailing list post, but there was 
a pretty explicit post to that effect.  I was able to find a 2002 letter 
by Mav that paraphrases Jimbo as having said that: "Jimbo has also 
promised that there will never be ads on Wikipedia.  I will personally 
advocate that this is written in the preamble for the non-profit's 
constitution or in some other way to make it permanent." 
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric49/The_Wikipedia_Family].

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
(Continue reading)

SP | 1 Jan 01:43 2006
Picon
Picon

Confessions of a image-maniac.

Confessions of a image-maniac.

I have a image that needs to go. It's license is dubious.
I love the image so much, even if its color's ridiculous.

I promised myself it would go on New Years Day.
If I tag it speedy delete will someone make it go away
Before I change my mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:0184_Lantern_slide_woman%2C_Ford%2C_pipe2.jpg

--Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Anthony DiPierro | 1 Jan 01:21 2006

Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

On 12/31/05, Steve Bennett <stevage@...> wrote:
> > If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring.  A
>
> IMHO it's a shoestring whenever income ~= expenses.  If the income for a
> year only *just* covers server expenditure with no room for backups,
> future proofing, redundancy, taking risks etc, then it's a shoestring -
> the magnitude is irrelevant.
>
I happen to have the 2004 (fiscal year) Form 990-EZ for the Wikimedia
Foundation in front of me right now (if you'd like to follow along, I
uploaded it to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Wikimedia_990_2004.pdf).
 Revenue = $71,171.  Expenses = $14,504.  I'm sure 2005 was basically
the same (only with bigger numbers).  Cash flow is roughly zero, but
this is fairly meaningless.  For example, Microsoft had a negative
cash flow in 2005, the same year their income - expenses was over $3
billion.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Anthony DiPierro | 1 Jan 02:46 2006

Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

On 12/31/05, Delirium <delirium@...> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >>In any case, Jimbo already explicitly promised that there
> >>will never be
> >>ads on Wikipedia as long as he has a say in it, so I don't
> >>see why this
> >>is an issue.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Has he? I thought it was just "There won't be ads as long as the
> >community doesn't want them". I'd like to read more of the history of
> >this topic, if anyone has a link.
> >
> >
> I'm having trouble finding the original mailing list post, but there was
> a pretty explicit post to that effect.  I was able to find a 2002 letter
> by Mav that paraphrases Jimbo as having said that: "Jimbo has also
> promised that there will never be ads on Wikipedia.  I will personally
> advocate that this is written in the preamble for the non-profit's
> constitution or in some other way to make it permanent."
> [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric49/The_Wikipedia_Family].
>
> -Mark

He's claimed that his statement was only that any decision regarding
advertising on Wikipedia would come from the community, not from him
(and looking at the history of posts this seems to be true).  See this
post (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004517.html):
(Continue reading)

Ray Saintonge | 1 Jan 03:01 2006
Picon

Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

charles matthews wrote:

> If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring.  A 'low' 
> yearly fee - would be relative to the income of a developed-world 
> person in work, or a villager in Asia or Africa in 
> subsistence.agriculture? 

The other problem with $5 per annum fees is the cost of administration   
It takes just as long to enter $5.00 in the books as it does $5,000.00.  
Then one has to track who has paid and who has not, and when memberships 
expire notify them that the time has come to pay again.  With enough 
members we may even need a full-time paid bookkeeper(s).

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ilya N. | 1 Jan 03:44 2006
Picon

Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

As soon as we introduce ads, then policy will be dictated by the
companies, not us (we all know how it works)

If Wikipedia stops being as it is then I will strongly consider
leaving the project

On 12/30/05, Ben Emmel <bratsche1@...> wrote:
> Some food for thought:
>
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1962714,00.html
>
> In an interview, Jimbo discusses the possibilities of ads eventually on the
> Wikipedia, due to the huge number of page views that we get.
>
> Also mentioned is the large-scale rejection of ads by the "wikitopeans"
> [sic] in the community.
>
>
> --
> Ben Emmel
> Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
> bratsche1@...
> "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
> -- William Blake
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
(Continue reading)

Hermione1980 | 1 Jan 03:48 2006
Picon

Re: Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

I'm not opposed to ads on Wikipedia per se. I am,
however, vehemently opposed to those damn flashing
red-and-white banners that scream at me from some
websites. As long as any hypothetical ads to be put on
Wikipedia are unobtrusive, I'm not going to scream too
loudly.

-Hermione1980

		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Daniel Mayer | 1 Jan 03:49 2006
Picon

Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

--- Delirium <delirium@...> wrote:
> I'm having trouble finding the original mailing list post, but there was 
> a pretty explicit post to that effect.  I was able to find a 2002 letter 
> by Mav that paraphrases Jimbo as having said that: "Jimbo has also 
> promised that there will never be ads on Wikipedia.  I will personally 
> advocate that this is written in the preamble for the non-profit's 
> constitution or in some other way to make it permanent." 
> [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric49/The_Wikipedia_Family].

Everyting from "I" on was me talking for myself. That was also written a long time ago (over three
years), so I don't recall what exactly I based the paraphrase on either. 

A historical note: That post was part of my effort to reunify the  Enciclopedia Libre and the
Spanish Wikipedia. What I was doing was pointing out each of the reasons EL stated prompted them
to start a fork and what has been done since the split to correct their grievances. Interesting
read for anybody who wasn't around at that time.

-- mav

		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
(Continue reading)

Daniel Mayer | 1 Jan 04:33 2006
Picon

Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

--- charles matthews <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
> Because there is a five-year history of those ideals getting the job done. 
> You don't need a _logical_ connection, when you have a track record.

We also had a track record of bringing in more money in each fund drive than in all previous
drives combined. The current drive is not following that trend. Past performance is not a good
indication of what to expect indefinitely in the future. 

> If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring. 

Considering we are running a top 30 website it certainly is. That is also what was budgeted; we've
been pretty good at underspending what we budget for by not being able to buy and deploy servers
fast enough. 

See:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report and 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers/hardware_orders

The Q3 spending vs actual report is delayed until we sort out some outstanding undocumented
transactions.

> The 'server strain' argument occurs only because exponential growth has been 
> seen.  WP _has not_ crumbled under the strain.  Traffic seems to have risen 
> 50% in December alone.  We all know this can't continue for ever.  

We've been saying that for years now. And yet we continue to grow much faster than the rest of the
Internet. :) 

At some point our growth will match that of the rest of the Internet, but the Internet itself will
continue to grow exponentially for years to come (still several billion people who aren't online
(Continue reading)

Brock Batsell | 1 Jan 04:37 2006

Re: Why is my IP Blocked?

Canadian Kid wrote:
> I would like to know who, if anyone, can help my IP (64.230.123.119) 
> get unblocked?
>
> I have apparently been blocked for spreading rumours without them 
> being documented. I would like, however, to offer the following points.
>
> 1. on the issue of the Conservative Party moving the airborn to CFB 
> Trenton and out of my MPs riding (who has been fighting to bring it 
> here) I noted that my MPs own party has stolen an issue right out from 
> underneath her. The following was noted in the edit history: "PLEASE 
> Document rumours before you put them in. The CPC website doesn't 
> mention moving the airborne to Trenton anywhere. It's JUST A RUMOUR 
> unless its documented)" I would kindly ask you, however, check out 
> http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=677&lang=e 
> where you will find in the December 13, 2005 video of Talk Politics , 
> at the 32 minute 15 second mark of the video, the Conservative Party's 
> Defence Critic, Gordon O'Connor, stating that his party wishes to 
> reincarnate the airborn in CFB Trenton.
>
> 2. Another issue facing this MP is an investogation by the Privacy 
> Commissioner of Canada related to how her office received and then 
> used personal information - likely from passport applications. I cited 
> the Pembroke Observer Newspaper 
>
link(http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=138630&catname=Local+News) 
> that clearly shows that a Deep River couple has contacted the Privacy 
> Commissioner of Canada. I will admit that the online article does not 
> have 100% of the article showing, however that is not the point. I was 
> asked to provide proof and I have. If the administrators are so 
(Continue reading)


Gmane