[Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form New Partnership

Mon Oct 24 13:13:07 UTC 2005

It is one thing to disagree (simple) it is another to address the issues
that I have raised.
*You quote of context and therefore you lose the main point that I made that
we will need money for other projects than just the English Wikipedia.
*You only rehash why you think this might be acceptable. You tell me that I
must assume good faith but where is your good faith where you assume that it
is only the other party that has to convince ? So far you have not convinced
at all.
*You assume that it goes against the ideals of the Foundation. Which ideals
are they ? As a Foundation we have objectives and it does say what we aim to
do. With more funding we can do more.
*If you cannot think of an admin who does not have the best interest of
Wikipedia at heart .. Well I am not a Wikipedia admin and I am an admin.
This does not mean that I do not have the best interest of Wikipedia at
heart, it only shows the fallacy of your line of thinking.

I do consider an admin who removes these links narrow minded. He does not
consider other things than his immediate concerns (that is what narrow
minded means). I also fail to see a justification for these things in your
arguments. I also miss how you would make the money that allows for the
growth pattern that we have seen. Please be constructive; make sure that our
projects can grow as boundless as the English Wikipedia has been allowed to
do untill now.

Thanks,
GerardM

On 10/24/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> GerardM wrote:
> > People who know me, now that I do almost everthing to have the things I
> > believe in come true. They also know that i will not squander away the
> > values of what we stand for. When some person aggresively removes these
> > links, I will be sorry for the narrow mindedness that it demonstrates.
> It
> > must also be an admin to do this, I will wonder to what extend this
> > behaviour will be mitigated by him finding the funds that are lost to
> the
> > rest of us. This is the least I would expect of someone who is this
> position
> > of responibility.
>
> I don't think it is narrow-mindedness that would cause someone to remove
> these links, and I think accusing someone of acting in this way is
> rather impolite and shows a lack of good faith. I can't think of one
> admin who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and is
> only doing what they think best.
>
> The thing is, a large number of people have not been convinced that this
> is necessary for the Foundation's continued operations, but the
> partnership is going against some of the ideals on which Wikipedia was
> founded. At the moment, the impression I (and many others) am getting is
> that this deal is allowing corporations to influence how the Foundation
> operates. Some people do not mind; others do. It's up to the Board to
> demonstrate that this is a good move, not up to the community to say why
> it's a bad move. Saying "let's give it a trial and see what the results
> are" isn't good enough.
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>