MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice/Archive 2


 * This page was archived Oct. 30, 2005 (UTC). The page history is still at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice. Dmcdevit·t 00:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

1
Since this would be a largish change, I'll propose it here first. How about putting site status on the sitenotice message? Like "Wikipedia status: Up"... One could even go further and link to fundraising to say "Wikipedia status:Up. Help Wikipedia servers by donating"? Just some ideas. Dysprosia 14:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * But if wikipedia's status wasn't up, then users wouldn't be able to see the notice anyways. We already have a donation link on the sidebar, and I think that some (myself included) would find it a bit annoying to have a request for people to donate displayed at the top of every page.  Just my two cents :) -Frazzydee|&#9997; 03:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If wikipedia's status isn't up, it could be "Slow" or "Undergoing database repairs" or whatever. Dysprosia 05:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February fund drive notice
On Friday 18 February 2005 at 00:00 UTC, the message below needs to go live on this page:

Wikimedia needs your help in its $75,000 fund drive. See our fundraising page for details.

-- mav 21:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cafe Press ad
The following line is newly included in the Sitenotice:

Show your pride in Wikipedia by purchasing merchandise through our Cafe Press shop (http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia).

I would like to see it removed again. This is quite clearly an advertisement for Cafe Press. I do not think there is consensus for including an ad of any kind in virtually all pages served by wikipedia; I also have objections to this specific ad, but I do not want to go into them unless it is necessary.

The fundraising page still claims "All of our sites are free from advertisements." and "We rely entirely on donations to fund our projects." I feel it is a bit unusual to change those policies immediately after the fund drive that used them to convince people to donate (some people might not have donated had they been aware their donations were going to be used to advertise Cafe Press's products). At the very least, the fundraising page needs to be changed to reflect the new situation.

I think the right thing to do would be to remove the ad for now, and discuss future ads before including them in the site notice.

Prumpf 18:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have addressed your concerns and made it less explicit (keeping the essential phrase and link but removing the company advert). I have also added a link to year old requests which we could get cleared out very soon - a wiki thing to do, I think. --Oldak Quill 19:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I think I'd agree with removing the link entirely. --SPUI (talk) 19:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If a couple more people express this opinion, I shall remove it entirely. --Oldak Quill 19:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I, too, would prefer to see it removed entirely. As things are after your change, the link to Cafe Press is no longer clearly recognisable as a link to an external site - we're still telling people to buy a commercial company's products, but it's no longer as obvious that that's what we're doing.  It is still an advertisement.


 * I am not sure many other people will find their way here. It is not at all obvious that the message that gets displayed at the top of every paged is stored at MediaWiki:Sitenotice, and that that page has a talk page associated to it.  Thanks for trying to help with my concerns.  Prumpf 19:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * We did the same for PayPal. --mav 02:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement for Cafe Press, it is a pointer to the Wikipedia shop (something that adds to the funds used to keep this site running). Saying it is by CafePress simply indicates that it is an external shop. But I'll remove mention of CafePress to prevent any other people from making such an ill-informed conclusion. This whole message will be blanked midnight UTC Thursday. --mav 23:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a public message telling people to buy certain of Cafe Press's products. In my eyes, and by the dictionary definition, that makes it an advertisement.  I don't see what's "ill-informed" about that conclusion.  That Cafe Press gives a share of its profits to the Wikimedia foundation is certainly a nice side-effect, but the same would be true for regular banner ads.


 * I don't see how sending users to an externally-controlled page without even hinting at that in the link text makes things any better. Most other links to non-Wikimedia sites are clearly marked, so maybe we should apply that rule here as well.


 * I'd like to know what your definition of advertisement is. In any case, if the message remains, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising needs to be updated to reflect that Wikimedia sites now contain what many judges would certainly see as advertisements and the foundation is no longer financed exclusively by donations;  asking for donations using the current incorrect claims might well be frowned upon in many jurisdictions.


 * Prumpf 01:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * PayPal's product is to provide a mechanism by which people can easily exchange money online. CafePress' products are mugs and t-shirts. We get money needed to keep this site up by using both services. --mav 02:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I think that it is absolutely fine to provide a link to a facility by which people can give us money, even though it would also give money to someone else. PayPal is an example, of course, but were we to do the same through our own service (not through CaféPress), we would still in effect be 'advertising', as is claimed, for our suppliers.
 * James F. (talk) 02:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What I don't like about cafepress is that the 'basic' prices are already exorbitant, and by the time a fair donation of $5 or so is added on to the items the end user is paying well above the odds for what they're actually getting - making them think that a higher proportion is going to the "owner" of the shop. I'll be glad to see it go tomorrow :) --BesigedB (talk) 09:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal time
Er, is the message staying until Mar 4 or Mar 11? The comment in the source seems to suggest the latter, but mav just said Thursday, which I assume would be Mar 4. Prumpf 01:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The first minute of March 3rd it can be removed. --mav 02:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My eyes!
Please, style this in the same way as the fundraising notice. &#9999; Oven Fresh ²  18:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BR
Please, use ''' , not   '''! See XHTML. --ajvol 07:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, since the software automatically converts the latter to the former - see the HTML source. &mdash; Dan | Talk 15:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

65k "has been generously donated"
And how much has been donated in a miserly manner?! :) That doesn't quite read right to me. Pcb21| Pete 07:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fix Danny. Sorry for being picky! Pcb21| Pete 12:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh...well..yeah...um... &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  01:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What's that mean? Pcb21| Pete 09:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was just an odd way of putting it (how much has been donated in a miserly matter...) :D &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  15:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding the euro adds nothing and looks a little ugly
Of the English-speaking countries, only Ireland has the euro, so adding it as an aid to conversion is more or less useless. Pcb21| Pete 09:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The euro is more useful to england, for example, than the USD. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  14:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that? Speaking as an Englishman, they are as useful as each other at most. Pcb21| Pete 15:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I compute the grand total in USD so that is what I report. The Euro and U.S. Dollar are similar enough in value that providing a parenthetical conversion is of little use. Also, the UK (England is only part of the UK) still uses Pound Sterling. --mav 17:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I wrong in saying that due to the fact that the UK is in the EU they are phasing in the Euro? Also, saying that is like saying that since we in America compute stuff in US standard that a paranthetical conversion to metric is of little use. 30,000 difference is a lot in my opinion (110,000 USD:89,000 EUR). But that's just my opinion. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  20:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The UK is not bringing in the euro anytime soon, although there's a fair chance it will happen eventually - see the euro article if you're interested. I don't think having the amount in euros is going to be vastly more useful to British readers than having it in dollars - both are major currencies used abroad, even if lots more people will have euro coins and notes lying around at home than do dollars. If we're going to worry about currency confusion I think of greater priority is that we should probably specify that we're talking about USD here, since people in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, to name a few other dollar users, who are not all that familiar with who is behind Wikipedia and where it is based will have no great reason to assume that a website mentioning dollars isn't based in their own country and talking about their own currency. The fundraising page doesn't appear to mention this explicitly either, and paypal gives you the option of paying in three kinds of dollars. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 21:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ireland is the only English speaking country that uses the Euro. My vote is to quote the value in Barrels of Oil - its universal and neutral. 140,000$ = 1,980 bbl. :-) Seabhcán 09:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The BOO (barrel of oil) is rapidly appreciating against other currencies though.... it may be hard for users to understand why our target is dropping every day! Pcb21| Pete 16:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Time to replace the second line
Given that this fund drive has been interrupted by the most devastating natural disaster in United States history, I propose that the second line be replaced by this for the remainder of the fund drive:

The Red Cross also needs your help in their effort to assist hurricane refugees.

This second line will disappear on Friday at the same time the fund drive ends. It is just that, as is, it looks very crass for us to be asking for money at a time of such severe crisis. The least we could do is add a line reflecting this right after our message. Thousands of people have died already and we have the ability to help the hundreds of thousands of survivors. The sitewide message is already up so let's use it while it is still there. This is an extraordinary event that requires extraordinary efforts to address (not unlike what we did after the 2004 tsunami; although that event did not interrupt a fund drive, so there was no pre-existing sitewide message to alter). The amount of good will we will generate from this will more than make up for money diverted to disaster relief (in fact, donations have already dropped off ; but we are already almost at our goal). I've already talked with Jimbo about this and he is fine with it, so long as I ask first and people are OK to proceed. So I'm being bold and I will do this myself in 12 hours so long as there are at least no serious protests. --mav 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree - very good idea &rarr;Raul654 05:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * No objections here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree...especially if Jimbo says it's okay (besides we only need $20k more). &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  05:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There are obviously very few situations where such a notice is warranted. I think this is one of them.  No objection.   Ral  315  05:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea, but there might be POV issues. If we link to one charity on the header, we have to link to them all. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 05:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Red Cross is the most apolitical and uncontroversial one of the whole bunch in addition to being the most well-known. The point is to help ; a dollar to the Red Cross is going to help as much as a dollar anywhere else. We also have very limited space. However, what we could do is add a [more info] link to another page that will have a more complete list and also direct people toward volunteer activities, such as with Habitat for Humanity. --mav 05:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems POV to support only this disaster when there are always charities that need donations. Angela. 05:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by 'support this disaster'? That phrase does not make sense given the rest of your sentence. The point is to help people not charities. We did something similar for the tsunami disaster as well. Listing all charities on the sitewide message is out of the question due to space concerns and only linking to a second page will be much less effective. So I suggested directly linking to the most well know and respected one and linking the others from a second page. I think this is the best of both worlds. --mav 05:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The point is that we've never had a sitenotice asking people to donate to anything other than Wikimedia, and now you're suggesting we do it for this one event and no others. I'm surprised Jimbo is supporting this considering he apparently objected to the Tsunami one (see Talk:Main Page/Archive 32). I'm not objecting to it, but if we are going to have this, we ought to have a clear policy on what else we're going to support and when other charities can be advertised in the site notice and/or on the main page. Angela. 05:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The camel's nose is already in the door from the Tsunami effort. I agree with Angela that we should create an official policy for handling these situations, but in the absence of that for the time being, I don't see any difference between this and the Tsunami effort in December. &rarr;Raul654 05:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Supporting' is the wrong terminology. It would be more correct to say that he would be OK with it so long as this is not going to cause a big fuss. --mav 05:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's so POV, I dont think we did anything about the tsunami in east asia, why should we for an american event ? Hashar 05:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We had a message on the Main Page that directed people to donate for weeks. If that event interrupted a fund drive, then I would have suggested modifying the sitewide message then as well. --mav 05:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I very strongly disagree with the idea. Though I am all in heart with the people suffering due to this disaster, disasters exist in many places as well. And many other people suffering just now. If we start supporting one disaster, then we should support all of them. If we start suggesting giving money to one organisation, then we should also consider giving to many others. Second, this is just not our goal and this could have impact on our image for future donations. I suggest we try to help with ways in relation to our goal, ie, here, giving as much information, in particular on where mistakes were made, so as next disaster is possibly handled differently. Anthere 05:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We already did something for the tsunami. Not doing something for this event would be POV. This is not just 'another disaster.' This is an extraordinary event in United States history. Extraordinary events require extraordinary efforts. The last thing I want is for ordinary things to divert us. But at the same time we must understand that we do not live in a bubble from the outside world. As is, we look bad asking for money given recent extraordinary events. That will certainly effect future donation efforts. --mav


 * The fact we asked for money once (not in the site notice I think, but I was away at that time, so am not sure) does not imply we should make the same mistake again, and in particular to "link" this donation call with our donation call, and this for the years to come. If you think the english wikipedia looks bad for asking money right now, then the solution might be to entirely remove the notice just now ?


 * Helping people in extraordinary circumstances is a mistake?! What do you mean by "and this for the years to come"? This type of thing would only happen if a fund drive gets interrupted by an extraordinarily huge disaster where hundreds of thousands of people need help. --mav 05:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on Mav. You know I did not say that helping people is a mistake. The mistake is that this is not our mission to do it. And the mistake would be to go on doing something for years, each time there is a disaster, giving the reason that "we can do it, because it has already been done once" (then twice...). A sudden disaster is striking minds very much, in particular when it is very well covered by media. But there are other countries where disasters occur all the time, such as the cricket attack of the past couple of years in Africa, stripping whole nations of food. This is also a disaster. And there are others. If we start calling help for each disaster that occurs, then we'll call for help all the time because disasters are all over the planet. This is just not our mission is just the way I see it. Ant


 * Apparently you are not reading what I'm saying, so I'll say it again: This type of thing would only happen if a fund drive gets interrupted by an extraordinarily huge disaster where hundreds of thousands of people need help. Now, how often does that happen? This won't be an ongoing issue. --mav 06:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mav, I am sorry, but you've been indeed saying this over and over again, which does not change my point of view. (I strongly disagree with putting anything of the kind on the site notice). If you feel so strongly aznd so bad about asking money when others need it more than we do, take the site notice down, please, do not argue endlessly that this is extraordinary, it is in the US maybe, but I do not see why wikipedia should reflect a US disaster, and not all disasters in English speaking countries. notafish }<';> 09:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And what disaster in an English speaking country (or any country for that matter) happened to interrupt our fund drive that also had hundreds of thousands of refugees that desperately need help? This is not a run of the mill disaster by any measure. Helping in this extraordinary circumstance will not mean we will need to have similar efforts each time any disaster happens. Only the really big ones need mention. --mav 15:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ant is making a more general point than you, Mav. Yes, this is the first time we are solicing for charities using the site notice; however, it's the second time [in as many months] that we are soliciting for charity. That's not something we should be doing very often. However, I do think that this is one of those exceptional times where we should. I believe the solution is that we put up the link to the red cross, and when the current situation is over, we formulate some kind of official policy about when it's acceptable. &rarr;Raul654


 * I have to disagree with the proposal. If the Red Cross needs to push a global fund drive it's the first I've heard of it. Sounds like a US domestic issue? Flowerparty 05:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * US domestic issue? That is a funny way to call the worst natural disaster in the history of that nation. The point is to help people by just replacing a single line in a pre-existing message. That is a very small effort on our part that will help many thousands of people. --mav 05:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of small efforts that may save many more lifes. Aoineko 06:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the Red Cross, rather than the disaster itself. Flowerparty 21:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This disaster is only "extraordinary" because it affect the richest country in the world. Many more murderous disasters (wars, famines, floods, etc.) happening all over the world. I very strongly disagree the idea of adding a link only for "this" disaster. I don't support this, but I may accept (by humanism) to add a permanent banner with various charity messages (ie. selected by UNO). As Anthere said, as an encyclopedia, we have better to write good articles on the subject that next time the same mistakes will not recommence. Aoineko 06:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is extraordinary by any measure. Don't you watch the news? Have you not heard about the hundreds of thousands of refugees? Or is the fact that they are from a rich nation make them less worthy? One must remember that in the U.S. a large part of any disaster relief comes from private donations instead of tax money. --mav 06:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that those refugees are from a rich nation make this disaster neither least nor worse than other disasters. Do you know how many people dies in Haiti last year? Do you know how many people dying cause of famine in Africa? Do you know how many refugees there is in Darfour? As I said, if you want to support all disasters, why not; if it's just for this disaster, I must say no. Aoineko 06:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See below. None of what you mention was from a point event that interrupted our fund drive. So those are not valid things to mention. --mav 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be extraordinary, it isi just an USA event. When the next plane crash in a few days media will talk about it and start forgetting the hurricane/flooding. By december everyone will talk about xmas and New Orleans flooding will be history. There is still famine in Somalia and nobody hear about it anymore, people have been dieing there for more than 10 years and nobody care any more. What about the people in east asia which are still homeless after the tsunami ? Hashar 06:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Did any of those events interrupt our fund drive? No - they were either ungoing or pre-existing. This event did. We did something for the tsunami already. --mav 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mav, I really don't see the point that an event that interrupt our fund drive may be "advertise" (I don't know better word) while other disasters can be quietly ignored. Aoineko 06:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Again, if you think that this "interupts" our fund drive, then take the site notice down. Have other organisations that work against the spreading of Aids, or that support research against cancer, stopped fundraising for their own activities? If yes, I would like to see them. This is a political stand for a 1st world country that I definitely do not endorse, and that, in my opinion, completely goes against the NPOV policy. I am totally against it. notafish }<';> 09:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So the lives of American refugees are worth less to you than the lives of tsunami refugees? I don't recall you opposing the donation message we had for that event. --mav 15:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I oppose involving Wikipedia in this. While I totally agree with the idea of donating to the Red Cross, I find it appalling that the help of other nations is being ignored. Sam Hocevar 09:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And the refugees have to suffer for an appalling act that is not their fault? Sorry, that is a bit cold-hearted. --mav


 * I strongly oppose for reasons given above. Ryo 19:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Who even told you about this? The edit above is the first one you have made on the English Wikipedia in weeks. In fact it looks like everybody who has objected is from the French Wikipedia or at least edits there once in a while. Did one of you tell his/her friends to come here to stop this from happening? Where were you when a similar effort was being done for tsunami victims? Why was that message OK and this one not? This whole thing has sickened me. Fine, have it your way. I sure hope you all are very happy with yourselves. We could have helped - just as we did for the tsunami - but you all blocked the effort. I'm sure you are proud ; those damn smug Americans deserve it anyway. --mav 03:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. Why are we suddenly experiencing an influx of french users complaining about what we do with the english wikipedia? I'd be very interested in hearing the answer to that. &rarr;Raul654 04:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Answer is very simple. Mav threw the idea in on irc and we were all there. So we watched, to see where this was going. Please, making this into a French or European bashing the Americans thing is ridiculous. I would have had the exact same reaction if the disaster had happened in France and this very discussion was happening on the French Wikipedia. notafish }<';> 11:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly as notafish explains. Ryo 18:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I also strongly support mav's idea. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with the site message. If the other Wikipedis want to do something for the folks in Niger and other countries, let them do it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This blatant anti-Americanism is really starting to annoy me. Say we shouldn't publicize this disaster relief because it's already well-funded; I have no objection. Say we shouldn't publicize this disaster relief because it's a much smaller disaster than the tsunami; that makes sense. Say we shouldn't publicize this diaster relief beause authorities should have been able to prevent it; fine. For the record, I don't think that there should be a site notice, largely for the first two reasons I just cited. But do not try to argue that it shouldn't be up there simply because it took place in the US. Angela and Anthere, your callous inhumanity in this case has all but guaranteed that I will not support your re-election to the Wikimedia board. I am utterly disgusted. Invoking POV policy and being concerned about Wikimedia's reputation when we're talking about human lives is beyond low. -- Seth Ilys 05:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Seth, I explicity said above that I do not object to this. How is wanting to have a policy to ensure other charities are represented and other disasters can be funded in addition to supporting this one an example of "callous inhumanity"? Angela. 09:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Seth, cool down. I do not think there is any sentence from mine (nor from Angela) you can point out where I supposingly "try to argue that it shouldn't be up there simply because it took place in the US". I do not think there is such a sentence because I simply do not support that. Please keep perspective here. We are simply trying to maintain here the mission and the principles of the project. Anthere 17:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

We could link to a general charity donation page, but I just don't see why this one disaster has to take precedence. That's not being callous, that's actually being more fair to most people. It's not like this is the only disaster right now, just the only one in a first world nation and the one which already has the most worldwide publicity. Dmcdevit·t 05:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, instead of asking people to "Celebrate by purchasing Wikipedia merchandise", a sentence that I don't understand (how can you celebrate by buying something?), we could say something like "Other organisations need money for their noble causes, too. See Humanitarian aid or donate to the Red Cross." --Kurt Jansson 07:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We're a first world country; all we have to do is stop shoving money in the entertainment industry's mouth. I find it odd that the U.S. in certain cities, such as my native Nashville, spends thousands of dollars for fireworks shows that are not funded by donations, but by tax money, and scratches its head about where to get money for things such as Medicare. I object based on the grounds of every objection written above. Toothpaste 05:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see Danny's proposal at Other charities policy proposal. Angela. 11:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Instead of calling people names or getting overheated about things, why don't we work towards compromise? I'll toss a few coins into the ring: how about putting a charity notice on the main page and not the sitenotice, or on the main page and article? This way if it's on the main page, it'll still be visible, and we could potentially support other charities and disasters etc. by placing charity aid links on their respective articles. Does this help at all? Dysprosia 12:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I disagree with advertising another charity (or grouping thereof), due to this disaster or any other, during one of our fundraising drives or not. Of course other charities need money, but that doesn't change from week to week. There is always another disaster around the corner. We would end up having a dozen requests for other people's funding at all times, and any request that we made would be swamped out.
 * James F. (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with James, but on ongoing events, on relevant articles that are being updated and likely to be consulted while this disaster is happening alongside with emergency numbers, links to organisations that have dedicated themselves in the releif of the victims... why not. notafish }<';> 14:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth I support Mav's idea. Waerth 17:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

...and I strongly oppose it. The US is rich enough to look after itself; and there are plenty more deserving charities out there desperate for money. They just don't get 24/7 news coverage. Dan100 (Talk) 17:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Katrina hit probably the poorest part of the United States. Anybody without insurance has lost everything. It is not their fault that they don’t live in a warefare state. --mav 18:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No one can plausibly accuse me of either anti-Americanism nor callous inhumanity. And yet, I find the arguments against altering our fund drive mostly persuasive. But the first thing that I thought of, the thing which I haven't seen much discussed, is that *our work is of benefit to disaster victims everywhere*. It is not direct aid, to be sure. But direct aid is not the mission that we have chosen for ourselves. We have chosen instead to focus on a long view effort to spread knowledge, the kind of knowledge that people need in order to make better policy choices and personal choices.

As is well known (or if it isn't, it should be), I opposed (in a mild way) the notice on the front page of the site for the tsunami victims. However, I relented on the theory that this was a massive disaster of an unprecedented scale and that it would not (or should not) lead to a "slippery slope" of us pitching for every disaster campaign on the planet.

If we do something special for the Red Cross (or other organizations) during the Katrina crisis, we will be setting a precedent, a precedent which is likely to become increasingly problematic. In world-wide terms, this disaster is relatively minor (yes! and I mean no disrespect, just a factual assessment of the relative extent of what is going on). The best estimates of the death toll is in the low thousands. We know that hundreds of thousands of people have died in other disasters around the world (tsunami, drought, etc.).

You'd hardly know it from watching the English language news headlines, but a half a million people are currently relocated (evacuated) due to a typhoon in China.

We should stick to our direct mission, but most of all, I urge everyone in this discussion to approach each other with a kind and loving heart. We're all experienced Wikipedians, we have worked together now for years, and there is no reason to suddenly see each other in a negative light because of a perfectly reasonable disagreement over an emotionally difficult issue. --Jimbo Wales 17:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The aid is not for the dead, but for the refugees. Please read and respond below. --mav 18:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By arguing about this for days instead of doing something, and with the three active board members all opposing changing the notice, you have set a precedent: appearances of impartiality are more important than helping people out. "the first thing that I thought of, the thing which I haven't seen much discussed, is that *our work is of benefit to disaster victims everywhere*"  I think I can accuse of of callous inhumanity, though not anti-Americanism.  Wikipedia begs for money to support its poorly designed infrastructure, without even offering anything back such as a sponsorship notice.  And then you argue against providing a token link to a site trying to raise money to save lives and help people who lost their homes.  And your excuse - that running a website helps disaster victims too, like those people homeless and starving in New Orleans could appease themselves by logging on with their laptop and downloading pictures of houses and food.


 * Go ahead, stick to your direct mission, but guess what, that's fucking inhumane. 70.197.127.136 13:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm kinda jumping in here in the middle of nowhere, not having followed the debate (though the anti-Americanism I see here is staggering!) but I have to oppose promoting sending money to the Red Cross for any purpose. After their bait and switch tactics following 9/11, where they were advertising for weeks to send them money to help the vitcims of 9/11, only to find they were throwing it into their general fund, they should have been prosecuted for false advertising and fraud. If we want to say something like "donate to the hurricane relief fund" without naming any organization, or we want to promote sending money to Second Harvest or the Salvation Army, I have no problem, but I have a strong problem with promoting the Red Cross. Zoe 05:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * And, of course, there would be those of us who would protest supporting a religious oriented group with even more fervor that the opposition to the Red Cross. There is no way to provide an endorsement of charities on which we can achieve consensus. This alone should be enough to end the discussion and it's not a bad thing: That so many people have views on the matter is a result of the wide awareness of the need for giving and a result of the awareness of so many places to give.  If our community feels guilty asking for support while so many others suffer, our request could be tempered by an additional reminder that many other groups need support. We do not need to provide a list because finding a viable charity is very easy, nor do we need to specify a cause, because there is always suffering in the world. While the site notice was up there has been no commentary about the listed charities (only some requests to lists more), even though some are rather odd and would almost  And, of course, there would be those of us who would protest supporting a religious oriented group with even more fervor that the opposition to the Red Cross.  There is no way to provide an endorsement of charities on which we can achieve consensus. This alone should be enough to end the discussion and it's not a bad thing: That so many people have views on the matter is a result of the wide awareness of the need for giving and a result of the awareness of so many places to give.  If our community feels guilty asking for support while so many others suffer, our request could be tempered by an additional reminder that many other groups need support. We do not need to provide a list because finding a viable charity is very easy, nor do we need to specify a cause, because there is always suffering in the world. While the site notice was up there has been no commentary about the listed charities (only some requests to lists more), even though some are rather odd and would almost certainly bring us comments (and most likely complaints) if our readers were actually paying attention, but they are not because the content of the list is unimportant. We would probably transmit the message we were sending with the sitenotice more effectively and with less argument if we made it say Wikipedia would like to remind you to feel guilty if you are not suffering as much as so many other people in the world. --Gmaxwell 15:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's replace the whole message with a neutral call for help
I'm still not certain how long my Wikibreak will be from the English Wikipedia, but I wanted to give this at least one more try. No matter what some other people may think, the refugees who are *still dying* and *still suffering* deserve the effort.

After reading Kurt's excellent compromise proposal, I created my own based on his. The below wording does not even mention Katrina and even links to another page where people have a choice of causes and charities to give to. Even the direct link to the Red Cross gives people a good selection of causes to donate to. I think this takes care of most of the POV concerns.

You did it! Thanks to you we have met budget. You can still donate and buy Wikipedia merchandise. The Red Cross and other charities also need your help.

Time is critical here due to the fact that the sitewide message will be blanked at the end of Friday. So I'm going to make this go live in 3 hours barring any major protest from currently active English Wikipedians. If this works well, we may even want to do this for each drive once we meet budget and yet still have time left for the drive. --mav 18:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't add a red link to the sitenotice and please don't claim the fund drive is over. It's a 21-day drive, not a $200,000 drive as the sitenotice wrongly claimed earlier. I'd rather be able to wait another 6 months before the next drive like we did this time than have to start another one next quarter because the wording implied this one was closed before it really was. If there's any agreement on what to put at Current charitable causes, then this seems a good compromise, but I think 3 hours is a little too soon to determine whether anyone will agree to that, particularly since the page is currently blank. Have you considered the other compromise options, such as putting this on the main page or relevant articles instead of here? Angela. 20:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I did not plan on adding a red link to the sitemessage. :) The truth of the matter is that donations took a dive a couple days before somebody claimed on the sitemessage that the drive was over. I'll work on better wording and a start on the Current charitable causes page after I walk home from work and get something to eat. --mav 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Katrina wiki has a fairly comprehensive list of Katrina-related charities so that could be included or linked to. In the longer terms, I think the page should be something more general rather than only including this event. I'm not sure how we'd ever get agreement on what to include there though, or which ones to mention in places other than that page. Angela. 22:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK - It's been way more than 3 hours, so this is what I'm going to go live with: Wikimedia needs your help in the final days of its fund drive. See our fundraising page The Red Cross and other charities also need your help.

Tweak the message to improve it, but please don't substantially change it. --mav 03:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Current charitable causes has been listed on VfD. Angela. 19:57, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The tsunami precedent
As I recall, that dispute ultimately settled with the link provided being to a Wikipedia page, Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which even today survives as an article describing the humanitarian response to that tragedy. That proved to be a stable solution; it stimulates what I think is worthwhile encyclopedic content and also directs people toward outlets for their charitable impulses.

I think the same could be done in this instance. Directing donations to a specific organization is not neutral (even the Red Cross has critics). --Michael Snow 21:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We direct donations to the Wikimedia Foundation, yet there are many critics of what they do. At least having one direct donation link is very important. The Red Cross is about as saintly as charities get. So it is the obvious choice for that. That, along with a link to a more complete list, is the way to go, IMO. --mav 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Directing donations to the Wikimedia Foundation here is like directing donations to the Red Cross on the Red Cross website. We ultimately managed without any direct donation link for tsunami/earthquake victim aid, and I think it must be conceded that that disaster was at least an order of magnitude greater than this one (however one measures such things). In lieu of an in-house list, something like the Katrina wiki list that Angela pointed to would be fine with me. --Michael Snow 23:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Re "about as saintly as charities get". I agree. The ICRC is one of only two charities I'll end up directly donating to this year. However that does not imply there are not a lot of people of critical of their way of doing things. The consequences of their central concept of neutrality mean they do things, particularly in warzones, that some find morally wrong.


 * The underlying point is whichever charity we pick at any time, there will be disagreement. I'm wondering if the best thing might be just to encourage people to use their user pages to advertise charities as they see fit. Pcb21| Pete 07:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Red Cross is about as saintly as charities get.. Hardly. See my comments above. And let me add that my father, a World War II veteran, has hated the Red Cross since the war, because they made the soldiers in the field PAY them for coffee and donuts while other organizations like the USO were giving them things for free. Zoe 05:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is wrong of you to paint the picture like this. You make it sound like the Red Cross were profiteering! As I am sure you know, the Red Cross only made soldiers in many rear areas pay because they were ordered to do so by the American Secretary of State. The Red Cross agreed to do so under protest in order that the supplies got through at all. More information on this can be found from the Red Cross itself and on many pages on the internet including e.g http://www.greaterkzooredcross.org/News/Myths%20&%20Legends.htm. Pcb21| Pete 08:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible new version?
You did it! Thanks to you we have met our budget goals. Donations are still welcome (the fund drive ends 9 September). You can also help contribute to Hurricane Katrina recovery and other humanitarian aid efforts.

Trying to combine elements of the different ideas floating around. --Michael Snow 23:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to keep this as event-neutral as possible while maintaining at least one direct donation link. We can feature a different relatively non-controversial charity like this for each fund drive once we meet budget. --mav 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Event-neutral is even better. I'm still uncomfortable with the implicit endorsement of a specific charity, though. Also, I'm curious as to what other candidates you think would be sufficiently non-controversial. --Michael Snow 05:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Red Cross" > "American Red Cross"
If it's to be kept, the link should be tweaked to make it clear that it takes you to the American Red Cross -- ie, the USA's national society, not to the ICRC or to the IFRCS. Not that linking directly to the U.S. chapter isn't the correct thing to be doing, in light of the header's declared purpose and the current situation, but it should be made explicit. –Hajor 16:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Red Cross favouritism
So how come we're suddenly endorsing certain charites over others? Not very NPOV! Dan100 (Talk) 16:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I went for event-neutral instead of charity neutral. We can feature a different charity next time (only after we meet minimal requirements of the fund drive, of course). But it was important to have a direct link to at least one. The Red Cross seemed to be about as uncontroversial a choice as there could be. It is my hope that this type of compromise will allow us to balance our mission with the fact that there will often be a clamor to use our popularity to help in other areas. --mav 16:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It may quell the flames a little to link to the international Red Cross rather than the American Red Cross. ARC is understandably completely dominated by Katrina, whereas ICRC has Katrina as the top item, but with Iraq, Darfur and Gaza also on the page. Pcb21| Pete 16:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I'll let it stew for a while before I make it so. --mav 16:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Our articles have to be neutral. No-one said anything about the website! Pcb21| Pete 16:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to Wikipedia endorsing any charities. I think it compromised our NPOV policy. I also believe that the highlighting of this one disaster gives the appearance of a US-centric POV. However, if the consensus is to highlight it, I would suggest providing a link to http://www.justgiving.com or similar, rather than a Wikipedia page identifying particular charities. Worldtraveller 17:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No single event is favored by the current message and our NPOV policy applies to article content. --mav 17:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, NPOV applies to all of the site except user pages. (I'd also like to think we don't abandon our principles whenever it suits us.) Dan100 (Talk) 07:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think a notice that appears at the top of every single article here can be considered exempt from NPOV policy. The message may not refer to a particular event but it is evident which event prompted the current version, and when events of similar or far greater magnitude elsewhere are ignored, the appearance of a US-centric POV is unavoidable.  Worldtraveller 17:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This sets an awful precedent. Whatever you say, mav, the only reason this is on the page is because it happened in the USA.  A disaster of equivilent scale anywhere else in the world, particularly the undeveloped world, would not have provoked this reaction.  This is the greatest POV-magnet I have seen actively advocated by someone of your stature.  It is also very wrong that it disrupted Wikimedia's own ongoing fund-raiser.   [[smoddy ]] 18:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It did no such thing. You will note how many times it has been made clear that this notice was only added because we had met our budget. If the fundraiser was disrupted, it was because people added text which indicated it was finished. As for the USA favoritism, it has been amply demonstrated above that this claim is complete bilgewater, and to repeat it is unhelpful and divisive; please present a more cogent argument than "the USA doesn't deserve our help". &mdash; Dan | Talk 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How has it been "adequately demonstrated"? Why, for example, was the Darfur crisis not publicised in this way?  I am under the distinct impression that this has been most of the news in the US in the last week or so.  Not so elsewhere in the world.  OK, there might not be US-centrism intended by this.  There may not be US-centrism intended to carry on with this.  However, it was possibly provoked by US-centrism, consciously or not.  I will now say that I did not say "the USA doesn't deserve our help".  I happen personally not to think it does, but that is by no means a just reason to oppose something like this.  As stated previously, it was a 21-day fundraiser, rather than a $200000 one.  Are you seriously saying that we only put this in to fill a space?  Try the way it has always been: no site notice.  From a NPOV point-of-view, as it were, I can see no way in which this title or list could ever be neutral.  From a use point-of-view: will anyone seriously be moved to make a donation by a notice on an online encyclopadia?  No, they'll be moved by the BBC or CNN.  And finally, try looking at WP:CIVIL before tossing terms like "bilgewater" about.  I apologise if my original statement could have been enterpreted as a personal attack; it was certainly not meant as such.   [[smoddy ]] 20:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Read before you write. The Darfur crisis is already mentioned on the linked page. I also listen to BBC news every work day. They have been extensively covering the Katrinia issue. --mav 14:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is highly typical of comments on Wikipedia. Find one fault in a disputants argument, then respond to nothing else. I concede that point, but all my others stand.  My fundemental point is that Wikipedia should not be promoting any charity bar itself, because we will otherwise never appear to be neutral.  It is not Wikipedia's place to solicit donations.  For anyone.   [[smoddy ]] 16:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, edit-warring on the site notice (of all places) is more than a little nauseating. Mav proposed his attempt at compromise long before he made the change; what would be wrong with everyone else doing the same? &mdash; Dan | Talk 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * His publicising it (not everyone watches Mediawiki:Sitenotice would have gone a long way. The Village Pump would have been highly appropriate.  [[smoddy ]] 20:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not link to other charities
Please do not add links to other charities in the sitenotice. I'm going to end this edit war by saying that we are not going to do this. The opposition to it is substantial, the arguments for it are not persuasive to me, and we deseparately need a coherent policy about this in the future, to avoid this kind of edit war.--Jimbo Wales 10:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And yet some of the same people who supported the tsunami message on the Main Page are the same people leading the effort against this. That makes me wonder if they would have opposed this if the same scale of event as the Katrina refugee crisis happened anywhere outside of the U.S. The currently fought over wording and linked page is not even specific to any one event and resulted from me trying to address the concerns of people who did not like the event-specific message. I had hoped that the linked page would be improved to the point where it was a comprehensive yet succinct listing of current causes and donation links. It could have served as an experiment on how to manage this type of thing in a sustainable fashion ; simply posting a non-event-specific charity page once we meet minimal fund drive goals for the remainder of fund drives and/or link such a page from the Main Page when there is consensus to do so. Doing that should lesson any clamor for event-specific listings (as occurred for the tsunami). But the VfD process and the edit war with people who did not even participate in this talk page discussion derailed the effort. --mav 13:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for joining the conversation late but let me add my own absolute opposition to providing links to other charities. There have been an unprecedented number of hacks, phishing attacks and other cons based on the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The FBI released a report on Wednesday detailing the astonishing number, speed and sophistication of these scams. The abuse occurred sooner and in far greater numbers than the scams after the tsunami. We do not in any way want to be associated with even a hint of that abuse. If someone wants to donate to the Red Cross, they should look up the address and type it into their browser directly. Or even better, make a phone call to your local chapter. Rossami (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)