Mailing List Archive: (Wikipedia)^RED

(Wikipedia)^RED

dbmag9 at gmail

Jun 22, 2006, 12:36 PM

Post #1 of 6 (710 views)

(Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with other
well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit
goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and
related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information

Why not set up a (Wikipedia)^RED which would essentially be a skin through
which the normal Wikipedia is viewed: it would change the colours to red (or
shades thereof), have a different Main Page which explains the scheme and
has inobtrusive advertisements on the side (under the interwiki links) which
generate revenue to do to (Product)^RED (and Wikimedia).

I think that the aim of this is wholly consistent with that of the Wikimedia
Foundation, and I would like to hear your views.

--
-Daniel (meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dbmag9)
dbmag9.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: (Wikipedia)^RED [ In reply to ]

lordbishopvoldemort at gmail

Jun 22, 2006, 12:49 PM

Post #2 of 6 (667 views)

On 6/22/06, Daniel Bregman <dbmag9@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with other
> well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit
> goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and
> related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information

Wow, (at least) one whole percent?!? Doesn't really seem like it
would be worth the trouble of having the ads, a for-profit skin, etc.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I don't understand the proposal. --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: (Wikipedia)^RED [ In reply to ]

lordbishopvoldemort at gmail

Jun 22, 2006, 12:58 PM

Post #3 of 6 (678 views)

> On 6/22/06, Daniel Bregman <dbmag9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with other
> > well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit
> > goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and
> > related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information

>From the website:

***Established brands who license the (PRODUCT) RED mark send a
portion of the profits made on (PRODUCT) RED products directly to the
Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa. (RED) never handles this
money.***

So we create a red skin, pay (RED) to use their name, handle all the
money and donations to the Global Fund, and (RED) does what exactly?
While I appreciate the cause, I just don't get it. --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: (Wikipedia)^RED [ In reply to ]

messedrocker at gmail

Jun 22, 2006, 1:06 PM

Post #4 of 6 (692 views)

I think it's that if you were to enable the RED option in your settings,
you'd get a new skin, a different Main Page, and advertisements. Money
earned from the ads goes towards AIDS research and partially towards
Wikimedia.

It sounds like a good idea, as long as it's off by default.

On 6/22/06, Daniel Bregman <dbmag9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Product)^RED (RED is in superscript) is a brand name which works with
> other
> well-known brands to produce a product of which at least 1% of the profit
> goes to (Product)^RED, and this goes in aid of helping fight AIDS and
> related diseases. See http://joinred.com for information
>
> Why not set up a (Wikipedia)^RED which would essentially be a skin through
> which the normal Wikipedia is viewed: it would change the colours to red
> (or
> shades thereof), have a different Main Page which explains the scheme and
> has inobtrusive advertisements on the side (under the interwiki links)
> which
> generate revenue to do to (Product)^RED (and Wikimedia).
>
> I think that the aim of this is wholly consistent with that of the
> Wikimedia
> Foundation, and I would like to hear your views.
>
> --
> -Daniel (meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dbmag9)
> dbmag9.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: (Wikipedia)^RED [ In reply to ]

lordbishopvoldemort at gmail

Jun 22, 2006, 1:23 PM

Post #5 of 6 (683 views)

On 6/22/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's that if you were to enable the RED option in your settings,
> you'd get a new skin, a different Main Page, and advertisements. Money
> earned from the ads goes towards AIDS research and partially towards
> Wikimedia.
>
> It sounds like a good idea, as long as it's off by default.

Except that we have to do all of the work, pay to use the (RED) name,
and put ads on Wikipedia. Who's going to volunteer to collect all the
revenue and handle all the donations to the Global Fund? Why pay to
use their brand name? If WMF really wanted to donate to the Global
Fund, why not just make a straight donation and skip all the licensing
fees? Just my thoughts though. --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: (Wikipedia)^RED [ In reply to ]

gmaxwell at gmail

Jun 22, 2006, 1:32 PM

Post #6 of 6 (693 views)

On 6/22/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
> Except that we have to do all of the work, pay to use the (RED) name,
> and put ads on Wikipedia. Who's going to volunteer to collect all the
> revenue and handle all the donations to the Global Fund? Why pay to
> use their brand name? If WMF really wanted to donate to the Global
> Fund, why not just make a straight donation and skip all the licensing
> fees? Just my thoughts though. --LV

Optional user activated advertisements have been proposed before, the
primary objection is that it wouldn't make a lot of money for us.

I, like the others in this thread, don't see any value to (RED)... it
doesn't appear that participation would be in our best interest.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l