|"Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users?". The level of discussion of this proposal is: Unknown|
Related proposal or expansion of this one?
I have a similar proposal I was thinking about writing up here. The basic idea is establishing the idea of a template for becoming a WMF "affiliate." An affiliate would have to fulfill certain specified criteria; in return, they would get the ability to refer to themselves as a WMF affiliate (and perhaps related terminology) in their own branding. This would include fundraising. They would be able to raise funds from individuals, from foundations, etc.; this might include some "strings-attached" provisions like are alluded to in this proposal, but the WMF would have rather strict rules about what can and can't qualify (e.g., "enhanced WP content relating to poverty" would qualify, but "buying fancy bookbags for local Wikimedia volunteers" wouldn't). Affiliates would then pay a percentage of their income as dues to the WMF.
It seems to me it would be bet to graft my ideas into this proposal; but I'm happy to write up my own separate proposal if that's preferred. Please let me know. -Peteforsyth 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- So you want to raise general funds for the WMF by licensing its trademarks? That's quite different to what I'm suggesting here, I think it should be a separate proposal. Note that it's already being done, see for instance the Orange trademark license deal. -- Tim Starling 02:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tim, sorry, I somehow overlooked your response here, though I was eager to hear it! I think I have expressed myself poorly, because the Orange detail is nothing like what I have in mind. I'm happy to write up as a separate proposal (have already begun working on that, actually) but would love to hear your thoughts on this.
- I'm thinking of something more along the lines of chapters (though not limited to geographically-based organizations). Essentially, local affiliates who solicit funds on behalf of the Foundation, but can present themselves as members of their community.
- For instance, suppose we set up a WMF affiliate in my home state of Oregon. Now, we can make individual fundraising appeals to individuals that feature content related to the state; look, we've built up high-quality articles on subjects that matter to Oregonians. In addition, we can submit grant applications to foundations that fund Oregon-related projects.
- Similarly, there might be a "cancer" affiliate that does fundraising around the notion of developing high-quality content relating to cancer in all languages. Or a "hunger in Africa" affiliate, etc.
- The affiliate would be permitted to present itself as an official WMF affiliate (that's where the trademark comes in). There would be a prearranged amount (completely arbitrarily, say, 40%) dues that they pass along to the WMF. The rest they are free to spend locally, in accordance with a mission statement that is approved in a process of becoming an affiliate; it must be compatible with the WMF mission, etc.
- Does that make more sense? -Peteforsyth 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I do understand that there's a subtle but very important difference in motivation and emphasis between your idea and mine; I think they're likely compatible, but it might take some careful thinking to figure out how to preserve the best of both ideas. That's why I'm interested in talking it over before launching a full-on proposal of my own. -Peteforsyth 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)