I thought someone was saying that Wikia gets all kinds of special treatment, or something like that.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 8 November 2010 13:03, Arlen Beiler <arlen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its sister > > sites have been ad-free. Why don't we get those half-breeds with their > ads > > and everything to do the revenue making? I mean, of course, Wikia. Having > > ads on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) would be awful. > > Wikia is doing lots of revenue making (I believe it is even turning a > profit now, which is impressive given its age). That doesn't really > benefit us, though. It benefits the shareholders of Wikia (although > Wikia has donated to the WMF in the past and probably will the future, > so we get a little out of it, I suppose). Wikia has nothing to do with > Wikipedia except for running on the same software and sharing a board > member. It certainly doesn't exist to raise money for the Wikimedia > movement. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
