Newsletter poll

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The Wikimedia Quarto (newsletter) is being distributed by email. There is discussion about printing it as well, but this would not be completely free. Within the US, the cost of printing and shipping a quarterly newsletter would be $1-$3/yr per subscription (see Wikimedia Quarto/Costs for details).

The poll below is meant to better define the audience of the paper version.

Who should receive the newsletter[edit]


[S1] Should people be able to pay for a print subscription to the newsletter?

[S3] Should subscriptions be at the cost of production, or marked up as an extra source of funds?

  • Slightly marked up, to reduce dependance on fundraising drives. Wikimedia should focus on decreasing the cost to distribute the encyclopedia itself. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Small percentage of the cost should go to the foundation. Rest should be cost of production. --Hemanshu 19:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Subscriptions should be as inexpensive as possible; the goal should be to reach the largest possible audience. This might mean charging the average net cost to everyone, even though this means 'marking up' some subscriptions and 'subsidizing' others. +sj+
  • Slightly marked up. villy 12:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Should reach out larger audience, so, yep - as inexpensive as possible. H P Nadig
  • At least not less than the cost. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • If marked up then only slightly so. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Slightly marked up. --Avatar 8 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)
  • Maybe sold at cost, with an option for people to pay more if they want to? Tlogmer 05:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At cost. --Humblefool. 02:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subscriptions for Foundation members[edit]

There are currently 2 types of contributing members. One will pay the full membership fee; the other will pay a reduced rate (for instance, students and active contributors).

[F1] Should full membership include a free newsletter to those who want it?

  • Certainly not by default. Many people will think this a waste of money and not want their donations or fees being used on a paper copy of something they can read online. Angela
  • Nice benefit, yes. But if they say no (checked - I don't want to get a copy), then no copy would be sent. --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Perhaps even multiple copies that they can distribute for promotion. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, optional villy 06:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. --Hemanshu 19:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Agrees with Angela above. It should be optional. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should be given to those who request it (But not by default, as suggested by others). --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[F2] Should reduced membership include a free year's subscription to those who want it? One free edition?

  • When you take into account the price of printing this and posting it worldwide, 4 editions of the newsletter could be more than the $6 membership fee, so no, membership can not include a free newsletter or we could end up making a loss from it. Angela
  • It should include one free copy, with the option for a reduced subscription. +sj+
  • Generally I think a free copy option is good for $6 members too, with two proposals; 1) encouragement for additional donate or cummulative membership dues - at least $6 but there would be options like $6, $12 ... some folks I talked with were worried if $6 membership dues was less than 4 copies of NL in a year. Propsal 2) making the NL optional or add a note "you can get additinal copies of NL for $2"(for instance).--Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Marginally yes. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No, there must be some consistency between the 6d and the cost of the newsletter. villy 06:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, else what is the point of a student rate? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Subscriptions should be offered at the cost of producing them. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No, but they could have a reduced rate for that as well, as long as this does not cause a loss. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Special People[edit]

[B1] Should Benefactors be sent a free newsletter subscription by default (either email or print), with an opt-out checkbox when they submit their donation?

  • If they would like one, yes. +sj+
  • Not if they have not requested it. We do not have the address of all benefactors, and if we did they may object to their donation being used in this way. Angela
  • Not by default. Only for request (or we will be a spammer). --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a way of saying thank you that will help them to remember when the next fund drive comes along. It's a matter of social grace. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur with Aphaia. villy 06:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Not an immediate subscription. Send a copy of the newsletter and offer a free subscription. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As an option --Hemanshu 19:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. An "opt-in checkbox" could be acceptable though. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • If they ask for it. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[B2] Should we send other special people who have helped us, such as Ward Cunningham, RMS, or Lawrence Lessig, a newsletter as a gift? A gift subscription?

  • On request. We might offer to send a few copies of one edition rather than a subscription; then people can subscribe if they want to. The marginal cost of sending five WQs to the office of <your favorite free movement> is about $1. Ward was officially our first subscriber; he asked if we were producing a print version and wanted to be signed up when it came out. +sj+
  • It should not be sent by default in case it is regarded as spam by people who have not requested it. Angela
  • Generally not. If we should contact them (e.g. ask them to have an interview), sending them a copy would be nice. As for Ward, I am happy to know his request, but even without his apparent request we should send a copy, if we request certain persons for contributing or receiving our interview , we should send a copy to them as courtesy. The people who are mentioned on the nl, like Joi or Lessig, it would be nice to let them know it. Perhaps it would be nice to let them know the URL of the NL and to add they can get a copy if they request. --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a case by case situation, but it should have a liberal interpretation based on its being a promotional tool. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No wikispam, nor favoritism. Offer interviewees a complimentary subscription following their interview. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of offering a complimentary subscription to interviewees following their interview. --Hemanshu 19:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It should definetly be sent to those interviewed in the newsletter. For example, the first edition should be sent to Cunningham for free regardless if he requested it or not. To others that are simply mentioned a digital copy will suffice. Joseph | Talk 01:59, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • To those interviewed in the newsletter only, the others should ask for it to prevent the risk of bothering them. villy 12:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Aren't thay all on the mailing-lists? I don't see the point and I'm sure they'd prefer us to use our resources in another way. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Those interviewed should be sent the issue they are interviewed in. If they show interest in more, then giving them a free subscription should depend on how much they have helped. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[B3] If no to either of the above, should we offer a copy of the newsletter (in email or print) in thank-you email / if the topic comes up?

  • Without request, even an email version [of the newsletter] would be annoying, I'm afraid. --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • We should provide them an option to subscribe/receive free subscription and not spam anyone. --Hemanshu 19:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Agrees with Aphaia. We could possibly offer one free copy and a subscription at the cost of production. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where and how to propose it[edit]

Where should newsletter subscriptions (email and print) be offered?

[P1] From a dedicated page on the foundation wiki (various subscription options)

  • This makes sense.
  • Yes, of course. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[P2]When joining as a member (optional issue/subscription or reduced subscription)

  • It sounds good. A full year subscription is better from view of mine.
  • The right to subscribe comes with the membership.
  1. Via the donation page (one issue or a year's subscription)
  • Only a link to Quarto page is prefarable. Purchase possibilites should be informed on Quarto page itself. --Aphaia
  • A link to the subscription page on the wiki should be made available. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[P3]Via the email version of the newsletter (a link to the subscription webpage)

  • Sure, as a little note with other subscription information at the end: "you can subscribe to a print version of this newsletter here: [URL]... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit this page: [URL]." +sj+
  • It makes a sense. --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The URL should be present. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[P4] On local Wikimedia projects (a link to the latest newsletter and localized page about subscription)

  • A brief note announcing the Quarto (on VP or somehow news from other projects on each project, see ja:Wikipedia:大使館) can mention about it too. --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It should probably be mentioned locally, but the work of putting the information there should be left to the local projects. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[P5] All of the above.

  • Never pass up an opportunity to promote. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur. villy 12:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yup (In addition to this, having some copies distributed to libraries/book stores and allowing subscriptions through them would be nice, but probably for the future). --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How to fund printing[edit]

[$1] Everyone who gets a newsletter should pay for it, in addition to other fees and donations.

  • "no cost for foundation" seems a good option. Angela
    • However, we mentioned a couple of times some possible benefits for those paying the full membership fee, such as a newsletter. If we consider the no cost option, we can not see the free nl (only if people want it!) as a benefit. Anthere
    • More people will donate if they are receiving something of value, so it is not clear that subsidizing newsletter costs out of membership fees is a net cost for the foundation. +sj+
  • Yes. Only, printed version should have one "extra" at least (additionnal pics ? a nice quizz ? a featured articles selection ? my personal address ? portrait of wikipedians ? etc) to compete a free email version. villy 12:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[$2] Most subscribers should pay for it; exceptions can be made with the idea of promoting Wikimedia when the cost involved is low.

  • When the cost involved exceeds a certain amount, it should only be done if approved by the board.
  • Print version cost should be borne by the person except in exceptional cases. --Hemanshu 20:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • For promotional purposes, why not? Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the exceptions should be paid from from the price of other subscrptions. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[$3] Funding should be budgeted as a percentage of overall receipts from membership.

[$4] Print copies should be free for anyone asking (one per address).

  • No! An online version must always be free to anyone wanting it, but it is not financially feasible to promise a print version to anyone wanting it. Angela
  • This sounds at first like a way for spammers to DOS the Foundation's bank account. On the other hand, the answer might depend on the response we get from initial newsletters; there are are organizations which give out newsletters (and catalogs) to anyone who asks for one. +sj+
  • Absolutely no. It seems unfeasible financially. --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Not for everyone, but single samples can be sent to whoever we feel would help us. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[$5] Should benefactors, partners, or members should be able to request newsletters for others, at reduced rates?

  • Benefactors and partners should get it free, at the foundation discretion. Yann
  • Members and benefactors should be offered a free subscription. Benefactors should further be able to give a few subscriptions to others. anon? who?
  • Generally nice, not by default, but offer-and-request. --Aphaia 03:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • At the foundation's discretion. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Offer-and-request+foundation's discretion. villy 12:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • If the NL is offered to anyone to the cost of production, there is no need for reduced rates. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[$6] Should we have part of publishing and shipping paid by sponsorships from worthy orgs (for example on that back of the printed versions)?

  • Sponsorship by organizations who we would proud to sponsor in turn would be appropriate. +sj+
  • Yes, if possible, but no ads. The sponsors can be credited on [[Meta:|Meta]]. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Excessive advertisements should be avoided. Publishing cost can be offset by sponsorship (goal being low cost newsletter), but shipping should be borne by subscriber. --Hemanshu 20:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. villy 12:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[$6.1] How about commercial ads?

  • This would be one way of preventing the costs coming out of the Foundation's money. <anon? yann?>
  • It depends. Not every ads would be welcome. At least they understand our aims and purpose and vice versa. If our cooperative distributer (like MandrakeSoft) wishes to have ads, I have no reason to oppose it now ...But I'm afraid another thing; We continuously say Wikimedia has no ADs - Will some people be upset even it would be put not on our online content, but on prited matters?
  • Not at this time, but I would leave this as an open future possibility. We would really need to work out the implications before accepting ads. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Never. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Excessive advertisements should be avoided. If possible, advertisements should be avoided as Wikipedia should not be seen advertising stuff. --Hemanshu 20:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. The printed version is probably the only place where ads wouldn't be too much of a problem. villy 12:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, but not too many of them. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[$6.2] If so, which types of ads are acceptable?

  • Education-related ads only. --Hemanshu 20:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Education, free open softwares, GDFL sites and products. villy 12:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) (and tobacco/wine companies. j/k). :p villy 12:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • What villy mentioned above is good. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External publisher[edit]

[EP1] Should the newsletter be handed over to an external publisher rather than be published by the Foundation?

  • Yes, I strongly think this should be the case. It removes the Foundation from the legal risk involved in issues such as copyright-violating images being used in the newsletter. It also means a professional company can deal with it, rather than having the Foundation pretending to be a print-publishing company which we are not. Angela
    What external publisher is going to want to publish this unless the Foundation pays them to print it? And if the Foundation is in effect hiring an outside party to print the newsletter, I think it highly unlikely that the Foundation can escape legal liability for copyright infringements it may contain. --Michael Snow 17:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Hopefully we are competent to ensure no copyvio images are used in the newsletter; there are not so many of them, after all; see Translation requests/NL-1/Updates#Images. +sj+ 19:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • We should remain the publishers, but I would be open to reconsider this based on our experiences with the first few issues. The costs of having an outside publisher would be an unnecessary cost. Printing and mailing can be done from any one or multiple places. If we can benefit from having the printing and mailing done in China then that's the way to go. Eclecticology 19:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Has O'Reilly been contacted? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. You can't escape the liability anyway & printed version should within a non profit process (external publisher most probably would be In a mere commercial view). villy 12:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Whatever is cheapest. Mats Halldin 08:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, if it doesn't cost much more; it would make the news letter more profesional. --Khalid 10:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)