16.986, Disc: Re: 16.894, Disc: Abolishing Fund Drive

Fri Apr 1 15:16:10 UTC 2005

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-986. Fri Apr 01 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.986, Disc: Re: 16.894, Disc: Abolishing Fund Drive

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org)
        Sheila Collberg, U of Arizona
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <fox at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

===========================Directory==============================

1)
Date: 30-Mar-2005
From: Suzette Haden Elgin < ocls at madisoncounty.net >
Subject: Re: 16.894, Disc: Abolishing Fund Drive

2)
Date: 01-Apr-2005
From: Helen Aristar-Dry < hdry at linguistlist.org >
Subject: Re:  Abolishing Fund Drive

-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:09:00
From: Suzette Haden Elgin < ocls at madisoncounty.net >
Subject: Re: 16.894, Disc: Abolishing Fund Drive

Fund Drive 2005 is now on! Visit http://linguistlist.org/donate.html to donate now!

March 29, 2005

Please establish a fee for Linguist List -- please. Doing without Linguist List
isn't an option; for you to go on every year trying to run a fund drive is
unacceptable. Just have us pay our fair share.

Suzette Haden Elgin

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

-------------------------Message 2 ----------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:09:17
From: Helen Aristar-Dry < hdry at linguistlist.org >
Subject: Re:  Abolishing Fund Drive

Dear Subscribers,

Our sincere thanks to those who have taken the time to contribute to the
discussion so far; we truly value your input. It is with the help of  your
suggestions and comments that we will be able to make this most  difficult of
decisions, so we are eager to hear from as many of you  as possible. The
LINGUIST crew has read all the suggestions with  interest, but since there are a
lot of them, I thought I'd reply to them  in more than one message.

With regard to the free-vs-pay controversy, one thing is certain--there are pros
and cons to each of our options.

It is important to us that Linguist to be free for the people who can't pay. We
occasionally hear from people who tell us that LinguistList is a real
professional lifeline for them due to circumstances in their countries. And of
course, not all subscribers have the financial means to pay. As Kenza Cherkaoui
Messin noted  (Linguist 16.940),

     >charging students, people from poorly connected and/or funded
     universities, etc. could hurt the purpose of the list.

because, as Karen Ward said (Linguist 16.940),

     >these will be precisely the people who would have the fewest
     alternatives should the list become inaccessible to them.

In addition, with regard to the "small fee" idea: we think we'd lose a  lot of
users, many of whom only consult the site every few weeks and  wouldn't see why
they should pay.  As a result, we'd lose a lot of  announcements, because our
value as an information resource (and  advertising venue) would be severely
decreased.

Karen Ward (Linguist 16.940):

     >Much of its value to the profession (and to the corporate
     entities that help subsidize the list operation) lies in its large
     subscriber base.  Would the discussions and request for
     information be as valuable with a quarter or a tenth the
     number of subscribers? Would the corporate contributers
     be as willing to pay for the smaller number of eyes?

I'm also a little afraid the scheme might backfire, as did one of our  "share
the cost" ideas a few years ago.  In 1998, we told subscribers that if each one
gave just $10, we'd have plenty of support.  Well, all 300 of our regular donors
gave $10 each, instead of the bigger  donations they would have normally given,
and no one else gave anything  at all.  That was the closest we've ever come to
having to shut down!

However, we may well have to go over to charging a small fee.  As you  can see,
there is no painless solution.  And so it was useful to hear  from those of you
who think that charging a fee for LL is a reasonable  idea.  We were also
interested in And Rosta's idea of making a  distinction between the email list,
which might remain free, and a  website which might charge a fee.

Alas, however, And's suggestion that the state fund LINGUIST List simply  isn't
going to be implemented in America.  Would that it were!  But here  just because
something is a "public good" doesn't mean it qualifies for  any state funding.
That's why National Public Radio and the National  Public Broadcasting Service
both have to run annual fund drives just  like LINGUIST!  (We know things are
different in other countries, and  that our fund drive probably looks very
strange to subscribers from abroad.)

So, with regard to an access fee, the jury is still out on this very  difficult
question, and we appreciate hearing comments and/or  suggestions from all
viewpoints.

Thanks again for your input and support.

Best regards,
Helen

Helen Aristar-Dry
LINGUIST Moderator

For previous messages in the discussion, see:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-894.html
http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-909.html
http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-927.html
http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-932.html
http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-939.html
http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-940.html

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-986	