Mailing List Archive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, "Ryan Lane" <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Megan Hernandez <mhernandez@...> writes:
>
> >
> >
> > As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising
> > campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the
> > mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our
goals
> > this year to-date.
> >
> > Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on
> > English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Our
end
> > of year campaign goal is $20 million. As Lila mentioned, our goal is to
> > serve more powerful reminders to be able to limit the total number of
> > banners each reader sees. We are constantly experimenting with new
methods
> > to reach our readers and optimize the donation experience.
> >
>
> I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners
> are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger
> and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
exception.
> However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems to
be
> more fear inducing as well.
>
> Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was in
> financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content
> still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that
> Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget
> every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because
there
> isn't.
>
> The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first
> person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a real
> problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel
> manipulated.
>
> My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is rare
for
> him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's ads
> are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate.
>
> I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce the
> number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when people
> stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to an
> advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search).
>
> - Ryan Lane
>

Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every year
on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I know
how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc. etc.
Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to
tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for
taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So
please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December for
now on.

Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as
quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the
yearly donation drive as short as possible.

Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the appearance
and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and
obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the reader
as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do
we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our content
forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of
the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all
for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people.

Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to
the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been
written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm.
But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the
donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go
off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline. We're
not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to want
the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the
messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They
will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would be
right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of
the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part
of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long run, I
think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year.

For now, two requests.
# could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal?
# could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the
don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more than
50% of the space above the fold.

I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as
possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our
reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers.

Kind regards,

--Martijn

I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
coincidence with this one, that would help.

--Martijn

>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
* Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as
>quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the
>yearly donation drive as short as possible.

Considering the rate at which the Foundation and its Chapters increase
and want to increase "revenue", it is unlikely anybody is really trying
to optimise how long it takes to collect enough money to keep Wikipedia
"online and ad-free" for another year.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Martijn Hoekstra, 03/12/2014 10:13:
> I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
> 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
> coincidence with this one, that would help.

Why December? Fundraising banners are up all year long. Due to the
banners, there are concerned citizens who literally stop me while I walk
in Milan to ask me what's going on, pretty much any time.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
wrote:


> > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners
> > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger
> > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
> exception.
> > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems to
> be
> > more fear inducing as well.
> >
> > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was in
> > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content
> > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that
> > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget
> > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because
> there
> > isn't.
> >
> > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first
> > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a real
> > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel
> > manipulated.
> >
> > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is rare
> for
> > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's ads
> > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate.
> >
> > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce the
> > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when people
> > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to
> an
> > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search).
> >
> > - Ryan Lane
> >
>
> Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every year
> on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I know
> how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc. etc.
> Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to
> tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for
> taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So
> please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December for
> now on.
>
> Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as
> quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the
> yearly donation drive as short as possible.
>
> Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the appearance
> and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and
> obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the reader
> as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do
> we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our content
> forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of
> the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all
> for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people.
>
> Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to
> the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been
> written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm.
> But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the
> donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go
> off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline. We're
> not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to want
> the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the
> messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They
> will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would be
> right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of
> the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part
> of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long run, I
> think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year.
>
> For now, two requests.
> # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal?
> # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the
> don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more than
> 50% of the space above the fold.
>
> I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as
> possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our
> reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --Martijn
>
> I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
> 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
> coincidence with this one, that would help.




For reference, there was an article in The Register on this a couple of
days ago:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/penniless_and_desperate_wikipedia_sits_on_60m_cash/

Slashdot:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/02/1528227/a-mismatch-between-wikimedias-pledge-drive-and-its-cash-on-hand

Discussion of the Register article on Jimmy Wales' talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Article_in_the_Register

Best,
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
I don't think anyone is surprised when the Reg publishes a negative article
about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Someone there seems to have had an axe to grind
for years.

But in this case, we certainly need to stop giving them the ammo.

Regards,
Charles



On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our
> banners
> > > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get
> bigger
> > > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
> > exception.
> > > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems
> to
> > be
> > > more fear inducing as well.
> > >
> > > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was
> in
> > > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content
> > > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that
> > > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget
> > > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because
> > there
> > > isn't.
> > >
> > > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the
> first
> > > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a
> real
> > > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel
> > > manipulated.
> > >
> > > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is
> rare
> > for
> > > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's
> ads
> > > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate.
> > >
> > > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce
> the
> > > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when
> people
> > > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to
> > an
> > > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search).
> > >
> > > - Ryan Lane
> > >
> >
> > Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every
> year
> > on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I
> know
> > how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc.
> etc.
> > Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to
> > tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for
> > taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So
> > please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December
> for
> > now on.
> >
> > Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser
> as
> > quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep
> the
> > yearly donation drive as short as possible.
> >
> > Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the
> appearance
> > and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and
> > obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the
> reader
> > as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do
> > we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our
> content
> > forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of
> > the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all
> > for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people.
> >
> > Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise
> to
> > the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been
> > written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm.
> > But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the
> > donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go
> > off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline.
> We're
> > not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to
> want
> > the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the
> > messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They
> > will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would
> be
> > right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of
> > the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part
> > of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long
> run, I
> > think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year.
> >
> > For now, two requests.
> > # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal?
> > # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the
> > don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more
> than
> > 50% of the space above the fold.
> >
> > I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as
> > possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our
> > reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > --Martijn
> >
> > I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
> > 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
> > coincidence with this one, that would help.
>
>
>
>
> For reference, there was an article in The Register on this a couple of
> days ago:
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/penniless_and_desperate_wikipedia_sits_on_60m_cash/
>
> Slashdot:
>
>
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/02/1528227/a-mismatch-between-wikimedias-pledge-drive-and-its-cash-on-hand
>
> Discussion of the Register article on Jimmy Wales' talk page:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Article_in_the_Register
>
> Best,
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Note that there is a parallel e-mail campaign, which also seems to have
ruffled some feathers.

https://twitter.com/williampietri/status/539861727517868032

As shown in the screenshot of that tweet, the sender is "Jimmy Wales,
Wikipedia", and the wording begins:

---o0o---

Dear <name>,

Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia online and ad-free. I'm sure you're
busy, so I'll get right to it. We need your help again this year. Please
help us forget about fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia.

If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry
about fundraising for the rest of the year.

We are the small non-profit that runs one of the top websites in the world.
We only have about 200 staff but serve 500 million users, and have costs
like any other top site: servers, power, programs, and ...

---o0o---

The subject line is "<name>, I'll keep it short".

Best,
Andreas

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Charles Gregory <wmau.lists@chuq.net>
wrote:

> I don't think anyone is surprised when the Reg publishes a negative article
> about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Someone there seems to have had an axe to grind
> for years.
>
> But in this case, we certainly need to stop giving them the ammo.
>
> Regards,
> Charles
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> > martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our
> > banners
> > > > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get
> > bigger
> > > > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
> > > exception.
> > > > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems
> > to
> > > be
> > > > more fear inducing as well.
> > > >
> > > > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was
> > in
> > > > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the
> content
> > > > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him
> that
> > > > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the
> budget
> > > > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about,
> because
> > > there
> > > > isn't.
> > > >
> > > > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the
> > first
> > > > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a
> > real
> > > > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel
> > > > manipulated.
> > > >
> > > > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is
> > rare
> > > for
> > > > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's
> > ads
> > > > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce
> > the
> > > > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when
> > people
> > > > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch
> to
> > > an
> > > > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search).
> > > >
> > > > - Ryan Lane
> > > >
> > >
> > > Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every
> > year
> > > on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I
> > know
> > > how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc.
> > etc.
> > > Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have
> to
> > > tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies
> for
> > > taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So
> > > please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December
> > for
> > > now on.
> > >
> > > Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the
> fundraiser
> > as
> > > quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep
> > the
> > > yearly donation drive as short as possible.
> > >
> > > Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the
> > appearance
> > > and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and
> > > obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the
> > reader
> > > as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but
> do
> > > we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our
> > content
> > > forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority
> of
> > > the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it
> all
> > > for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two
> people.
> > >
> > > Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise
> > to
> > > the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been
> > > written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm.
> > > But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the
> > > donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't
> go
> > > off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline.
> > We're
> > > not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to
> > want
> > > the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the
> > > messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They
> > > will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they
> would
> > be
> > > right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much
> of
> > > the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm
> part
> > > of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long
> > run, I
> > > think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year.
> > >
> > > For now, two requests.
> > > # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal?
> > > # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the
> > > don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more
> > than
> > > 50% of the space above the fold.
> > >
> > > I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief
> as
> > > possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our
> > > reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > --Martijn
> > >
> > > I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
> > > 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
> > > coincidence with this one, that would help.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For reference, there was an article in The Register on this a couple of
> > days ago:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/penniless_and_desperate_wikipedia_sits_on_60m_cash/
> >
> > Slashdot:
> >
> >
> >
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/02/1528227/a-mismatch-between-wikimedias-pledge-drive-and-its-cash-on-hand
> >
> > Discussion of the Register article on Jimmy Wales' talk page:
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Article_in_the_Register
> >
> > Best,
> > Andreas
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Dec 3, 2014 12:00 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Martijn Hoekstra, 03/12/2014 10:13:
>
>> I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
>> 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
>> coincidence with this one, that would help.
>
>
> Why December? Fundraising banners are up all year long. Due to the
banners, there are concerned citizens who literally stop me while I walk in
Milan to ask me what's going on, pretty much any time.
>
> Nemo

I could do it monthly, but that would probably become disruption.

I now regret that I didn't think of "disrupting Wikipedia to raise a fund"
earlier. Then again, it's probably for the better.

-Martijn

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Nicely put Martijn. Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email)
as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your
work. You should continue to take great personal pride in the crucial role
you play to make our [puzzle-]globe keep spinning each year! I also
appreciate that you're in a sticky position of needing to try new things
but also receiving flak when you do.

Perhaps as a practical suggestion, so we can avoid this discussion
happening *again *next year, it would be worth all of us collaborating here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles

Perhaps it is worthwhile adding a section to this page which lists the more
practical expectations about the fundraising banners which we have
developed by consensus over the years. Things like "no animations/sounds",
"no obscuring of the content", "no popups" and "no threats/warnings without
genuine cause".
I'd personally like to add two more things:
- "easily dismissible on mobile" (because I've unintentionally clicked the
banner with my finger many times when trying to press the impossibly-small
"x" icon to dismiss the banner on my phone) and
- "Tell the OTRS team and appropriate Chapter (when applicable) when any
major change (such as adding/removing a new payment method) happens in that
language/country.


These Fundraising principles, according to that Meta page, are from
"...an October,
2010 letter
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles>
and
a January, 2012 WMF resolution
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Developing_Scenarios_for_future_of_fundraising#Guidelines_for_Funds_Distribution_Scenarios>".
The page itself was primarily edited by WMF Board of Trustees Stu and SJ.

I would argue that it is possible that several of these principles are not
being followed, at least according to the recent discussions on this list.
Including:
- "*Transparency*: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must be truthful
with prospective donor". Instead, the public seems to be questioning if the
messages are truthful about our financial stability.
- "*Maximal Participation*: ...we should empower individuals and groups
world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging." Instead,
rather than being ambassadors for our mission, wikimedians are feeling
increasingly embarrassed when their friends/public ask about the
fundraising campaign.
-"*Minimal disruption*: ...causing minimal disruption and annoyance for
users of the projects" Instead, a desire to finish fundraising quickly is
given higher priority. Even though that is *not *one of the stated
principles.
-"*Internationalism*: ...our fundraising practices must support the easiest
possible transfer of money internationally." Instead, we've had the recent
discussions about how donating is difficult from the Netherlands and
impossible from Russia [did they get a response yet, by the way?] I'd also
add that "I'll keep it short" as a subject-line for the fundraising email
feels to me like "an Americanism" that would be far too casual to be taken
seriously in many other cultures.


-Liam

On 3 December 2014 at 10:13, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, "Ryan Lane" <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Megan Hernandez <mhernandez@...> writes:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising
> > > campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the
> > > mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our
> goals
> > > this year to-date.
> > >
> > > Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on
> > > English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Our
> end
> > > of year campaign goal is $20 million. As Lila mentioned, our goal is to
> > > serve more powerful reminders to be able to limit the total number of
> > > banners each reader sees. We are constantly experimenting with new
> methods
> > > to reach our readers and optimize the donation experience.
> > >
> >
> > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners
> > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger
> > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
> exception.
> > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems to
> be
> > more fear inducing as well.
> >
> > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was in
> > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content
> > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that
> > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget
> > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because
> there
> > isn't.
> >
> > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first
> > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a real
> > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel
> > manipulated.
> >
> > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is rare
> for
> > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's ads
> > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate.
> >
> > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce the
> > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when people
> > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to
> an
> > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search).
> >
> > - Ryan Lane
> >
>
> Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every year
> on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I know
> how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc. etc.
> Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to
> tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for
> taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So
> please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December for
> now on.
>
> Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as
> quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the
> yearly donation drive as short as possible.
>
> Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the appearance
> and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and
> obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the reader
> as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do
> we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our content
> forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of
> the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all
> for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people.
>
> Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to
> the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been
> written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm.
> But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the
> donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go
> off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline. We're
> not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to want
> the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the
> messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They
> will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would be
> right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of
> the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part
> of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long run, I
> think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year.
>
> For now, two requests.
> # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal?
> # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the
> don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more than
> 50% of the space above the fold.
>
> I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as
> possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our
> reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --Martijn
>
> I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
> 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
> coincidence with this one, that would help.
>
> --Martijn
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
No response yet :(

2014-12-03 16:09 GMT+03:00 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com>:

> -"*Internationalism*: ...our fundraising practices must support the easiest
> possible transfer of money internationally." Instead, we've had the recent
> discussions about how donating is difficult from the Netherlands and
> impossible from Russia [did they get a response yet, by the way?] I'd also
> add that "I'll keep it short" as a subject-line for the fundraising email
> feels to me like "an Americanism" that would be far too casual to be taken
> seriously in many other cultures.
>
>
> -Liam
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Hoi.
The chapters are not relevant here. It is only the WMF who raises funds.
With more chapters the public is better served. Now THAT is worth the money
we are asking for.

Also the fundraising is NOT for Wikipedia. It is for the whole of our
movement and for all of our products.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 3 December 2014 at 11:33, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> >Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser
> as
> >quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep
> the
> >yearly donation drive as short as possible.
>
> Considering the rate at which the Foundation and its Chapters increase
> and want to increase "revenue", it is unlikely anybody is really trying
> to optimise how long it takes to collect enough money to keep Wikipedia
> "online and ad-free" for another year.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Good points.

Many people feel sincere gratitude towards Wikipedia, and its volunteer
writers.

I would suggest that the fundraising messages could *also* mention that
another way people can express their gratitude to Wikipedia would be to
become contributors themselves.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nicely put Martijn. Many a true word is spoken in jest.
>
> Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email)
> as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your
> work. You should continue to take great personal pride in the crucial role
> you play to make our [puzzle-]globe keep spinning each year! I also
> appreciate that you're in a sticky position of needing to try new things
> but also receiving flak when you do.
>
> Perhaps as a practical suggestion, so we can avoid this discussion
> happening *again *next year, it would be worth all of us collaborating
> here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles
>
> Perhaps it is worthwhile adding a section to this page which lists the more
> practical expectations about the fundraising banners which we have
> developed by consensus over the years. Things like "no animations/sounds",
> "no obscuring of the content", "no popups" and "no threats/warnings without
> genuine cause".
> I'd personally like to add two more things:
> - "easily dismissible on mobile" (because I've unintentionally clicked the
> banner with my finger many times when trying to press the impossibly-small
> "x" icon to dismiss the banner on my phone) and
> - "Tell the OTRS team and appropriate Chapter (when applicable) when any
> major change (such as adding/removing a new payment method) happens in that
> language/country.
>
>
> These Fundraising principles, according to that Meta page, are from
> "...an October,
> 2010 letter
> <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles
> >
> and
> a January, 2012 WMF resolution
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Developing_Scenarios_for_future_of_fundraising#Guidelines_for_Funds_Distribution_Scenarios
> >".
> The page itself was primarily edited by WMF Board of Trustees Stu and SJ.
>
> I would argue that it is possible that several of these principles are not
> being followed, at least according to the recent discussions on this list.
> Including:
> - "*Transparency*: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must be truthful
> with prospective donor". Instead, the public seems to be questioning if the
> messages are truthful about our financial stability.
> - "*Maximal Participation*: ...we should empower individuals and groups
> world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging." Instead,
> rather than being ambassadors for our mission, wikimedians are feeling
> increasingly embarrassed when their friends/public ask about the
> fundraising campaign.
> -"*Minimal disruption*: ...causing minimal disruption and annoyance for
> users of the projects" Instead, a desire to finish fundraising quickly is
> given higher priority. Even though that is *not *one of the stated
> principles.
> -"*Internationalism*: ...our fundraising practices must support the easiest
> possible transfer of money internationally." Instead, we've had the recent
> discussions about how donating is difficult from the Netherlands and
> impossible from Russia [did they get a response yet, by the way?] I'd also
> add that "I'll keep it short" as a subject-line for the fundraising email
> feels to me like "an Americanism" that would be far too casual to be taken
> seriously in many other cultures.
>
>
> -Liam
>
> On 3 December 2014 at 10:13, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, "Ryan Lane" <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Hernandez <mhernandez@...> writes:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising
> > > > campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on
> the
> > > > mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our
> > goals
> > > > this year to-date.
> > > >
> > > > Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers
> on
> > > > English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
> Our
> > end
> > > > of year campaign goal is $20 million. As Lila mentioned, our goal is
> to
> > > > serve more powerful reminders to be able to limit the total number of
> > > > banners each reader sees. We are constantly experimenting with new
> > methods
> > > > to reach our readers and optimize the donation experience.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our
> banners
> > > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get
> bigger
> > > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
> > exception.
> > > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems
> to
> > be
> > > more fear inducing as well.
> > >
> > > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was
> in
> > > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content
> > > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that
> > > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget
> > > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because
> > there
> > > isn't.
> > >
> > > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the
> first
> > > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a
> real
> > > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel
> > > manipulated.
> > >
> > > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is
> rare
> > for
> > > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's
> ads
> > > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate.
> > >
> > > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce
> the
> > > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when
> people
> > > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to
> > an
> > > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search).
> > >
> > > - Ryan Lane
> > >
> >
> > Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every
> year
> > on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I
> know
> > how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc.
> etc.
> > Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to
> > tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for
> > taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So
> > please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December
> for
> > now on.
> >
> > Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser
> as
> > quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep
> the
> > yearly donation drive as short as possible.
> >
> > Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the
> appearance
> > and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and
> > obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the
> reader
> > as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do
> > we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our
> content
> > forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of
> > the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all
> > for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people.
> >
> > Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise
> to
> > the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been
> > written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm.
> > But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the
> > donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go
> > off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline.
> We're
> > not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to
> want
> > the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the
> > messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They
> > will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would
> be
> > right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of
> > the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part
> > of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long
> run, I
> > think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year.
> >
> > For now, two requests.
> > # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal?
> > # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the
> > don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more
> than
> > 50% of the space above the fold.
> >
> > I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as
> > possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our
> > reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > --Martijn
> >
> > I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
> > 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
> > coincidence with this one, that would help.
> >
> > --Martijn
> >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On 3 December 2014 at 14:09, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email)
> as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your
> work.
>

I would suspect that what drives this is indeed the professionalism of the
Fundraising team. I don't mean to be overly speculative, but what we are
talking about here is an issue that doesn't readily translate into metrics.
Creating and gathering metrics for "damage to the Wikipedia brand" would be
extremely difficult and expensive. On the other hand, creating and
gathering metrics for "the number/amount/... of donations received" is easy
and cheap. Relatedly, "damage to the Wikipedia brand" is not something the
impact of which you feel directly, while "the number/amount/... of
donations received" is something that immediately translates into WMF's
budget.

So I assume the Fundraising team is in a somewhat uncomfortable position
here. Getting them to change the way they run the campaigns might, in this
case, really not work on its own; rather, in my view, any decision on this
likely has to come from the very top of the Foundation (those that
Fundraising reports to), who, to some degree, have to place their gut
feeling over the implications derived from the available/feasible set of
hard quantitative metrics.

Cheers,
Patrik
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Hi all,

This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
consequences and we will find flaws.

Now for the specifics:

Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust to
changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation.
Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also
use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is
counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they
work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the
overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased 3rd
party to do some of this analysis.

No -- we are not perfect we are constantly working at improving. There are
a million opinions on how this should be done, and then there is research
and live data. This year we made only minimal changes to the text of the
banner. Next year we are going to play with different messaging, and the
team will welcome you suggestions.

Finally thank you for supporting the team. They are literally locked-up in
a room and working around the clock!
Lila


On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:44 AM, pajz <pajzmail@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 December 2014 at 14:09, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email)
> > as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your
> > work.
> >
>
> I would suspect that what drives this is indeed the professionalism of the
> Fundraising team. I don't mean to be overly speculative, but what we are
> talking about here is an issue that doesn't readily translate into metrics.
> Creating and gathering metrics for "damage to the Wikipedia brand" would be
> extremely difficult and expensive. On the other hand, creating and
> gathering metrics for "the number/amount/... of donations received" is easy
> and cheap. Relatedly, "damage to the Wikipedia brand" is not something the
> impact of which you feel directly, while "the number/amount/... of
> donations received" is something that immediately translates into WMF's
> budget.
>
> So I assume the Fundraising team is in a somewhat uncomfortable position
> here. Getting them to change the way they run the campaigns might, in this
> case, really not work on its own; rather, in my view, any decision on this
> likely has to come from the very top of the Foundation (those that
> Fundraising reports to), who, to some degree, have to place their gut
> feeling over the implications derived from the available/feasible set of
> hard quantitative metrics.
>
> Cheers,
> Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:

>
> This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
> thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
> equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
> consequences and we will find flaws.
>
> Now for the specifics:
>
> Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust to
> changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
> multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
> parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation.
> Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also
> use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is
> counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they
> work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the
> overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased 3rd
> party to do some of this analysis.
>

I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you
share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the
methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated
data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage.

Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're
saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong.

- Ryan


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Hi Lila,

Thanks for your response. In the past, fundraising was more of a
collaborative effort - maybe it would make sense to rethink the fundraising
process after this round, and see how the community can be made co-own the
process, so that the work of the team becomes easier, and friction less. I
think that would be a way to solve a lot of the hurdles we're encountering
right now.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:
>
> >
> > This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
> > thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
> > equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
> > consequences and we will find flaws.
> >
> > Now for the specifics:
> >
> > Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust
> to
> > changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
> > multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
> > parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation.
> > Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also
> > use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is
> > counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they
> > work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the
> > overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased
> 3rd
> > party to do some of this analysis.
> >
>
> I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you
> share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the
> methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated
> data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage.
>
> Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're
> saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong.
>
> - Ryan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try talking to the Fundraising Team.

Is it time to rename Teams to something else, something that suggests that they don't work in a cave on the Moon?

--
svetlana

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 08:32, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hi Lila,
>
> Thanks for your response. In the past, fundraising was more of a
> collaborative effort - maybe it would make sense to rethink the fundraising
> process after this round, and see how the community can be made co-own the
> process, so that the work of the team becomes easier, and friction less. I
> think that would be a way to solve a lot of the hurdles we're encountering
> right now.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
> > > thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
> > > equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
> > > consequences and we will find flaws.
> > >
> > > Now for the specifics:
> > >
> > > Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust
> > to
> > > changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
> > > multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
> > > parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation.
> > > Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also
> > > use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is
> > > counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they
> > > work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the
> > > overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased
> > 3rd
> > > party to do some of this analysis.
> > >
> >
> > I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you
> > share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the
> > methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated
> > data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage.
> >
> > Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're
> > saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong.
> >
> > - Ryan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in
mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is
otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources,
many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)

Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is
not unusual about this banner:

*"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time.
I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the
donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or
subtle to get me thinking."*


On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:
>
> >
> > This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
> > thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
> > equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
> > consequences and we will find flaws.
> >
> > Now for the specifics:
> >
> > Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust
> to
> > changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
> > multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
> > parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation.
> > Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also
> > use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is
> > counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they
> > work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the
> > overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased
> 3rd
> > party to do some of this analysis.
> >
>
> I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you
> share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the
> methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated
> data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage.
>
> Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're
> saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong.
>
> - Ryan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
I have no doubt that the banners work. But in the opinion of a number of
commentators here, the banners currently feature a very alarming wording –
making it sound as though there is not enough money to keep Wikipedia
online for another year without introducing advertising – and yet we know
that the Foundation has just reported having its healthiest bank balance
ever[1]. The person you quote had no way of knowing that, because the
banner doesn't tell people.

It doesn't seem fair.

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG.pdf#page=4

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in
> mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is
> otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources,
> many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)
>
> Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is
> not unusual about this banner:
>
> *"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time.
> I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the
> donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or
> subtle to get me thinking."*
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
> > > thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
> > > equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
> > > consequences and we will find flaws.
> > >
> > > Now for the specifics:
> > >
> > > Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and
> adjust
> > to
> > > changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
> > > multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
> > > parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable
> equation.
> > > Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they
> also
> > > use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see
> is
> > > counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but
> they
> > > work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from
> the
> > > overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased
> > 3rd
> > > party to do some of this analysis.
> > >
> >
> > I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you
> > share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the
> > methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated
> > data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage.
> >
> > Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're
> > saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong.
> >
> > - Ryan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in
> mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is
> otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources,
> many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)
>
> Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is
> not unusual about this banner:
>
> *"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time.
> I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the
> donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or
> subtle to get me thinking."*

Lila, the concern is not that the fundraiser is working, which your
soundbite confirms, but that it is deceiving people, or at least
manipulating them 'too much' to be consistent with our values.

One way to test that would be to organise a survey for donors,
informing them of the current financials, the current strategy
document and current status on achieving that strategy, a breakdown on
where the money is currently going and ask them whether they are happy
with the amount and tone of the information they were given before
being asked to donote. WMF donors may already being surveyed like
this (ideally done by academics in the discipline rather than WMF
staff/contractors); if so, hopefully that data can be shared.

In addition to the concern about the tone of the fundraiser damaging
the brand, there is a strong correlation between increased WMF revenue
(and the growth of chapters) and the loss of edit contributors. Has
research been done to rule out causation? i.e. specifically asking
previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
being adequately supported?

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

> i.e. specifically asking
> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
> being adequately supported?

Thanks for your great wording, John.

I belong to this category (somewhat). I stopped contributing because I felt that my work is not adequately supported. I felt the need to develop some software. I have rather limited free time however, and I've been in the "not highly productive on-wiki" phase for over 3 years now.

Incidentally, one of the entities that doesn't adequately support my work is my local chapter. It had been extremely hostile toward Wikimedia movement and after learning how it works I had no motivation to continue working with Wikimedia projects. How poorly the Wikimedia Foundation itself works wasn't the biggest obstacle (I found it mildly approachable and was (and am!) a tiny bit happy with it).

--
svetlana

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana <svetlana@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
> John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> i.e. specifically asking
>> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
>> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
>> being adequately supported?
>
> Thanks for your great wording, John.
>
> I belong to this category (somewhat). I stopped contributing because I felt that my work is not adequately supported. I felt the need to develop some software. I have rather limited free time however, and I've been in the "not highly productive on-wiki" phase for over 3 years now.
>
> Incidentally, one of the entities that doesn't adequately support my work is my local chapter. It had been extremely hostile toward Wikimedia movement and after learning how it works I had no motivation to continue working with Wikimedia projects. How poorly the Wikimedia Foundation itself works wasn't the biggest obstacle (I found it mildly approachable and was (and am!) a tiny bit happy with it).

Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter?
Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 12:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana <svetlana@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
> > John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >
> >> i.e. specifically asking
> >> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
> >> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
> >> being adequately supported?
> >
> > Thanks for your great wording, John.
> >
> > I belong to this category (somewhat). I stopped contributing because I felt that my work is not adequately supported. I felt the need to develop some software. I have rather limited free time however, and I've been in the "not highly productive on-wiki" phase for over 3 years now.
> >
> > Incidentally, one of the entities that doesn't adequately support my work is my local chapter. It had been extremely hostile toward Wikimedia movement and after learning how it works I had no motivation to continue working with Wikimedia projects. How poorly the Wikimedia Foundation itself works wasn't the biggest obstacle (I found it mildly approachable and was (and am!) a tiny bit happy with it).
>
> Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter?
> Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg

Thanks for the suggestion, but there is not a problem with how it is funded. It organizes events which miss the point.

I would be happy to be more specific, but I will do so at a later point, not here and not now; what I was saying was only that *if* we were to do such survey, we would need to *also* ask people how happy they are with their Chapters activities and adequate support from them. The funding banner is for them all, not just WMF, after all.

--
svetlana

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes:

>
> I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in
> mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is
> otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources,
> many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)
>

You have a community that's upset because they believe the fundraising
banners are causing long-lasting harm to Wikimedia's brand. The analytics
team can probably spend a few hours handling this. They aren't allocated to
the fundraiser.

If it's so labor intensive to go through this data, then it's likely not
being actively used to make decisions. At minimum the methodology that's
being used can be shared.

> Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is
> not unusual about this banner:
>
> *"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time.
> I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the
> donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or
> subtle to get me thinking."*
>

Here's the results of a quick twitter search:

"Every year, the Wikipedia begging banners get bigger and bigger, now it's
3/4 of the screen"

"Wikipedia's donation banners are so huge now that they actually startle me
when they load."

".@Wikipedia might as well use their obtrusive donation banners as ad space.
Or whenever they are running low on funds, enable ads."

"every time wikipedia asks for money the banners get bigger and bigger"

"Holy shit, @wikipedia, just have done with it and put ads up—these donation
banners are awful."

"remember when wikipedia donation banners used to take up only 5% of the page"

"I WOULD donate to @Wikipedia but their donation banners are just too damn
small. I can never spot the darn things!"

"I hate to say this but @Wikipedia's "Donate !" banners are very annoying.
Especially when you've already donated & don't like to feel forced"

"fuck your giant ass banner ads, @wikipedia. i want my previous donations back."

"@sillyredfox Those ads are overly obtrusive. Never giving to @Wikipedia
until they're toned down."

"I'd rather let Wikipedia mine bitcoin on my machine than be assaulted with
their "these aren't ads" fundraiser ads."

"@codinghorror Considering Wikipedia have 90 mil in cash in the bank, the
ads have an oddly desperate tone."

"Dear Wikipedia users: To protect our independence, we'll never run
ads...except the huge one begging for cash you'll see on EVERY PAGE."

There's so, so many more and I only included results that were relevant to
the size or copy.

There's a theme of this search, too. There's not a single positive thing
being said about them. I used to see people joking about the Jimmy banners,
encouraging people to donate. The only jokes I see now are at Wikipedia's
expense.

- Ryan


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
Hi all.

I can see clear interest in everyone on this thread wanting to figure out the right way to do it. Let's not jinx it by painting WMF Fundraising as the "guys who break" and community as "the gwho rage". Both these groups are rather capable of working things out (unlike the "...who break" and "...who rage" terms indicate).

Ryan Lane wrote:
> You have a community that's upset [...]

Don't even say more. "We" are the supporters of the Wikimedia movement. That includes Lila, that includes the fundraising folks, that includes you and me and many other people. I don't see a reason to isolate any of these people and blame.

I, for one, appreciate Lila for catalyzing this thread into communication with Fundraising Team. Such communication was clearly lacking (and when it is, it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early).

--
svetlana

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
I wrote:

> it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early

I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say:

> it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early

--
svetlana

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 14:47, svetlana wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I can see clear interest in everyone on this thread wanting to figure out the right way to do it. Let's not jinx it by painting WMF Fundraising as the "guys who break" and community as "the gwho rage". Both these groups are rather capable of working things out (unlike the "...who break" and "...who rage" terms indicate).
>
> Ryan Lane wrote:
> > You have a community that's upset [...]
>
> Don't even say more. "We" are the supporters of the Wikimedia movement. That includes Lila, that includes the fundraising folks, that includes you and me and many other people. I don't see a reason to isolate any of these people and blame.
>
> I, for one, appreciate Lila for catalyzing this thread into communication with Fundraising Team. Such communication was clearly lacking (and when it is, it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early).
>
> --
> svetlana
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3 4  View All