Mailing List Archive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again) [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org> wrote:
> I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
> fundraising message as a summary.

Yep, this is very problematic. Even though the content is
JavaScript-generated, Google crawls it unless it's explicitly
excluded. This came to our attention this morning SF time, and we
quickly deployed fixes on our end:

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/177598/
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/177611/

This should fix the issue, but Google will need to recrawl the
affected pages. We've already reached out to our contacts there to see
if this can be done more quickly. Further background and analysis
here:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76743

Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
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 ]
Dear Ms. Ayers

Thanks for informing you are also a WMF trustee like "Sam" and you
concede that.these controversial banners are "in your face".

Sam's last email had this remark concerning the poster below:-

>"PS: The poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm, now blocked from en:wp, which has started spamming WM mailing lists (see the India list) and is squatting the site http://www.wikimedia.xyz/ . Please do not feed, and moderate as needed."

Some direct questions to you as a WMF Trustee:

a} if this is Trustee Sam's personal knowledge that "the poster below
is part of a deranged sockfarm", or is it part of some official /
transparent record of WMF which we can object to formally ?

b) How Trustee Sam knows that the poster is "squatting the site
http://www.wikimedia.xyz/" ? Is this also part of some official WMF
record ?

c) Do you deny the following official record of WMF concerning highly
offensive remarks, including sexually charged remarks, psychiatric
remarks, ways to fudge the accounts etc. ?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2011-05-26

extracts:

[10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do?
[10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-)
[10:10am] <mindspillage>: ...
[10:10am] <Ironholds>: ...
[10:10am] <sgardner>: LOL :-)
[10:10am] <Ironholds>: NOT what I meant
[10:10am] <StevenW>: She spills her mind, obviously. ;)
[10:11am] <Ironholds>: sgardner: you know the WMF covering psychiatric
insurance?
[10:11am] <Ironholds>: does it just cover YOURS, or are you going to
pay for the trauma I've just suffered? :p
[10:11am] <sgardner>: Most definitely :-)
..
[10:13am] <mindspillage>: And what can we do to help guide the
communities into making good choices and ensuring that success?
[10:13am] <tommorris>: a few well-placed indef blocks...
[10:13am] <StevenW>: Is movement roles sort of like that mindspillage?
The strategic planning I mean.
[10:13am] <mindspillage>: sgardner: I think the board could use
psychiatric benefits... :-P
..
[10:15am] <sgardner>: So for example, one of the issues the board
grapples with is (and is currently grappling with) is how much
emphasis the Wikimedia Foundation should put on growing its
operational reserve fund.
[10:15am] <StevenW>: Can you translate operational reserve fund to
human speak Sue? ;)
10:16am] <Courcelles>: Thinks that would be "rainy day fund"
[10:16am] <Nihiltres>: StevenW: the phrase "rainy day" comes to mind
[10:16am] <StevenW>: Yes.
[10:16am] <Nihiltres>: ah, damnit, Courcelles :P
..
[10:18am] <GerardM->: the question is also what the effect of money
spend now will be for advancing our goals
10:18am] <Prodego>: Nihiltres: sure, but the budget has gone up far
faster than the site has grown
..
[10:22am] <tommorris>: Prodego: I'm leaning towards a few million for
a group of elite mercenaries to go around punishing vandals.
..
[10:25am] <Fluffernutter>: tommorris: and so I was going to say that
Ironholds is -- oops :P
..
[10:29am] <quanticle>: Hardware is cheap; people are expensive, etc.
..
[10:30am] <sgardner>: Just depends which way you want to slice the numbers.
[10:30am] <SarekOfVulcan>: Ah, like it better sliced that way, Sue. :-)
[10:30am] <sgardner>: :-)

On 12/4/14, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
>> phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
>>> team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
>>> running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
>>> concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
>>> financial health and future.
>
> I am not just saying this because I am a trustee -- I've seen every
> fundraising campaign that the WMF has ever run, and participated in
> discussions about most of them, and I genuinely do like this year's.
> Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that
> it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away
> (forever, I think). Obviously, opinions on the banner aesthetics can
> and will vary. But discussions on how much money we should raise
> (which, of course, is not an either/or choice) -- that's a different
> conversation.
>
> -- Phoebe

_______________________________________________
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 ]
Mr. Admin,

I fully support both transparency and free speech, and would never
suggest that you should be denied the right to ask the questions
you're asking. I can, however, object to your use of the mailing list
I administer (as a volunteer, in anticipation of your likely response)
to ask those questions in such an aggressive and disruptive way.

I have placed you on moderation for as long as you continue this type
of behavior. If you'd like an unmoderated soapbox, I know for a fact
that Google can point you to several sites which would be more than
happy to provide one.

Austin

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Site Admin <1924.hra@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ms. Ayers
>
> Thanks for informing you are also a WMF trustee like "Sam" and you
> concede that.these controversial banners are "in your face".
>
> Sam's last email had this remark concerning the poster below:-
>
>>"PS: The poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm, now blocked from en:wp, which has started spamming WM mailing lists (see the India list) and is squatting the site http://www.wikimedia.xyz/ . Please do not feed, and moderate as needed."
>
> Some direct questions to you as a WMF Trustee:
>
> a} if this is Trustee Sam's personal knowledge that "the poster below
> is part of a deranged sockfarm", or is it part of some official /
> transparent record of WMF which we can object to formally ?
>
> b) How Trustee Sam knows that the poster is "squatting the site
> http://www.wikimedia.xyz/" ? Is this also part of some official WMF
> record ?
>
> c) Do you deny the following official record of WMF concerning highly
> offensive remarks, including sexually charged remarks, psychiatric
> remarks, ways to fudge the accounts etc. ?
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2011-05-26
>
> extracts:
>
> [10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do?
> [10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-)
> [10:10am] <mindspillage>: ...
> [10:10am] <Ironholds>: ...
> [10:10am] <sgardner>: LOL :-)
> [10:10am] <Ironholds>: NOT what I meant
> [10:10am] <StevenW>: She spills her mind, obviously. ;)
> [10:11am] <Ironholds>: sgardner: you know the WMF covering psychiatric
> insurance?
> [10:11am] <Ironholds>: does it just cover YOURS, or are you going to
> pay for the trauma I've just suffered? :p
> [10:11am] <sgardner>: Most definitely :-)
> ..
> [10:13am] <mindspillage>: And what can we do to help guide the
> communities into making good choices and ensuring that success?
> [10:13am] <tommorris>: a few well-placed indef blocks...
> [10:13am] <StevenW>: Is movement roles sort of like that mindspillage?
> The strategic planning I mean.
> [10:13am] <mindspillage>: sgardner: I think the board could use
> psychiatric benefits... :-P
> ..
> [10:15am] <sgardner>: So for example, one of the issues the board
> grapples with is (and is currently grappling with) is how much
> emphasis the Wikimedia Foundation should put on growing its
> operational reserve fund.
> [10:15am] <StevenW>: Can you translate operational reserve fund to
> human speak Sue? ;)
> 10:16am] <Courcelles>: Thinks that would be "rainy day fund"
> [10:16am] <Nihiltres>: StevenW: the phrase "rainy day" comes to mind
> [10:16am] <StevenW>: Yes.
> [10:16am] <Nihiltres>: ah, damnit, Courcelles :P
> ..
> [10:18am] <GerardM->: the question is also what the effect of money
> spend now will be for advancing our goals
> 10:18am] <Prodego>: Nihiltres: sure, but the budget has gone up far
> faster than the site has grown
> ..
> [10:22am] <tommorris>: Prodego: I'm leaning towards a few million for
> a group of elite mercenaries to go around punishing vandals.
> ..
> [10:25am] <Fluffernutter>: tommorris: and so I was going to say that
> Ironholds is -- oops :P
> ..
> [10:29am] <quanticle>: Hardware is cheap; people are expensive, etc.
> ..
> [10:30am] <sgardner>: Just depends which way you want to slice the numbers.
> [10:30am] <SarekOfVulcan>: Ah, like it better sliced that way, Sue. :-)
> [10:30am] <sgardner>: :-)
>
> On 12/4/14, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
>>>> team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
>>>> running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
>>>> concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
>>>> financial health and future.
>>
>> I am not just saying this because I am a trustee -- I've seen every
>> fundraising campaign that the WMF has ever run, and participated in
>> discussions about most of them, and I genuinely do like this year's.
>> Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that
>> it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away
>> (forever, I think). Obviously, opinions on the banner aesthetics can
>> and will vary. But discussions on how much money we should raise
>> (which, of course, is not an either/or choice) -- that's a different
>> conversation.
>>
>> -- Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ]
phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:

>
> Hello! Sorry, I didn't realize that's what you were referring to. I
> haven't looked at all the raw fundraising data, no, and I haven't
> looked at that set that Lila refers to. (The reports we get are
> summaries, which is much preferable when you've got a lot of
> information to get through about all sorts of topics).
>
> I *do* however trust our fundraising team's analysis, and I don't
> think they need my mediocre user testing skills and even more mediocre
> statistical skills to help them sort it out. I agree with you however
> that it would be great if the anonymized data/test methods can be made
> public; I think we would all learn a lot, and the group might be able
> help refine the tests.
>

Though I trust their analysis, based on the strong negative reaction that
I'm getting from people in person and from social media, I think it's
important to verify the data and especially the methodology.

> It's anecdotal in the sense that without some statistical analysis
> it's sort of a case of whatever catches your eye standing out. Your
> statement surprised me, so I just read through around 1,500 #wikipedia
> tweets from the last six hours; the vast majority are the canned
> fundraiser tweet, with a handful of others (stuff about articles) and
> three, that I saw, that are negative about the fundraising banners. Is
> that a significant number? Is it a pattern? Is it more meaningful than
> all those other people donating? Is the absence of positive feedback
> significant? (though I doubt we've ever gotten "I <3 the Wikipedia
> banners" as a tweet). I have some instincts around these questions,
> but I honestly don't know the answers, and I would love to see some
> proper analysis. I am, as always, a big fan of research :)
>

Do a twitter search for 'wikipedia banners' or better 'wikipedia ads'. Using
a hashtag is going to skew your data towards autogenerated tweets. Using
'wikipedia banners' is also slightly skewed, because it selects a group of
people that know what we call them. Most people think of our banners as ads,
because whether we consider them ads or not, it's the most common term for
them, and it's the word people will associate.

The tweets I selected were from a short period of time (less than 6 hours).
The vast majority (>90%) of the tweets were negative about the banners. I
excluded any tweets that didn't mention the size or the message.

I'm not asking for the Foundation to stop the banners. I'm not trying to
make the fundraising team's life harder. What I want is acknowledgement that
there is indeed a problem and that it will be addressed for next fundraiser.
I do want more than a promise of that, though. I'd like to see progress on
more reasonable banners during the next year before the 100% fundraiser
starts, so that we're not having the same discussion yet again.

- 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 ]
On 5 December 2014 at 17:35, Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not asking for the Foundation to stop the banners. I'm not trying to
> make the fundraising team's life harder. What I want is acknowledgement that
> there is indeed a problem and that it will be addressed for next fundraiser.
> I do want more than a promise of that, though. I'd like to see progress on
> more reasonable banners during the next year before the 100% fundraiser
> starts, so that we're not having the same discussion yet again.



Just used a not-logged-in browser for once. Literally the whole page
was the ad. It was startlingly obnoxious. I'm sure you can get
startling click-through rates with an ad that appears to completely
replace the thing you actually went to the page for.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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 ]
Hello all,

I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.

Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].

==communication re: fundraising season==
* develop banner approaches in the off-season [.the fundraising team
already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
* if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
communicate it to the stakeholders
* fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [.though acknowledged
that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
* Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
jobs"

==message content==
* don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
* don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [.note, I'm
not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
crisis terms.]
* message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
clear/is too American [.the latter is a problem esp. with English
Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
* comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
* comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
who get a/b tested
* as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
because of above points.

==banner size==
* pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
* sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point]
* banners that obscure content are no good [.note, though we agree on
the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
* mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small

==brand image==
* current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
content points
* harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
* messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
worth exploring]
* user sentiment analysis is important [.possible action point: maybe
user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
tests?]
* what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
[.note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
unusual in that way].

==data==
* we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
* especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
* social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
* how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [.note, we've
been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
the shorter fundraiser]

-------

Other questions for me:
Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
most exciting discussion.

Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
it to you if I did.

best,
Phoebe

_______________________________________________
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 Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
> themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
> of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
>
> Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
>
> ==communication re: fundraising season==
> * develop banner approaches in the off-season [.the fundraising team
> already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> communicate it to the stakeholders
> * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [.though acknowledged
> that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
> * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
> at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
> jobs"
>
> ==message content==
> * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
> the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
> * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
> go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [.note, I'm
> not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
> because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
> crisis terms.]
> * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
> clear/is too American [.the latter is a problem esp. with English
> Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
> * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
> * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
> who get a/b tested
> * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
> demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
> because of above points.
>
> ==banner size==
> * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
> * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point]
> * banners that obscure content are no good [.note, though we agree on
> the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
> banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
> * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
>
> ==brand image==
> * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
> content points
> * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
> * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
> worth exploring]
> * user sentiment analysis is important [.possible action point: maybe
> user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
> tests?]
> * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
> [.note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
> have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
> Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
> unusual in that way].
>
> ==data==
> * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
> * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [.note, we've
> been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> the shorter fundraiser]
>
> -------
>
> Other questions for me:
> Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
> weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
> approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
> secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
> most exciting discussion.
>
> Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
> papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
> it to you if I did.
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
>
Hi Phoebe,

Thanks for re-reading the whole thread, that must have been "fun", and for
summarizing the points. From my perspective, you caught pretty much
everything. The one thing I still have to add is the subject line of the
Jimmy email. That came across as incredibly spammy and misleading to me
(Why the hell is Jimmy mailing me telling me he'll keep it short? Oh, it's
just a fundraiser email). The subject of the email is not Jimmy keeping it
short, but a request to donate. That should be clearer in the subject line.
And the sender should IMO be the Wikimedia Fundraising team or the WMF, not
Jimmy.

To others I imagine it reads like those spam emails with "Have you seen
this article?" in the subject line with spoofed email addresses.

Thank you for keeping working on this, and not getting pulled into emotion.

Cheers,

--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 ]
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> To others I imagine it reads like those spam emails with "Have you seen
> this article?" in the subject line with spoofed email addresses.
>
> Thank you for keeping working on this, and not getting pulled into emotion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Martijn
>
>
+1 I have literally had at least dozens of spam e-mails show up with the
subject "I'll keep this short..."
_______________________________________________
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 ]
Thanks for this, Phoebe. It's a good summary.

(And if you could be so kind as to nudge Tilman about the 2012 editor
survey data - it's been over two years - and let the Gendergap list know
what the gender split was in that survey, it would be much appreciated.)

Andreas

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:11 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
> themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
> of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
>
> Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
>
> ==communication re: fundraising season==
> * develop banner approaches in the off-season [.the fundraising team
> already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> communicate it to the stakeholders
> * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [.though acknowledged
> that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
> * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
> at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
> jobs"
>
> ==message content==
> * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
> the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
> * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
> go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [.note, I'm
> not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
> because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
> crisis terms.]
> * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
> clear/is too American [.the latter is a problem esp. with English
> Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
> * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
> * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
> who get a/b tested
> * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
> demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
> because of above points.
>
> ==banner size==
> * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
> * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point]
> * banners that obscure content are no good [.note, though we agree on
> the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
> banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
> * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
>
> ==brand image==
> * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
> content points
> * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
> * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
> worth exploring]
> * user sentiment analysis is important [.possible action point: maybe
> user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
> tests?]
> * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
> [.note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
> have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
> Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
> unusual in that way].
>
> ==data==
> * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
> * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [.note, we've
> been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> the shorter fundraiser]
>
> -------
>
> Other questions for me:
> Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
> weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
> approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
> secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
> most exciting discussion.
>
> Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
> papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
> it to you if I did.
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ]
phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes:

>
> I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
> themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
> of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
>

This is great. Thank you!

> Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
>
> ==communication re: fundraising season==
> * develop banner approaches in the off-season [.the fundraising team
> already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> communicate it to the stakeholders
> * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [.though acknowledged
> that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]

Also that when concerns arise, the response is defensive, rather than
acknowledging that there may be some problem. This would go a long way
towards making the threads friendlier.

> ==data==
> * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?

I think it's worthwhile information that we should be tracking year to year.
If the amount of negative messaging is increasing, it's bad, if it's
decreasing, it's good, for the most part.

> * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [.note, we've
> been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> the shorter fundraiser]
>

There was research put in by the fundraising team that showed people donated
within a certain number of banners and that the numbers quickly decreased. I
think this decreased the number of banners people saw by a very large
amount, and was really awesome work :).

Thanks again for listening, acknowledging and summarizing!

- 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 ]
Just seen online:

http://emptylighthouse.com/wikipedia-asks-users-help-keep-it-ad-free-fundraiser-344432888

---o0o---

If you've visited *Wikipedia.org* any time today you will have met up with
a *plea from the website. In order for the company to stay ad-free they
have appealed to their users for donations*.

---o0o---

Note "in order for the company to stay ad-free" ... you can't really blame
them for understanding it that way, given what the banner says. And it's
also what sparks the responses from readers on Twitter to the effect that
ads (which I'd assume few people here want) would be the lesser evil.

Andreas

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
> > themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
> > of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
> >
> > Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
> >
> > ==communication re: fundraising season==
> > * develop banner approaches in the off-season [.the fundraising team
> > already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> > * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> > communicate it to the stakeholders
> > * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [.though acknowledged
> > that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
> > * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
> > at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
> > jobs"
> >
> > ==message content==
> > * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
> > the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
> > * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
> > go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [.note, I'm
> > not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
> > because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
> > crisis terms.]
> > * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
> > clear/is too American [.the latter is a problem esp. with English
> > Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
> > * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
> > * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
> > who get a/b tested
> > * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
> > demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
> > because of above points.
> >
> > ==banner size==
> > * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
> > * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this
> point]
> > * banners that obscure content are no good [.note, though we agree on
> > the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
> > banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
> > * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
> >
> > ==brand image==
> > * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
> > content points
> > * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
> > * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
> > worth exploring]
> > * user sentiment analysis is important [.possible action point: maybe
> > user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
> > tests?]
> > * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
> > [.note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
> > have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
> > Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
> > unusual in that way].
> >
> > ==data==
> > * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> > * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> > * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> > past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
> > * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [.note, we've
> > been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> > the shorter fundraiser]
> >
> > -------
> >
> > Other questions for me:
> > Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
> > weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
> > approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
> > secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
> > most exciting discussion.
> >
> > Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
> > papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
> > it to you if I did.
> >
> > best,
> > Phoebe
> >
> >
> Hi Phoebe,
>
> Thanks for re-reading the whole thread, that must have been "fun", and for
> summarizing the points. From my perspective, you caught pretty much
> everything. The one thing I still have to add is the subject line of the
> Jimmy email. That came across as incredibly spammy and misleading to me
> (Why the hell is Jimmy mailing me telling me he'll keep it short? Oh, it's
> just a fundraiser email). The subject of the email is not Jimmy keeping it
> short, but a request to donate. That should be clearer in the subject line.
> And the sender should IMO be the Wikimedia Fundraising team or the WMF, not
> Jimmy.
>
> To others I imagine it reads like those spam emails with "Have you seen
> this article?" in the subject line with spoofed email addresses.
>
> Thank you for keeping working on this, and not getting pulled into emotion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --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 ]
Phoebe - that's a great summary.

> those unlucky souls who get a/b tested
There's a tradeoff here with not storing any cookies.

[.Also, a couple people online say they still see a banner after donating]

> current messages are seen as harming image
> we want all the data, because...

Also: We all need to understand the reason behind our campaigns, since we
are all asked about it -- and asked to defend it -- by those who know us.
(data helps)


Ryan Lane writes:

> when concerns arise, the response is defensive, rather than acknowledging

that there may be some problem. This would go a long way towards making

the threads friendlier.
>

A fair point. Applicable to all conversations, not just fundraising ones.

Sam
_______________________________________________
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 could be worse. Internet archive is running their banners at moment. Quote:

"Internet Archive is a non-profit. We don’t run ads, but still need to
pay for servers and staff. If everyone reading this gave $75, we could
end our fundraiser right now. For the cost of buying a book, you can
make a book permanently available for the next generation. It’s is a
small amount to inform millions. Help us do more. Thank you."

Sorry, $75? :)

They also give a shoutout to WMF for making the fundraising banner
open source. Thanks for nothing WMF for making this intrusive begging
the future of online fundraising. ;)

Russavia


On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:11 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
> themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
> of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
>
> Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
>
> ==communication re: fundraising season==
> * develop banner approaches in the off-season [.the fundraising team
> already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> communicate it to the stakeholders
> * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [.though acknowledged
> that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
> * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
> at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
> jobs"
>
> ==message content==
> * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
> the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
> * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
> go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [.note, I'm
> not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
> because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
> crisis terms.]
> * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
> clear/is too American [.the latter is a problem esp. with English
> Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
> * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
> * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
> who get a/b tested
> * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
> demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
> because of above points.
>
> ==banner size==
> * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
> * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point]
> * banners that obscure content are no good [.note, though we agree on
> the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
> banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
> * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
>
> ==brand image==
> * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
> content points
> * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
> * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
> worth exploring]
> * user sentiment analysis is important [.possible action point: maybe
> user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
> tests?]
> * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
> [.note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
> have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
> Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
> unusual in that way].
>
> ==data==
> * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
> * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [.note, we've
> been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> the shorter fundraiser]
>
> -------
>
> Other questions for me:
> Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
> weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
> approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
> secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
> most exciting discussion.
>
> Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
> papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
> it to you if I did.
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ]
Hoi,
I am really pleased that we have continuously enough money to do what needs
to be done. I am really pleased that the Dutch can deduct their gifts from
the tax man. As far as I know (from the moment this was arranged), it is
possible to have a European status for the WMF as well. Now that is an
annoyance that this is not realised.

I wholeheartedly want the WMF to spend more money in order to achieve more.
We do not realise our vision. We are not yet sharing in the sum of all
knowledge. We can share the knowledge that is available to us and THAT is
something we can realise more of this year.

Whining about effective fundraising is just that.. Please help us with
approaches that bring in the additional money to do even more in stead.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 6 December 2014 at 10:50, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:

> It could be worse. Internet archive is running their banners at moment.
> Quote:
>
> "Internet Archive is a non-profit. We don’t run ads, but still need to
> pay for servers and staff. If everyone reading this gave $75, we could
> end our fundraiser right now. For the cost of buying a book, you can
> make a book permanently available for the next generation. It’s is a
> small amount to inform millions. Help us do more. Thank you."
>
> Sorry, $75? :)
>
> They also give a shoutout to WMF for making the fundraising banner
> open source. Thanks for nothing WMF for making this intrusive begging
> the future of online fundraising. ;)
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:11 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
> > themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
> > of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
> >
> > Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
> >
> > ==communication re: fundraising season==
> > * develop banner approaches in the off-season [.the fundraising team
> > already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> > * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> > communicate it to the stakeholders
> > * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [.though acknowledged
> > that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
> > * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
> > at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
> > jobs"
> >
> > ==message content==
> > * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
> > the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
> > * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
> > go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [.note, I'm
> > not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
> > because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
> > crisis terms.]
> > * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
> > clear/is too American [.the latter is a problem esp. with English
> > Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
> > * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
> > * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
> > who get a/b tested
> > * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
> > demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
> > because of above points.
> >
> > ==banner size==
> > * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
> > * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this
> point]
> > * banners that obscure content are no good [.note, though we agree on
> > the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
> > banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
> > * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
> >
> > ==brand image==
> > * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
> > content points
> > * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
> > * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
> > worth exploring]
> > * user sentiment analysis is important [.possible action point: maybe
> > user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
> > tests?]
> > * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
> > [.note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
> > have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
> > Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
> > unusual in that way].
> >
> > ==data==
> > * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> > * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> > * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> > past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
> > * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [.note, we've
> > been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> > the shorter fundraiser]
> >
> > -------
> >
> > Other questions for me:
> > Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
> > weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
> > approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
> > secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
> > most exciting discussion.
> >
> > Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
> > papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
> > it to you if I did.
> >
> > best,
> > Phoebe
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 6 December 2014 at 20:47, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Whining about effective fundraising is just that.. Please help us with
> approaches that bring in the additional money to do even more in stead.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>

Oh, I don't know, maybe have smaller ads which don't cover up whole screens
or over half (like in my case). We have seemed to do alright with smaller
[screen wise] ads in previous years, which we could more efftively target
rather then pushing people away.
_______________________________________________
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 ]
Phoebe, you said, "... in our meeting the board discussed whether we
should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
(which I personally think is wise, given current trends)."

Phoebe and Samuel, I would be very concerned if your foundation created an
endowment fund to ensure its survival in perpetuity. If your foundation
were to disappear tomorrow, there would be a moment of chaos, followed by
business as usual, with hosting supplied by another (possibly
pre-existing), hopefully competent non-profit with a mission to educate.

I'm very optimistic that Lila is turning things around, but all we have to
go on at the moment is the past performance of your foundation. Your
failure of a foundation that has added nothing to the reliability and value
of the world's encyclopedia, while sucking up hundreds of millions of
readers' dollars does not deserve immortality, based on its performance up
to now. Consider an endowment fund when you have a track record that
justifies one.







Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>


On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 December 2014 at 20:47, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Whining about effective fundraising is just that.. Please help us with
> > approaches that bring in the additional money to do even more in stead.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> Oh, I don't know, maybe have smaller ads which don't cover up whole screens
> or over half (like in my case). We have seemed to do alright with smaller
> [screen wise] ads in previous years, which we could more efftively target
> rather then pushing people away.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ]
Hi all.

Not doing propaganda is in the core of Wikimedia mission. I am not hurt by how big the banner is. I am hurt by its bias, bias of two types — lack of neutrality, and bias by lack of detail. I believe that the WMF should make the banner more informative and more neutral (including explanations how people may get involved with Chapters, IEG grants, and structured feedback Lila and others recently started asking what people need).

--
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>

1 2 3 4  View All