Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Pine W]

OK, thanks for the info. I'll be interested to read a summary of the
campaign when WMF is in a position to create one, which I'm guessing might
be in January or February.

I could ask more questions, but I think that I'd better retreat back into
my digital cave. I have a UI project calling my name!

Thanks for the rapid responses to questions and comments.

Pine


On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly
> improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so that
> it reduces its impact on the page.
>
> With regards to user appeals with photos:
> 1) They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year
> trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came
> close.
> 2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences at
> the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year
> reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an
> area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed.
>
> Seddon
>
> On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Seddon,
> >
> > By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided
> > that
> > although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more
> > important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the
> > success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you
> > saying that
> > you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use lessons
> > learned
> > from it to design banners?
> >
> > By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good
> > idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile
> > pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising
> that
> > WMF
> > had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that I
> > believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back
> > a version of that campaign.
> >
> > I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and
> the
> > boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly
> willing
> > to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.
> >
> > I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated
> > target,
> > not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the
> > reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the
> > campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that means
> > that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Joseph Seddon]

More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly
improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so that
it reduces its impact on the page.

With regards to user appeals with photos:
1) They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year
trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came
close.
2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences at
the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year
reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an
area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed.

Seddon

On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W"  wrote:

> Hi Seddon,
>
> By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided
> that
> although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more
> important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the
> success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you
> saying that
> you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use lessons
> learned
> from it to design banners?
>
> By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good
> idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile
> pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising that
> WMF
> had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that I
> believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back
> a version of that campaign.
>
> I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and the
> boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly willing
> to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.
>
> I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated
> target,
> not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the
> reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the
> campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that means
> that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Pine W]

Hi Seddon,

By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided
that
although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more
important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the
success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you
saying that
you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use lessons
learned
from it to design banners?

By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good
idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile
pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising that
WMF
had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that I
believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back
a version of that campaign.

I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and the
boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly willing
to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.

I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated
target,
not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the
reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the
campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that means
that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.

Thanks,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

[Joseph Seddon]

I think I better understand at where you are coming from.

One of the difficulties of the role stems from the particularly brutal
nature of A/B testing. I don't mean that inasmuch as the decisions based on
them them can be without care or thought (and I assure you, in the case of
fundraising they aren't), but more that when 95 in 100 ideas turn out to be
failures it's difficult to make people feel that they are appreciated when
the testing machine appears at face value to have a personal vendetta
against you. I am personally amazed that my colleagues who have been
working in fundraising at this continuously for the last 5, 6 or 7 years
still remain as optimistic as they do. Combined with that there are also
only so many tests that the data allows you to run without reducing the
effectiveness of testing. You have a finite number of opportunities for
success, a system that failure is an inherent part of and all done against
a background consisting of a budget that up until this year was increasing
about 30% every year for the last five years. That's a pretty daunting task
to be asked to be a part of and not exactly one that would be enticing to
everyone. My colleagues do what they do because they know and believe in
the values that are so important to this movement. You can't do that job,
with the level of dedication they show, without that.

So part of the reason my position exists, and similarly those of the
Community Liasons, is not simply to be the mouthpiece of the department.
The role is there to act as a conduit between the teams at the foundation
and the communities they serve. Much of that is facilitation of thought,
ideas and conversation, ensuring that the team remains grounded and
conscious of the community in its work. Certainly in this case the role
itself was the embodiment of the team's desire for that to happen. Part of
that involves being advocate for the community to colleagues, and
particularly when the work is intense, fast paced and there are goal that
need to be reached, ensuring they are keeping in touch with their own roots
and the values they hold in being part of our movement that despite what
many think, are no different to our own values.

Regards
Seddon

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Joseph,
>
> Thank you for the timely and thorough response -- good info in there, and
> I'm especially gratified to know that Lodewijk's op-ed has sparked some
> worthwhile discussion.
>
> However, I think I may not have been clear enough about what I was
> suggesting. (And I should note, I understand this is an unusual kind of
> approach, that might not feel very "wiki-like" to many in our community;
> but if I'm right in my hunch that it would be an *effective* approach, it
> might merit further consideration.)
>
> I used the term "expert" to refer to two different kinds of efforts, which
> I think made my point hard to follow. This is what I suggest:
>
> * Hire a service provider that is *expert at learning from a certain
> important audience*
> * Work with that service provider to properly incentivize and efficiently
> garner insights from those who are *expert about Wikimedia values* and how
> they might apply to the fundraiser.
>
> Speaking for myself, I would hesitate to devote an hour or similar of my
> time to a feedback session run by the WMF. Partly, because I would want to
> be compensated for that time; and partly, because I have some skepticism
> about WMF's ability to run a session that would fully absorb the points I
> might have to make. (I do not suggest that my own perspective is especially
> important, but rather, that others might share one or both of my concerns.
> And I mean no disrespect to WMF by saying this; most people and
> organizations have difficulty fully absorbing feedback, and can benefit
> from skilled facilitation of some kind.)
>
> Sometimes, a trained professional whose expertise lies in helping
> organizations understand what their stakeholders think can be very
> valuable.
>
> In that way, what I suggest is fundamentally different from the expert
> (Jelly, who is indeed extraordinarily good at what he does, even if that
> one campaign did not turn out to everybody's liking), and is a
> fundamentally different kind of engagement, from what you mention at the
> end of your message.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > So we have definitely worked with market research companies, mostly to
> help
> > us get a better understanding of our audience rather than directly
> sourcing
> > design input. We worked with Lake Research Partners [1], on our English
> > Reader Survey in 2014-15 [2] and our Japan Reader Survey in 2015-2016
> [3].
> > And we may consider commissioning similar research in other geographies
> but
> > I don't believe we haven't taken any decision about future work at the
> > moment.
> >
> > The purpose of the sessions 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Joseph Seddon]

So for a stub article the original banner was a little overbearing in
relation to the content but a substantial part of that was related to that
banners particular dynamics that we weren't too fond of ourselves and
looking to improve.

Seddon

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Personally I think the inline banners are invasive to the content, unlike
> side bar or top of page banners which dont interfere with the delivery of
> content, the page layout or potentially imply association with the topic. I
> also recognise that mobile presentation is already degraded to suit the
> device so its aesthetics impact would be lower on that medium compared
> desktop services.
>
> As I havent encounted one besides the screen shot and samples I cant
> comment on the practical aspects of impact on a stub article over that of a
> featured article nor how it relates to the subject topic.
>
> On 2 December 2016 at 10:17, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking about these inline ads since I first encountered one,
> > which I believe was either yesterday or today. I'm uncomfortable with the
> > idea of inline ads, but they seem to be clearly delineated from article
> > content, and as far as I can tell there is simply no easy way to do
> on-wiki
> > fundraising without a certain amount of distraction to the reader. I
> don't
> > like this practice, but it's hard for me to say that I dislike it any
> more
> > than massive banners. Until WMF has such a large endowment that it no
> > longer needs to do online fundraising (which would create a different set
> > of financial accountability problems than we have now; maybe or maybe not
> > more or less, but different) I'm reluctantly willing to go along with the
> > program. If people have some convincing reasons why inline fundraising
> > should not happen, I hope that they will speak up. At the moment I think
> > it's OK to go with the flow.
> >
> > In the future I would suggest that this kind of change should be
> > communicated ahead of time, on this mailing list and elsewhere. (Unless I
> > missed it, which would be my fault.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Geni,
> > >
> > > So this is a style of banner that we have used on mobile over the last
> > > year. We have previously had good feedback about the mobile version
> with
> > > people feeling it was less obtrusive to the reader experience. This
> > banner
> > > that you saw was one of our first attempts at seeing whether
> transferring
> > > this to desktop was even a viable idea.
> > >
> > > That test showed this design had a huge amount of potential from a
> > > fundraising point of view, between a 60% & 90% increase in donations.
> > > However we felt that the banner wasn't quite providing the same
> > experience
> > > as we were getting on mobile. The size was larger and so we think that
> we
> > > can refine the concept so that it remains effective but making it less
> > > intrusive both than it’s current form and our current control banner (
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> > > 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US).
> > > We are working a number of smaller versions that are a little more in
> > > keeping with the experience provided on mobile, so keep in mind this is
> > far
> > > from a finished version.
> > >
> > > I would like to emphasis that we are not committed to this. It's
> > certainly
> > > a change from what we have had in the past and, based on that, both I
> and
> > > my colleagues would genuinely like to hear people's views on this type
> of
> > > banner. For now this banner will be limited to testing and our current
> > > small banner (
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> > > 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US)
> > > will be remaining our control. We would like to do a few more tests
> with
> > an
> > > improved take on this style and I would be happy to share the outcomes
> of
> > > those if it would help inform the discussion.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Seddon
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, geni  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Screenshot of what I mean:
> > > >
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
> > > >
> > > > Inline ads are generally considered to be something that gets into
> > > > scummy advertising territory (for example even adblock plus's rather
> > > > questionable Acceptable Ad policy doesn't accept them).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date:
> > > >
> > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en
> > > >
> > > > Unless we are still in the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > geni
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey Pine,

Communicating about testing is something we need to work out how to
improve. One of the issues is the sheer volume of content we are dealing
with. During these early days our banner team is running about 7 tests a
day, and we have already tested 66 banners and counting. That doesn't
include all of the prototype work in design process and since tuesday
nearly 200 banners have been created.

Some ideas are ones that you've been sitting on saving up for big english,
others are ones you dig out of the closet based on new information, then
there are tests that are done on the fly in reaction to the recent results
that take your course in a whole different trajectory and many (often the
unexpected successes and often the bolder choices) are the ones that that
are spur of the moment.

To be fair this was more in the second category. We tried it once earlier
in the year and we suspected it was something we would revisit. In this
instance we probably could have flagged it up sooner. But running such test
is still valuable information, it allows for an informed discussion. It
should be noted that the fundraising team isn't directly purely by
fundraising success rates. Through the design process we filter out many of
the more... shall we say... bolder banners. Even when some of the bolder
actions that do get tested and have been highly successful, a decision has
been made to put the idea to one side.

And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided that
although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more
important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the
success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye. And as always
we are definitely interested in hearing feedback on such efforts. It does
genuinely guide our work even if it may not appear to.

Regards
Seddon

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I've been thinking about these inline ads since I first encountered one,
> which I believe was either yesterday or today. I'm uncomfortable with the
> idea of inline ads, but they seem to be clearly delineated from article
> content, and as far as I can tell there is simply no easy way to do on-wiki
> fundraising without a certain amount of distraction to the reader. I don't
> like this practice, but it's hard for me to say that I dislike it any more
> than massive banners. Until WMF has such a large endowment that it no
> longer needs to do online fundraising (which would create a different set
> of financial accountability problems than we have now; maybe or maybe not
> more or less, but different) I'm reluctantly willing to go along with the
> program. If people have some convincing reasons why inline fundraising
> should not happen, I hope that they will speak up. At the moment I think
> it's OK to go with the flow.
>
> In the future I would suggest that this kind of change should be
> communicated ahead of time, on this mailing list and elsewhere. (Unless I
> missed it, which would be my fault.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Geni,
> >
> > So this is a style of banner that we have used on mobile over the last
> > year. We have previously had good feedback about the mobile version with
> > people feeling it was less obtrusive to the reader experience. This
> banner
> > that you saw was one of our first attempts at seeing whether transferring
> > this to desktop was even a viable idea.
> >
> > That test showed this design had a huge amount of potential from a
> > fundraising point of view, between a 60% & 90% increase in donations.
> > However we felt that the banner wasn't quite providing the same
> experience
> > as we were getting on mobile. The size was larger and so we think that we
> > can refine the concept so that it remains effective but making it less
> > intrusive both than it’s current form and our current control banner (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> > 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US).
> > We are working a number of smaller versions that are a little more in
> > keeping with the experience provided on mobile, so keep in mind this is
> far
> > from a finished version.
> >
> > I would like to emphasis that we are not committed to this. It's
> certainly
> > a change from what we have had in the past and, based on that, both I and
> > my colleagues would genuinely like to hear people's views on this type of
> > banner. For now this banner will be limited to testing and our current
> > small banner (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> > 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US)
> > will be remaining our control. We would like to do a few more tests with
> an
> > improved take on this style and I would be happy to share the outcomes of
> > those if it would help inform the discussion.
> >
> > Regards
> > Seddon
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, geni 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

[Pete Forsyth]

Joseph,

Thank you for the timely and thorough response -- good info in there, and
I'm especially gratified to know that Lodewijk's op-ed has sparked some
worthwhile discussion.

However, I think I may not have been clear enough about what I was
suggesting. (And I should note, I understand this is an unusual kind of
approach, that might not feel very "wiki-like" to many in our community;
but if I'm right in my hunch that it would be an *effective* approach, it
might merit further consideration.)

I used the term "expert" to refer to two different kinds of efforts, which
I think made my point hard to follow. This is what I suggest:

* Hire a service provider that is *expert at learning from a certain
important audience*
* Work with that service provider to properly incentivize and efficiently
garner insights from those who are *expert about Wikimedia values* and how
they might apply to the fundraiser.

Speaking for myself, I would hesitate to devote an hour or similar of my
time to a feedback session run by the WMF. Partly, because I would want to
be compensated for that time; and partly, because I have some skepticism
about WMF's ability to run a session that would fully absorb the points I
might have to make. (I do not suggest that my own perspective is especially
important, but rather, that others might share one or both of my concerns.
And I mean no disrespect to WMF by saying this; most people and
organizations have difficulty fully absorbing feedback, and can benefit
from skilled facilitation of some kind.)

Sometimes, a trained professional whose expertise lies in helping
organizations understand what their stakeholders think can be very valuable.

In that way, what I suggest is fundamentally different from the expert
(Jelly, who is indeed extraordinarily good at what he does, even if that
one campaign did not turn out to everybody's liking), and is a
fundamentally different kind of engagement, from what you mention at the
end of your message.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> So we have definitely worked with market research companies, mostly to help
> us get a better understanding of our audience rather than directly sourcing
> design input. We worked with Lake Research Partners [1], on our English
> Reader Survey in 2014-15 [2] and our Japan Reader Survey in 2015-2016 [3].
> And we may consider commissioning similar research in other geographies but
> I don't believe we haven't taken any decision about future work at the
> moment.
>
> The purpose of the sessions is try and do what we can to ensure that the
> messaging we use is as representative of the community as we can make it
> whilst also having a successful fundraiser. To do that we need to be able
> to offer as many possibilities to volunteers to be able to contribute to
> the Fundraiser, and this touches on many of the issues in Lodewijk's op-ed
> in the Signpost over the weekend (which I intend to provide a fuller
> response to soon).
>
> Although we didn't run the second series in English we are still planning
> on running sessions for input in other languages next year. Most likely in
> Dutch and in Swedish where we've already gauged some early interest, and
> potentially other languages too if there is the desire for it.
>
> We ran a successful couple of test sessions back in September with
> community members and with staff earlier in year. They produced some
> fantastic input into our processes with both a critique of our banners as
> well as being a source new ideas. These sorts of sessions help guide us
> towards the areas that are important to our communities, allowing us to
> focus our efforts on dealing with issues raised by the community such as
> getting rid of the ominous black banners, not describing ourselves as a
> small non-profit and doing our best to find alternatives to the infamous
> coffee cup line that has been present in our appeals for th. Outside
> experts can't provide that same touch we are looking for that members of
> the movement, staff or community can provide.
>
> This particular way of garnering input wasn't successful at this moment in
> time but there will be other opportunities but it's not the only way and I
> am definitely hopeful to find other methods for the wider community to be
> able to get involved in the campaign.
>
> Plus experts gave us this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/
> 2009-11-16/Fundraiser
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> [1 http://www.lakeresearch.com/]
> [2
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/c2/
> Wikimedia_Survey_2014_English_Fundraiser.pdf
> ]
> [3
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/ef/
> Report.WikimediaJapan.f.071916.pdf
> ]
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Finally we didn't get any 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Gnangarra]

Personally I think the inline banners are invasive to the content, unlike
side bar or top of page banners which dont interfere with the delivery of
content, the page layout or potentially imply association with the topic. I
also recognise that mobile presentation is already degraded to suit the
device so its aesthetics impact would be lower on that medium compared
desktop services.

As I havent encounted one besides the screen shot and samples I cant
comment on the practical aspects of impact on a stub article over that of a
featured article nor how it relates to the subject topic.

On 2 December 2016 at 10:17, Pine W  wrote:

> I've been thinking about these inline ads since I first encountered one,
> which I believe was either yesterday or today. I'm uncomfortable with the
> idea of inline ads, but they seem to be clearly delineated from article
> content, and as far as I can tell there is simply no easy way to do on-wiki
> fundraising without a certain amount of distraction to the reader. I don't
> like this practice, but it's hard for me to say that I dislike it any more
> than massive banners. Until WMF has such a large endowment that it no
> longer needs to do online fundraising (which would create a different set
> of financial accountability problems than we have now; maybe or maybe not
> more or less, but different) I'm reluctantly willing to go along with the
> program. If people have some convincing reasons why inline fundraising
> should not happen, I hope that they will speak up. At the moment I think
> it's OK to go with the flow.
>
> In the future I would suggest that this kind of change should be
> communicated ahead of time, on this mailing list and elsewhere. (Unless I
> missed it, which would be my fault.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Geni,
> >
> > So this is a style of banner that we have used on mobile over the last
> > year. We have previously had good feedback about the mobile version with
> > people feeling it was less obtrusive to the reader experience. This
> banner
> > that you saw was one of our first attempts at seeing whether transferring
> > this to desktop was even a viable idea.
> >
> > That test showed this design had a huge amount of potential from a
> > fundraising point of view, between a 60% & 90% increase in donations.
> > However we felt that the banner wasn't quite providing the same
> experience
> > as we were getting on mobile. The size was larger and so we think that we
> > can refine the concept so that it remains effective but making it less
> > intrusive both than it’s current form and our current control banner (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> > 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US).
> > We are working a number of smaller versions that are a little more in
> > keeping with the experience provided on mobile, so keep in mind this is
> far
> > from a finished version.
> >
> > I would like to emphasis that we are not committed to this. It's
> certainly
> > a change from what we have had in the past and, based on that, both I and
> > my colleagues would genuinely like to hear people's views on this type of
> > banner. For now this banner will be limited to testing and our current
> > small banner (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> > 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US)
> > will be remaining our control. We would like to do a few more tests with
> an
> > improved take on this style and I would be happy to share the outcomes of
> > those if it would help inform the discussion.
> >
> > Regards
> > Seddon
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, geni  wrote:
> >
> > > Screenshot of what I mean:
> > >
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
> > >
> > > Inline ads are generally considered to be something that gets into
> > > scummy advertising territory (for example even adblock plus's rather
> > > questionable Acceptable Ad policy doesn't accept them).
> > >
> > >
> > > On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date:
> > >
> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en
> > >
> > > Unless we are still in the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Seddon
> >
> > *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Pine W]

I've been thinking about these inline ads since I first encountered one,
which I believe was either yesterday or today. I'm uncomfortable with the
idea of inline ads, but they seem to be clearly delineated from article
content, and as far as I can tell there is simply no easy way to do on-wiki
fundraising without a certain amount of distraction to the reader. I don't
like this practice, but it's hard for me to say that I dislike it any more
than massive banners. Until WMF has such a large endowment that it no
longer needs to do online fundraising (which would create a different set
of financial accountability problems than we have now; maybe or maybe not
more or less, but different) I'm reluctantly willing to go along with the
program. If people have some convincing reasons why inline fundraising
should not happen, I hope that they will speak up. At the moment I think
it's OK to go with the flow.

In the future I would suggest that this kind of change should be
communicated ahead of time, on this mailing list and elsewhere. (Unless I
missed it, which would be my fault.

Thanks,

Pine


On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey Geni,
>
> So this is a style of banner that we have used on mobile over the last
> year. We have previously had good feedback about the mobile version with
> people feeling it was less obtrusive to the reader experience. This banner
> that you saw was one of our first attempts at seeing whether transferring
> this to desktop was even a viable idea.
>
> That test showed this design had a huge amount of potential from a
> fundraising point of view, between a 60% & 90% increase in donations.
> However we felt that the banner wasn't quite providing the same experience
> as we were getting on mobile. The size was larger and so we think that we
> can refine the concept so that it remains effective but making it less
> intrusive both than it’s current form and our current control banner (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US).
> We are working a number of smaller versions that are a little more in
> keeping with the experience provided on mobile, so keep in mind this is far
> from a finished version.
>
> I would like to emphasis that we are not committed to this. It's certainly
> a change from what we have had in the past and, based on that, both I and
> my colleagues would genuinely like to hear people's views on this type of
> banner. For now this banner will be limited to testing and our current
> small banner (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_
> 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US)
> will be remaining our control. We would like to do a few more tests with an
> improved take on this style and I would be happy to share the outcomes of
> those if it would help inform the discussion.
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, geni  wrote:
>
> > Screenshot of what I mean:
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
> >
> > Inline ads are generally considered to be something that gets into
> > scummy advertising territory (for example even adblock plus's rather
> > questionable Acceptable Ad policy doesn't accept them).
> >
> >
> > On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date:
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en
> >
> > Unless we are still in the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

[Joseph Seddon]

So we have definitely worked with market research companies, mostly to help
us get a better understanding of our audience rather than directly sourcing
design input. We worked with Lake Research Partners [1], on our English
Reader Survey in 2014-15 [2] and our Japan Reader Survey in 2015-2016 [3].
And we may consider commissioning similar research in other geographies but
I don't believe we haven't taken any decision about future work at the
moment.

The purpose of the sessions is try and do what we can to ensure that the
messaging we use is as representative of the community as we can make it
whilst also having a successful fundraiser. To do that we need to be able
to offer as many possibilities to volunteers to be able to contribute to
the Fundraiser, and this touches on many of the issues in Lodewijk's op-ed
in the Signpost over the weekend (which I intend to provide a fuller
response to soon).

Although we didn't run the second series in English we are still planning
on running sessions for input in other languages next year. Most likely in
Dutch and in Swedish where we've already gauged some early interest, and
potentially other languages too if there is the desire for it.

We ran a successful couple of test sessions back in September with
community members and with staff earlier in year. They produced some
fantastic input into our processes with both a critique of our banners as
well as being a source new ideas. These sorts of sessions help guide us
towards the areas that are important to our communities, allowing us to
focus our efforts on dealing with issues raised by the community such as
getting rid of the ominous black banners, not describing ourselves as a
small non-profit and doing our best to find alternatives to the infamous
coffee cup line that has been present in our appeals for th. Outside
experts can't provide that same touch we are looking for that members of
the movement, staff or community can provide.

This particular way of garnering input wasn't successful at this moment in
time but there will be other opportunities but it's not the only way and I
am definitely hopeful to find other methods for the wider community to be
able to get involved in the campaign.

Plus experts gave us this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-16/Fundraiser

Regards
Seddon

[1 http://www.lakeresearch.com/]
[2
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/c2/Wikimedia_Survey_2014_English_Fundraiser.pdf
]
[3
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/ef/Report.WikimediaJapan.f.071916.pdf
]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Finally we didn't get any interest in our fundraising feedback and design
> > sessions last week and the week before so they were put on hold, however
> if
> > there are individuals who are interested in taking part in such a
> session,
> > one on one, then reach out to me and I would be happy to arrange a time
> > with you.
> >
>
> Often, when an organization needs to get the sense of a stakeholder group,
> they work with a market research firm, which would have expertise in
> getting the needed feedback. It's common for that research to compensate
> those participating.
>
> I've participated in such studies; and while some of them evaluate common
> products like refrigerators or cell phones, others are quite specialized.
> An interesting example: I actually participated in one that was modeled
> after a jury trial. The parties in an actual trial ran a process, which
> included four juries of (if I recall correctly) 11 people each. We heard
> expert testimony and lawyer arguments for two days before being sequestered
> for deliberation; our findings were used to determine the settlement in the
> case.
>
> The kind of input the WMF seeks is fairly sophisticated. There are not many
> people with the depth of knowledge of the Wikimedia movement to give
> worthwhile input, and to be frank, I would imagine few of them, like me,
> would be reluctant to volunteer time for the kind of session you suggest.
>
> Has the WMF considered seeking the assistance of an experienced market
> research firm, and/or compensating experts, to get the kind of input you
> desire?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

[Pete Forsyth]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

>
> Finally we didn't get any interest in our fundraising feedback and design
> sessions last week and the week before so they were put on hold, however if
> there are individuals who are interested in taking part in such a session,
> one on one, then reach out to me and I would be happy to arrange a time
> with you.
>

Often, when an organization needs to get the sense of a stakeholder group,
they work with a market research firm, which would have expertise in
getting the needed feedback. It's common for that research to compensate
those participating.

I've participated in such studies; and while some of them evaluate common
products like refrigerators or cell phones, others are quite specialized.
An interesting example: I actually participated in one that was modeled
after a jury trial. The parties in an actual trial ran a process, which
included four juries of (if I recall correctly) 11 people each. We heard
expert testimony and lawyer arguments for two days before being sequestered
for deliberation; our findings were used to determine the settlement in the
case.

The kind of input the WMF seeks is fairly sophisticated. There are not many
people with the depth of knowledge of the Wikimedia movement to give
worthwhile input, and to be frank, I would imagine few of them, like me,
would be reluctant to volunteer time for the kind of session you suggest.

Has the WMF considered seeking the assistance of an experienced market
research firm, and/or compensating experts, to get the kind of input you
desire?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey Geni,

So this is a style of banner that we have used on mobile over the last
year. We have previously had good feedback about the mobile version with
people feeling it was less obtrusive to the reader experience. This banner
that you saw was one of our first attempts at seeing whether transferring
this to desktop was even a viable idea.

That test showed this design had a huge amount of potential from a
fundraising point of view, between a 60% & 90% increase in donations.
However we felt that the banner wasn't quite providing the same experience
as we were getting on mobile. The size was larger and so we think that we
can refine the concept so that it remains effective but making it less
intrusive both than it’s current form and our current control banner (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US).
We are working a number of smaller versions that are a little more in
keeping with the experience provided on mobile, so keep in mind this is far
from a finished version.

I would like to emphasis that we are not committed to this. It's certainly
a change from what we have had in the past and, based on that, both I and
my colleagues would genuinely like to hear people's views on this type of
banner. For now this banner will be limited to testing and our current
small banner (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template=1=US)
will be remaining our control. We would like to do a few more tests with an
improved take on this style and I would be happy to share the outcomes of
those if it would help inform the discussion.

Regards
Seddon


On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, geni  wrote:

> Screenshot of what I mean:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
>
> Inline ads are generally considered to be something that gets into
> scummy advertising territory (for example even adblock plus's rather
> questionable Acceptable Ad policy doesn't accept them).
>
>
> On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en
>
> Unless we are still in the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Call for Volunteers for Wikimania '17 Scholarship Committee

[Ellie Young]

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimania '17 conference
organizers, we are now seeking volunteers to serve on the  Scholarship
Review Committee for Wikimania 2017
.  Wikimania
scholarships are a special type of Travel and Participation Support

offering, administered by the WMF  in partnership with the Wikimania
host team, with the purpose of bringing active Wikimedians from around
the world to attend Wikimania.  The scholarship review committee is an
important and diverse group of volunteers  who help promote the
program and review/select applicants.   We encourage people from all
Wikimedia wikis to apply, so that the committee can handle
applications in many different languages.

The main duties of the committee members are:

* Assist
​ the WMF​
 in determining the requirements
​and criteria ​
for scholarship applicants
​

​(​
WMF will provide eligibility filtering as well as materials and tools
to the Scholarship Committee members
​. ​
The Committee
will only review applicants after initial eligibility has been  assessed by WMF
​.)​

* Assure that there is due consideration and a speedy response time to
all scholarship applications.
* Must be fluent in written English
​ (or c​
​
an name local community member(s)
​to
 help them with English translations.
​

* Good communication skills.
* Passion, knowledge, and participation in the Wikimedia movement.
* Discretion and ability to handle confidential applicant information,
and objectively assess candidates.
* Evaluation of eligible applicants and delivering ranked list of
potential recipients to WMF (March '17)
* Evaluate the scholarship process afterward and provide feedback
* Prior attendance at previous Wikimania conferences and
​/or ​
 strong knowledge of the cross-project
Wikimedia community are a plus!
* Participation in periodic online meetings with
​committee and WMF staff (You

will be working remotely using review system, email, skype, and IRC.
​)​

​ Estimated amount of time:  30 hrs (mostly in March '17)

If you're interested in serving please send email to eyo...@wikimedia.org

The deadline to apply is December 8.

Projected Timeline for Committee activity:

Mid-December:  Preparations and on-boarding of Scholarship committee

Jan-mid-February:  Promotion of program and submission of applications

End Feb to mid-March:  Review, Evaluation, and Selection of recipients.

Please don't hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions
about the program or what is involved.

Thanks, Ellie

 Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
 ​ 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

[geni]

Screenshot of what I mean:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png

Inline ads are generally considered to be something that gets into
scummy advertising territory (for example even adblock plus's rather
questionable Acceptable Ad policy doesn't accept them).


On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en

Unless we are still in the 2015-2016 fiscal year.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WMF Language team office hour and online meeting on December 7, 2016 (Wednesday) at 1300 UTC

[Runa Bhattacharjee]

 [x-posted announcement]

Hello,

The next online office hour session of the Wikimedia Language team is
scheduled for next Wednesday, December 7th, 2016 at 13:00 UTC. This session
is going to be an online discussion over Google Hangouts/Youtube with a
simultaneous IRC conversation. Due to the limitation of Google Hangouts,
only a limited number of participation slots are available. Hence, do
please let us know if you would like to join in the Hangout. During the
session, we will be taking questions from viewers only on the IRC channel
#wikimedia-office. The channel will be open for interactions during the
session.

Our last online round-table session was held in September 21, 2016. You can
watch the recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXgMZ7myEA4

Please read below for the event details, including local time, youtube
session links and do let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you
Runa

== Details ==

# Event: Wikimedia Language team's office hour session

# When: December 7, 2016 (Wednesday) at 13:00 UTC (check local time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20161207T1300)

# Where: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2PgVNSmohE and on IRC
#wikimedia-office (Freenode)

# Agenda:
Updates from the Language team and Q & A.

-- 
Language Engineering Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMDE update after the General Assembly

[Tim Moritz Hector]

Thank you, Sebastian!

2016-12-01 9:33 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Moleski 
:

> Hi Itzik,
>
> I'm not Tim but I can maybe give some insight here. In 2014, Wikimedia
> Deutschland conducted a governance review in order to reconsider its
> structure in light of the increasing complexity of the organization. One of
> the outcomes was a recommendation to have appointed seats on the board in
> order to ensure expert knowledge within the board's overall composition.
>
> The board and the members followed that recommendation and replaced three
> formerly elected board seats with two appointed seats. That change took
> effect last weekend with the election of the new board. One of its tasks
> will be to determine which additional expertise is needed and find suitable
> candidates to augment the seven elected board members. I expect that
> process to start rather soon.
>
> The reduction from 10 to 9 members overall was based both on the reflection
> that the last board of 9 worked very well (the 10th board member resigned
> one day after the election), that group coordination grows exponentially,
> that common wisdom recommends a cut at 8 or 9 before needing to divide in
> order to be effective, and a wish to have an odd number of board members to
> ensure majorities.
>
> I hope that helps. Let me know if you have further questions about this
> change.
>
> Best,
>
> Sebastian Moleski
> Schatzmeister / Treasurer
> -
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
> 10963 Berlin
>
> Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations to the re-elected and warm welcome to Johanna.
> >
> > Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like WEDE reduced the size of
> > the advisory board. Can you explain why?
> >
> >
> >
> > *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> > Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> > +972-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Tim Moritz Hector <
> > tim-moritz.hec...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > Over the weekend, Wikimedia Deutschland held its General Assembly and
> > > elections for the supervisory board as well as for the auditors.
> > >
> > > The newly elected board consists of seven members:
> > >
> > > * Tim Moritz Hector (Chair, re-elected)
> > > * Sebastian Moleski (Treasurer, re-elected)
> > > * Sabria David (re-elected)
> > > * Kurt Jansson (re-elected)
> > > * Lukas Mezger (re-elected)
> > > * Harald Krichel (re-elected)
> > > * Johanna Niesyto
> > >
> > > The board has met for its first meeting on Sunday and elected Sabria
> > David
> > > and Kurt Jansson as Deputy Chair.
> > >
> > > Johanna is new to the board, so please join me in welcoming her to the
> > > board of WMDE. I would also like to thank our former board members
> > Nikolas
> > > Becker, Jürgen Friedrich and Catrin Schoneville wholeheartedly for the
> > > great work and their commitment to Wikimedia Deutschland in the past
> > years.
> > >
> > > Lena Stammler and Daniel Baur (re-elected) are our two recently-elected
> > > auditors, and I am extending my congratulations to them.
> > >
> > > At the GA, the board furthermore presented the final report on the
> > > WMDE-Governance-Review and how we handled the recommendations of the
> > > report. Moreover, the members approved the annual plan for 2017.
> > >
> > > The board will meet in January to discuss the goals for our term in the
> > > next two years and I am very much looking forward to working together
> > with
> > > this team.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Tim Moritz Hector
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tim Moritz Hector
> > > Chair of the Board
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMDE update after the General Assembly

[Sebastian Moleski]

Hi Itzik,

I'm not Tim but I can maybe give some insight here. In 2014, Wikimedia
Deutschland conducted a governance review in order to reconsider its
structure in light of the increasing complexity of the organization. One of
the outcomes was a recommendation to have appointed seats on the board in
order to ensure expert knowledge within the board's overall composition.

The board and the members followed that recommendation and replaced three
formerly elected board seats with two appointed seats. That change took
effect last weekend with the election of the new board. One of its tasks
will be to determine which additional expertise is needed and find suitable
candidates to augment the seven elected board members. I expect that
process to start rather soon.

The reduction from 10 to 9 members overall was based both on the reflection
that the last board of 9 worked very well (the 10th board member resigned
one day after the election), that group coordination grows exponentially,
that common wisdom recommends a cut at 8 or 9 before needing to divide in
order to be effective, and a wish to have an odd number of board members to
ensure majorities.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have further questions about this
change.

Best,

Sebastian Moleski
Schatzmeister / Treasurer
-
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin

Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
www.wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> Congratulations to the re-elected and warm welcome to Johanna.
>
> Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like WEDE reduced the size of
> the advisory board. Can you explain why?
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Tim Moritz Hector <
> tim-moritz.hec...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> >
> > Over the weekend, Wikimedia Deutschland held its General Assembly and
> > elections for the supervisory board as well as for the auditors.
> >
> > The newly elected board consists of seven members:
> >
> > * Tim Moritz Hector (Chair, re-elected)
> > * Sebastian Moleski (Treasurer, re-elected)
> > * Sabria David (re-elected)
> > * Kurt Jansson (re-elected)
> > * Lukas Mezger (re-elected)
> > * Harald Krichel (re-elected)
> > * Johanna Niesyto
> >
> > The board has met for its first meeting on Sunday and elected Sabria
> David
> > and Kurt Jansson as Deputy Chair.
> >
> > Johanna is new to the board, so please join me in welcoming her to the
> > board of WMDE. I would also like to thank our former board members
> Nikolas
> > Becker, Jürgen Friedrich and Catrin Schoneville wholeheartedly for the
> > great work and their commitment to Wikimedia Deutschland in the past
> years.
> >
> > Lena Stammler and Daniel Baur (re-elected) are our two recently-elected
> > auditors, and I am extending my congratulations to them.
> >
> > At the GA, the board furthermore presented the final report on the
> > WMDE-Governance-Review and how we handled the recommendations of the
> > report. Moreover, the members approved the annual plan for 2017.
> >
> > The board will meet in January to discuss the goals for our term in the
> > next two years and I am very much looking forward to working together
> with
> > this team.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tim Moritz Hector
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tim Moritz Hector
> > Chair of the Board
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: