Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Anna Stillwell]

+1

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia
> thriving." (:
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Pine W]

I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia
thriving." (:

Pine
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Peter Coombe]

(resending to thread with subject line, apologies if this comes through
twice!)

Hi all, just wanted to weigh in on a few things brought up in this and the
other threads.

* The coffee cup stock image was a mistake and miscommunication with a
contractor. IANAL but my understanding is that they had a license from the
stock photo company, so the use was legal, but not free use as we would
like. Once we became aware there was a problem, we stopped using the image
and switched to the current lightbulb graphics. We'll certainly be more
careful about this in future.

* A number of people have suggested using
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg, which is a very
nice image but unfortunately seems to be lacking permission and is pending
deletion from Commons. We've found some other alternative freely licensed
coffee cup images, but for now the lightbulb graphics are doing very well
so we're concentrating on them.

* In the past we have tested a few banners which focused on highlighting
great images from Commons (with attribution of course). [1] Unfortunately
these didn't perform as well as our other banners, but it's something we
would like to revisit in future. We have also been testing using Commons
images in some of our emails to past donors, which has seen more success.

* Uploading fundraising banner images to donate.wikimedia.org was simply a
pragmatic decision. Because these images are so widely seen, they could be
a tempting target for vandalism. Uploading to Commons would require
protecting them, which is an extra step that's easy to forget, and would
also require granting Commons administrator or staff rights to multiple
people. We could have used wikimediafoundation.org, but it was thought
better to keep all the fundraising images together, and avoid overloading
that project with something it wasn't really intended for. When we produce
artwork or an image that is Commons worthy, we share it there.

* Not showing the banner again if someone donated is a great suggestion,
and in fact it's something we already do by setting cookies when people
reach the Thank You page.

Thanks,
Peter

[1] You can see some examples here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#2015-2016_Q1_Update

-- 
Peter Coombe
Fundraising Production Manager
Wikimedia Foundation


On 3 December 2015 at 17:54, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the
> person donated.
> On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt"  wrote:
>
> > TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
> > model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
> > to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
> > transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
> > about fullscreen advertising.
> >
> > I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
> > stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
> > actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
> > collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
> > acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
> > placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
> > money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
> > there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
> > effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
> > mistakes happen.[2]
> >
> > At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
> >
> > Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
> > long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
> > flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
> > will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
> > fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
> > are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
> > reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
> > "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
> > wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
> >
> > An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
> > mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
> > excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
> > important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
> > strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
> > on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this
> > would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in
> > creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other
> > related concerns:
> >
> > - Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
> > are made (see also the discussion about the FDC 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Article in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Liam Wyatt]

TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
about fullscreen advertising.

I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
mistakes happen.[2]

At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".

Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
"killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.

An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this
would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in
creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other
related concerns:

- Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4])
- Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have
local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process -
rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as
the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers.
- culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email
saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the
*equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death")
- Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement"
rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF
donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would
be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a
[privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their
local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic
challenge of "editor recruitment and retention".
- Addressing some of the inequities of how money is
raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules
"grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa
letter".
- movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising
clash with WikiLovesMonuments)

Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we
also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do
a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the
efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent!
However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased
expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes
from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I
felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea
described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated
support despite years of that community begging for it.

I've probably written too much now... sorry!

-Liam

[1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably
the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF
Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l
[2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online
and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor
isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are
potentially renewable.
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay
[4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html
[5] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[rupert THURNER]

One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the
person donated.
On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt"  wrote:

> TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
> model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
> to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
> transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
> about fullscreen advertising.
>
> I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
> stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
> actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
> collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
> acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
> placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
> money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
> there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
> effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
> mistakes happen.[2]
>
> At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
>
> Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
> long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
> flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
> will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
> fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
> are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
> reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
> "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
> wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
>
> An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
> mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
> excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
> important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
> strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
> on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this
> would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in
> creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other
> related concerns:
>
> - Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
> are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4])
> - Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have
> local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process -
> rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as
> the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers.
> - culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email
> saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the
> *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death")
> - Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement"
> rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF
> donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would
> be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a
> [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their
> local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic
> challenge of "editor recruitment and retention".
> - Addressing some of the inequities of how money is
> raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules
> "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa
> letter".
> - movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising
> clash with WikiLovesMonuments)
>
> Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we
> also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do
> a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the
> efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent!
> However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased
> expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes
> from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I
> felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea
> described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated
> support despite years of that community begging for it.
>
> I've probably written too much now... sorry!
>
> -Liam
>
> [1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably
> the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF
> Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role:
> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l
> [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online
> and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor
> isn't perfect. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Todd Allen]

Buying a photo, when we have ready access to massive amounts of freely
usable content, would be quite unacceptable and a misuse of funds, no
matter the amount of the funds. I hope someone can actually clarify what
happened here.

Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's
really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, or
otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
inevitable butbutbut.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> +1
>
> A missed opportunity to celebrate one of our volunteer photographers,
> especially considering the competitions that have included photographs
> of food in the last year. Shame to fall back on stock photos and
> commercial pro-photographers when we have our own massive project to
> provide this as a free resource.
>
> Fae
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 14:46, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> > "On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM, K. Peachey  wrote:
> >> I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image…
> as I
> >> doubt it will be a click through to the file page.
> >
> > I couldnt find the image in
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cups_of_black_coffee
> >
> > The image is only on donate.wikimedia.org, uploaded by "BHouse
> > (Trilogy)", which I assume means they are an employee of
> > http://www.trilogyinteractive.com (see previous years Form 990):
> >
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg
> >
> > It appears to be a stock photo, by photographer Dimitrios Stefanidis.
> >
> > http://tineye.com/search/2267feed8737197d64056553011261b75ef34a9e/
> >
> > http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/coffee-on-white-25228505
> >
> > So my hopeful guess WMF bought a licence to the photograph, but even
> > that would be inappropriate IMO.
> >
> > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg
> >
> > (assuming the license is correct; I cant see CC0 on
> > http://rejke.deviantart.com/art/Coffee-384565868)
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Fæ]

+1

A missed opportunity to celebrate one of our volunteer photographers,
especially considering the competitions that have included photographs
of food in the last year. Shame to fall back on stock photos and
commercial pro-photographers when we have our own massive project to
provide this as a free resource.

Fae

On 2 December 2015 at 14:46, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> "On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM, K. Peachey  wrote:
>> I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I
>> doubt it will be a click through to the file page.
>
> I couldnt find the image in
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cups_of_black_coffee
>
> The image is only on donate.wikimedia.org, uploaded by "BHouse
> (Trilogy)", which I assume means they are an employee of
> http://www.trilogyinteractive.com (see previous years Form 990):
>
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg
>
> It appears to be a stock photo, by photographer Dimitrios Stefanidis.
>
> http://tineye.com/search/2267feed8737197d64056553011261b75ef34a9e/
>
> http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/coffee-on-white-25228505
>
> So my hopeful guess WMF bought a licence to the photograph, but even
> that would be inappropriate IMO.
>
> It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg
>
> (assuming the license is correct; I cant see CC0 on
> http://rejke.deviantart.com/art/Coffee-384565868)
>
> --
> John Vandenberg

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's
> really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
> which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, or
> otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
> makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
> inevitable butbutbut.



Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
issues with last month's survey.[1]

When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
representative sample.

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Todd Allen]

That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more
important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or
dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the
reason there are readers at all.
On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe"  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's
> > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
> > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts,
> or
> > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
> > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
> > inevitable butbutbut.
>
>
>
> Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
> issues with last month's survey.[1]
>
> When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
> what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
> representative sample.
>
> [1]
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Chris Koerner]

In light of this recent conversation I found this quote to be of interest.

"Wikipedia readers tend not to be bothered by the fundraising messages they
see on Wikipedia. Two-thirds (67%) say they don’t mind them, and a majority
(55%) say they are not annoyed by these messages. Roughly equal shares of
readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages, according
to their self-reports."

From
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf

I'm merely presenting for reference.

Yours,
Chris Koerner
clkoerner.com
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Pine W]

Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost all
of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational matters.
Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the
kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the
encyclopedia. The exceptions are for WMF staff and affiliate staff who
weren't hired from within the community; an ongoing issue is the need to
acculturate these staff into the ways of the Wiki and to educate them about
our (often complex) ways, while leveraging the value that they can bring to
Wikimedia organizations in areas like legal advocacy, visual design, press
communications, tech ops, etc.

Viewers, content contributors, funders, volunteer tech and organizational
leaders, and paid staff are all necessary parts of the Wikimedia ecosystem.
These groups and individuals interact in complex and intricate ways, and
changes to the ecosystem are always in motion.

Pine
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is because of the readers that the work the volunteers do has a purpose.
Volunteers are typically intrinsically motivated but their motivation is
not necessarily focused on others. Some people are more focussed on
themselves. That is ok as it takes all sorts.

The question who is more important is hardly relevant, one cannot do
without the other. When it comes to donations though, it is the readers who
are more important. I for one do get messages from Jimmy and all he gets
from he is an additional edit or two.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 2 December 2015 at 17:36, Todd Allen  wrote:

> That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more
> important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or
> dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the
> reason there are readers at all.
> On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe"  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.
> That's
> > > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
> > > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves,
> shouts,
> > or
> > > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
> > > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
> > > inevitable butbutbut.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
> > issues with last month's survey.[1]
> >
> > When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
> > what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
> > representative sample.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Lisa Gruwell]

Hi Chris-

A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned.  These results
are on slide 27.  Here they are:

"I don't mind when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia."
67% agree, 20% disagree, 12% had no opinion

"I am not annoyed when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia."
55% agree, 27% disagree, 18% had no opinion

Thank you,
Lisa

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Yes, I also thought that was interesting. To invert the presentation of the
> statistics, 33% of users did mind the banners and 45% were irritated by
> them. These are actually quite high numbers in my view.
>
> (Not to say that the decision to proceed with these banners is wrong, which
> is a much more complicated topic, and full credit to the fundraising team
> for firstly conducting and secondly publishing this research).
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Chris Koerner  wrote:
>
> > In light of this recent conversation I found this quote to be of
> interest.
> >
> > "Wikipedia readers tend not to be bothered by the fundraising messages
> they
> > see on Wikipedia. Two-thirds (67%) say they don’t mind them, and a
> majority
> > (55%) say they are not annoyed by these messages. Roughly equal shares of
> > readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages,
> according
> > to their self-reports."
> >
> > From
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> >
> > I'm merely presenting for reference.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Chris Koerner
> > clkoerner.com
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Chris Keating]

Yes, I also thought that was interesting. To invert the presentation of the
statistics, 33% of users did mind the banners and 45% were irritated by
them. These are actually quite high numbers in my view.

(Not to say that the decision to proceed with these banners is wrong, which
is a much more complicated topic, and full credit to the fundraising team
for firstly conducting and secondly publishing this research).

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Chris Koerner  wrote:

> In light of this recent conversation I found this quote to be of interest.
>
> "Wikipedia readers tend not to be bothered by the fundraising messages they
> see on Wikipedia. Two-thirds (67%) say they don’t mind them, and a majority
> (55%) say they are not annoyed by these messages. Roughly equal shares of
> readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages, according
> to their self-reports."
>
> From
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
>
> I'm merely presenting for reference.
>
> Yours,
> Chris Koerner
> clkoerner.com
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Chris Keating]

Ah yes, I see - my fault for skim-reading the summary rather than paying
attention to the tables. Thanks for pointing that out.

Chris

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

> Hi Chris-
>
> A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned.  These results
> are on slide 27.  Here they are:
>
> "I don't mind when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia."
> 67% agree, 20% disagree, 12% had no opinion
>
> "I am not annoyed when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia."
> 55% agree, 27% disagree, 18% had no opinion
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Chris Keating  >
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I also thought that was interesting. To invert the presentation of
> the
> > statistics, 33% of users did mind the banners and 45% were irritated by
> > them. These are actually quite high numbers in my view.
> >
> > (Not to say that the decision to proceed with these banners is wrong,
> which
> > is a much more complicated topic, and full credit to the fundraising team
> > for firstly conducting and secondly publishing this research).
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Chris Koerner  wrote:
> >
> > > In light of this recent conversation I found this quote to be of
> > interest.
> > >
> > > "Wikipedia readers tend not to be bothered by the fundraising messages
> > they
> > > see on Wikipedia. Two-thirds (67%) say they don’t mind them, and a
> > majority
> > > (55%) say they are not annoyed by these messages. Roughly equal shares
> of
> > > readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages,
> > according
> > > to their self-reports."
> > >
> > > From
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> > >
> > > I'm merely presenting for reference.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Chris Koerner
> > > clkoerner.com
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Pine W]

Thanks Lisa.

More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the
wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns.
I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be
nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I
think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size of
the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
might be a good tradeoff.

I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze for
next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
continue to grow income.

Pine
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Lisa Gruwell]

I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of
the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I
think they really appreciate all of your work:


Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus
of "why? why? why?" that has run through my brain since I was old enough to
think. I also believe its a factor in why I am currently in the eligible
Jeopardy! contestant pool. In short, thanks Wikipedia.

Wikipedia helps me almost daily, I cannot count the number of times me and
friends have been debating the answer to life, the universe and everything
(42, in case you were wondering!) and Wikipedia has dispelled the
discrepancies in one or more of our arguments. Thanks to wiki, we have been
able to convince each other we were wrong, and educate on topics we have
never considered. Wiki is very important, and for this I will continue to
donate as long as I can afford to. The more the world has open access to
information for free, the sooner mankind will get along. Wikipedia is
making the world a better place one article at a time. Thank you.

I've had a roadrunner and wild turkey with poults in my yard and I've used
Wiki to obtain information about them.

There was a time I used to get embarrassed due to lack of general
knowledge. Wikipedia gave me confidence. Thank you.

well, over time, using it became a reflex, like breathing but when i pause
to think about it, it is one of the source of knowledge I use most and I am
the better for it.

It's one of a tiny number of fund raising calls that I respond to. The
charter or quest of Wikipedia , I think is among the highest ideals that
humans can aspire to.

Wikipedia is the first point of call for any research i am performing,
especially on a new subject. It has been a life-saver on more than one
occasions

Wikipedia is part of my information ecosystem. It's like a road map for new
intellectual territory.

There was (more than) one time when I needed to know if some dumb obscure
TV actor from the 70s was still alive and Wikipedia was there for me. Plus
all the other times when I just need a quick bit of info: size of a
country's population, name of a president, details about a math function;
it's endless.

Helped me with my uni degree, gave me medical information on health
problems, let me learn new things about animals that I like :D Helps me
answer questions from my kid about the world that I want to give her, but
don't know the answers to

I think you're the only organisation that can fundraise that way and you
deserve it.

My older sister doesn't have a computer (she's 82), so we talk on the phone
and I look up stuff for her. It's a nice way to spend time with her, and it
brings us together

As a journalist and travel writer, this online research is often my first
port of call. For a quick scan of even just the most basic information
about a topic, I used to have to walk down to the basement of the national
television building I worked in to ask the archivist to dig out a series of
reference books that applied to my topic. Sometimes the books were already
in use by someone else, which meant I had to wait even longer or beg the
person to share the book with me. Now, I just Google it and often end up on
Wikipedia. While I always still double check everything I read on these
pages and use other sources for my actual fact finding, it no longer takes
hours or days to get started with my research

I've lost many bets because of wikipedia. So because of you I have looked
stupider than if you didn't exist

Wikipedia is the first step in any student's research. When it comes to
education, Wikipedia is the real MVP!

As a student, Wikipedia is a goldmine. I love you guys.

I use it for everything from government and politics to celebrities and tv
shows to authors and books. There's a facebook group I'm a part of called
"Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club." People post weird, strange, interesting
wikipedia pages they've found. Basically, wikipedia is awesome! (I'd really
love there to be an accuracy scale though, since I usually end up
researching stuff after I read the wikipedia page, just to make sure it's
correct.)

I'm an engineer. I was not the smartest nor the dumbest in uni. I was
average and over the years I forget concepts/theories/formulae all the time
and I use Wikipedia to give my memory the nudge it needs to get back on
track. Thank you.

It is my main source of information.

Taking AP Physics in high school I would constantly get confused with all
of the unites and what they actually measured. Joules, watts, newton's,
difference between power and work. Lucky wiki saved that day with wonderful
articles that explained what everything meant. It helped me solidify my
foundation in physics, helping me to conquer a college level class at the
age of 16.

Keeps Me from lying awake at night wondering about past events & historical
data

it is just just always super handy

I see Wikipedia as my 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Pine W]

Lisa, I was just about to say that I like the new banner. It's a pleasant
surprise. Who designed the lightbulb? I like how it's cohesive with the
theme of "Keep Wikipedia Growing", and the lightbulb works well with the
"light of knowledge" concept of an encyclopedia.

Pine


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
wrote:

> Hi Pine-
>
> We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as
> possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a
> balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner
> some.  Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations,
> more quickly.  We have also looked into reader opinions of the
> intrusiveness of the banner.  Readers found the larger banners only
> slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones.  Those findings are here
> (slide 24):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf=24
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf=24
> >
>
> We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner.
> The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so
> lengthening the campaign has a diminished return.  Here is the data on that
> from last December:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Review_-_Q2-1415.pdf=12
>
>
> With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and
> then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions.  Not everyone
> visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the
> course of weeks.
>
> Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic.  Let us
> know what you think.
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Lisa.
> >
> > More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the
> > wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity
> concerns.
> > I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be
> > nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I
> > think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size
> of
> > the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
> > color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
> > while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
> > that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
> > might be a good tradeoff.
> >
> > I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze
> for
> > next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
> > continue to grow income.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Lisa Gruwell]

Hi Pine-

We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as
possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a
balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner
some.  Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations,
more quickly.  We have also looked into reader opinions of the
intrusiveness of the banner.  Readers found the larger banners only
slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones.  Those findings are here
(slide 24):
 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf=24


We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner.
The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so
lengthening the campaign has a diminished return.  Here is the data on that
from last December:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Review_-_Q2-1415.pdf=12


With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and
then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions.  Not everyone
visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the
course of weeks.

Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic.  Let us
know what you think.

Thank you,
Lisa

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Thanks Lisa.
>
> More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the
> wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns.
> I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be
> nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I
> think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size of
> the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
> color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
> while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
> that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
> might be a good tradeoff.
>
> I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze for
> next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
> continue to grow income.
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin"  wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
> > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> >
>
> [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
ideas!
>
> Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
> of the ads so far this year.

You approve of WMF using stock photos?

--
John
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
> of the ads so far this year.
>


Yes, a significant improvement over past years. Thank you.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Craig Franklin]

On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
> has not yet sunk to that yet.
>

[[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone ideas!

Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
of the ads so far this year.

Cheers,
Craig
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Craig Franklin]

No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current
one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying
that the Foundation is in grave financial danger.  Obviously the use of
what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives
available on our own projects is not ideal.  The ads themselves are also as
ugly as hell, although I'm sure there's some A/B testing that shows that
such monstrosities extract slightly more cash from the readers that will be
used to justify that.

Cheers,
Craig

On 3 December 2015 at 10:01, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" 
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> > > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> > > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> > >
> >
> > [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
> ideas!
> >
> > Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the
> size)
> > of the ads so far this year.
>
> You approve of WMF using stock photos?
>
> --
> John
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Trillium Corsage]

"Community" is a loaded term, because it is typically self-praisingly used by a 
relatively small number of administratively-oriented Wikipedians to describe 
themselves. It's basically WP:AN/ANI, Arbcom & associated access level seekers, 
and those who use Wikipedia as a social or socializing network. The vast 
majority of *content* editors, occasional or prolific, are completely unaware 
of this other side of Wikipedia. It's they who build the encyclopedia. I'd 
argue that where Wikipedia articles are good, it's a result of the content 
editors, not the administrative participants lauding themselves for riding herd 
on them.

Lila Tretikov has said that the proper definition of the Wikipedia "community" 
is *all* the editors, administrative participants, and readers. The 
administrative subset is not a *representative* subset of that. It's rather a 
self-selecting and much smaller subset with its own behaviors. You can see this 
recently I think, where in the current Arbcom elections, it has installed a 
filter to screen editors with less than 500 edits from asking questions of the 
candidates. I'm not aware that it has yet barred such editors from actually 
voting, but that would be the next step following its own logic. What the 
administrative component is doing is protecting its own influence and position 
by keeping these others out of the process.

Todd Allen took it a step farther below by proclaiming "community members" as 
"way more important than readers." Seems pretty brazen and non-inclusive to me, 
and illustrative of the attitudes of the administrative set.

Trillium Corsage


02.12.2015, 16:36, "Todd Allen" :
> That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more
> important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or
> dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the
> reason there are readers at all.
> On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe"  wrote:
>
>>  On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>
>>  > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's
>>  > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
>>  > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts,
>>  or
>>  > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
>>  > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
>>  > inevitable butbutbut.
>>
>>  Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
>>  issues with last month's survey.[1]
>>
>>  When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
>>  what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
>>  representative sample.
>>
>>  [1]
>>
>>  
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
>>  ___
>>  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,
>>  
>
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[K. Peachey]

I would assume you are also going to provide some input some comment into
the discussion other than just dumping a pile of quotes in here?

On 3 December 2015 at 07:06, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

> I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of
> the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I
> think they really appreciate all of your work:
>
>
> Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus
> of "why? why? why?" that has run through my brain since I was old enough to
> think. I also believe its a factor in why I am currently in the eligible
> Jeopardy! contestant pool. In short, thanks Wikipedia.
>
> Wikipedia helps me almost daily, I cannot count the number of times me and
> friends have been debating the answer to life, the universe and everything
> (42, in case you were wondering!) and Wikipedia has dispelled the
> discrepancies in one or more of our arguments. Thanks to wiki, we have been
> able to convince each other we were wrong, and educate on topics we have
> never considered. Wiki is very important, and for this I will continue to
> donate as long as I can afford to. The more the world has open access to
> information for free, the sooner mankind will get along. Wikipedia is
> making the world a better place one article at a time. Thank you.
>
> I've had a roadrunner and wild turkey with poults in my yard and I've used
> Wiki to obtain information about them.
>
> There was a time I used to get embarrassed due to lack of general
> knowledge. Wikipedia gave me confidence. Thank you.
>
> well, over time, using it became a reflex, like breathing but when i pause
> to think about it, it is one of the source of knowledge I use most and I am
> the better for it.
>
> It's one of a tiny number of fund raising calls that I respond to. The
> charter or quest of Wikipedia , I think is among the highest ideals that
> humans can aspire to.
>
> Wikipedia is the first point of call for any research i am performing,
> especially on a new subject. It has been a life-saver on more than one
> occasions
>
> Wikipedia is part of my information ecosystem. It's like a road map for new
> intellectual territory.
>
> There was (more than) one time when I needed to know if some dumb obscure
> TV actor from the 70s was still alive and Wikipedia was there for me. Plus
> all the other times when I just need a quick bit of info: size of a
> country's population, name of a president, details about a math function;
> it's endless.
>
> Helped me with my uni degree, gave me medical information on health
> problems, let me learn new things about animals that I like :D Helps me
> answer questions from my kid about the world that I want to give her, but
> don't know the answers to
>
> I think you're the only organisation that can fundraise that way and you
> deserve it.
>
> My older sister doesn't have a computer (she's 82), so we talk on the phone
> and I look up stuff for her. It's a nice way to spend time with her, and it
> brings us together
>
> As a journalist and travel writer, this online research is often my first
> port of call. For a quick scan of even just the most basic information
> about a topic, I used to have to walk down to the basement of the national
> television building I worked in to ask the archivist to dig out a series of
> reference books that applied to my topic. Sometimes the books were already
> in use by someone else, which meant I had to wait even longer or beg the
> person to share the book with me. Now, I just Google it and often end up on
> Wikipedia. While I always still double check everything I read on these
> pages and use other sources for my actual fact finding, it no longer takes
> hours or days to get started with my research
>
> I've lost many bets because of wikipedia. So because of you I have looked
> stupider than if you didn't exist
>
> Wikipedia is the first step in any student's research. When it comes to
> education, Wikipedia is the real MVP!
>
> As a student, Wikipedia is a goldmine. I love you guys.
>
> I use it for everything from government and politics to celebrities and tv
> shows to authors and books. There's a facebook group I'm a part of called
> "Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club." People post weird, strange, interesting
> wikipedia pages they've found. Basically, wikipedia is awesome! (I'd really
> love there to be an accuracy scale though, since I usually end up
> researching stuff after I read the wikipedia page, just to make sure it's
> correct.)
>
> I'm an engineer. I was not the smartest nor the dumbest in uni. I was
> average and over the years I forget concepts/theories/formulae all the time
> and I use Wikipedia to give my memory the nudge it needs to get back on
> track. Thank you.
>
> It is my main source of information.
>
> Taking AP Physics in high school I would constantly get confused with all
> of the unites and what they actually measured. Joules, watts, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Erik Zachte]

The ad would be slightly more palatable if it used coffee-darkbrown instead of 
epitaph-black for the plea you can't ignore.

Erik Zachte

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
wctaiwan
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png

I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.

(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)

wctaiwan


___
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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Bohdan Melnychuk]

Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we 
are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads 
but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I 
really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows me so little 
content initially because the rest is covered in ads. This all went too 
far and I hope that Fundraising guys think of less haunting way of 
calling for donation.


--Base

On 02.12.2015 3:48, Erik Zachte wrote:

The ad would be slightly more palatable if it used coffee-darkbrown instead of 
epitaph-black for the plea you can't ignore.

Erik Zachte

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
wctaiwan
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png

I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.

(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)

wctaiwan


___
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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Nathan]

The reply every year is that the banners are keyed for maximum
effectiveness, even if they are intrusive, in order to make the overall
fundraising drive as short as possible. Fundraising has made small tweaks
to various banners, but generally have not been willing to significantly
reduce the effectiveness of the ads in order to appease Wikimedians... who
are - lets be honest - not a large portion of the target population.
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[wctaiwan]

http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png

I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.

(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)

wctaiwan


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[K. Peachey]

I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I
doubt it will be a click through to the file page.

Which style guide was used for the creation of this ad?
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[MZMcBride]

Bohdan Melnychuk wrote:
>Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we
>are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads
>but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I
>really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows me so little
>content initially because the rest is covered in ads. This all went too
>far and I hope that Fundraising guys think of less haunting way of
>calling for donation.

Yes, it's definitely an advertisement. Adblock and others should treat it
as such. I don't think this ad is haunting, though. I'm a little sad that
when I clicked the Imgur link, I actually expected worse.

Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
has not yet sunk to that yet.

Samuel Klein wrote:
>I think a more pressing response to this is to reduce the budget to get
>some breathing room, increase work through partnerships (which Wikimedia
>doesn't have to fund entirely on its own), and increase non-banner revenue
>streams.
>
>It's also key to improve banner effectiveness.  How nice it would be to
>have a composite that combines measures of the favorability of the banner
>among readers (most of whom don't donate anyway), mood setting & meme
>propagation, and the reduction in usability of the site (which may have an
>effect over months), against the immediate fundraising impact.  A banner
>that is 5% better with improved favorability among readers may be better
>than a banner that is 20% better but with double the unfavorability.
>
>There are thousands of worthy projects that have expanded their budgets as
>far as they could, then expand in-your-face banners as far as they can,
>and only stop once their sites are quite difficult to use.   It happens
>gradually (I'm looking at you, Wikia ;) but the result is the usability
>equivalent of linkrot.  Let's not let WP end up like that.

I don't have much to add to what SJ wrote recently in a related thread.

MZMcBride



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Peter Southwood]

Money is clearly more important than the people who do the work,

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Bohdan Melnychuk
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 4:01 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we are 
showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads but looks 
exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I really have a 
difficulty recalling a site which shows me so little content initially because 
the rest is covered in ads. This all went too far and I hope that Fundraising 
guys think of less haunting way of calling for donation.

--Base

On 02.12.2015 3:48, Erik Zachte wrote:
> The ad would be slightly more palatable if it used coffee-darkbrown instead 
> of epitaph-black for the plea you can't ignore.
>
> Erik Zachte
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of wctaiwan
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)
>
> http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png
>
> I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.
>
> (That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)
>
> wctaiwan
>
>
> ___
> 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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7163 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15


___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>