Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
? That's the kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of moral-obligation. *Fundraising operating principles* I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical operating principles for fundraising that would give some real-world guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on this list from the last few weeks here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this fundraiser is finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative process with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the future, the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it will go away as quickly as possible. After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is: Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s fundraising efforts -Liam p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community yet about why they aren't allowed to donate? ___ 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 -- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:12:41 -0500 From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Message-ID: d0b8d003.463e...@mzmcbride.com Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Liam Wyatt wrote: *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation solicitation e-mails are terrible and unbecoming. In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums. The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director, calling Brandon Harris a Wikipedia programmer, and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. MZMcBride -- Message: 5 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:21:31 + From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Message-ID: caj0tu1gosobr6texio5u+gpb2kzsxqq1n8ykkmsa1alpof2...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. +1 And we're
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
have been used in the fundraising email to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's the kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of moral-obligation. *Fundraising operating principles* I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical operating principles for fundraising that would give some real-world guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on this list from the last few weeks here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this fundraiser is finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative process with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the future, the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it will go away as quickly as possible. After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is: Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s fundraising efforts -Liam p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community yet about why they aren't allowed to donate? ___ 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 -- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:12:41 -0500 From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Message-ID: d0b8d003.463e...@mzmcbride.com Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Liam Wyatt wrote: *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation solicitation e-mails are terrible and unbecoming. In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums. The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director, calling Brandon Harris a Wikipedia programmer, and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. MZMcBride -- Message: 5 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:21:31 + From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Message-ID: caj0tu1gosobr6texio5u+gpb2kzsxqq1n8ykkmsa1alpof2...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:44 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Two weeks ago I emailed the fundraising team with the following note, quietly and discretely pointing out an error in their messaging. Sadly I haven't had a reply and I think that in the UK they are still using the £3 buys a coffee for a programmer line: Aside from the incidental nature of the appeal, £3 and $3 are very different sums of money. When I saw $3 I thought that was an expensive way to buy coffees and that the WMF should invest in a kettle and some mugs. But £3 for a coffee, now that just looks wasteful, even to someone living in an expensive part of London. I dread to think what it looks like to someone living in other parts of England, let alone cheaper parts of the world. £3 gets coffee and biscuits for a potential wikipedian coming to a training session, that I could defend. There's also the honesty/credibility factor. I doubt I am the only person seeing different versions of these ads including different currencies, if the sums are this far apart the suspicion has to be that none of the figures are to be trusted. Not a great help to our program of improving Wikipedia quality and getting such details right in our articles. That is the problem of having the same message translate in all languages. If you have a centralised fundraising it's inevitable. A part for currency (which is a problem), I want to emphasize the fact that even the best translation maybe dosen sound right in different languages and cultures. There is for example an American rhetoric that simply doesn't translate in other languages. I've translated (as a volunteer) several WMF messages to donors in Italian and always felt that those messages where made for an American audience. I would love to see an A/B test with culture-localized messages (I think it is part of the honesty discourse above). ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: These objectionable items are all standard advertising practice. No-one should be surprised. Perhaps better is expected of the Foundation that we all support. Many people are surprised - I know I was. We're not McDonalds or Amazon - standard advertising practices (curious as to why you chose the word 'advertising') just might not be appropriate for a tech/educational non-profit. -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: *Fundraising operating principles* I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical operating principles for fundraising that would give some real-world guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on this list from the last few weeks here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this fundraiser is finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative process with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the future, the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it will go away as quickly as possible. On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:12 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums. The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director, calling Brandon Harris a Wikipedia programmer, and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. MZMcBride On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. +1 And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant falsehoods. - d. I share these sentiments, but hasn't it become abundantly clear to you by now that your appeals are falling on deaf ears? Wake up and smell the coffee. In these discussions we have had over the past couple of weeks, I have seen absolutely no indication to disconfirm the hypothesis that the fundraising team is doing *exactly* what the Wikimedia board and management wants it to do, and that they will do *exactly the same thing next year, however much you object now. *They will weather the storm, and rely on it that everybody will have forgotten by December 2015. Unless you are masochists, and thrive on being ignored, I suggest you take your complaints to journalists and the public, including those currently suckered into donating under false pretences – because the only way you'll change this pattern of manipulative campaigning is by making the monetary cost greater than the monetary benefit. Social media is that-a-way. ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that email. Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.* I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that actually raises money. It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and Wikimedia movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever). Chris *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that doesn't disprove the general principle) On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a thank you for donating email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented]. *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient *at getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been honed with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the core WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they actually appear to be following a principle of being as *maximally *disruptive as they can get away with, for
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 01:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that email. Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.* I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that actually raises money. It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and Wikimedia movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever). Chris *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that doesn't disprove the general principle) On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a thank you for donating email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented]. *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English. On 19 December 2014 at 12:21, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 01:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that email. Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.* I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that actually raises money. It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and Wikimedia movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever). Chris *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that doesn't disprove the general principle) On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=Nz U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a thank you for donating email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented]. *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter No, I'm English. :) Chris ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t get it. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 19 December 2014 02:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English. On 19 December 2014 at 12:21, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 01:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that email. Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.* I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that actually raises money. It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and Wikimedia movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever). Chris *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that doesn't disprove the general principle) On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a thank you for donating email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented]. *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Are you American? On 19 Dec 2014 12:35, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t get it. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 19 December 2014 02:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English. On 19 December 2014 at 12:21, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 01:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that email. Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.* I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that actually raises money. It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and Wikimedia movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever). Chris *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that doesn't disprove the general principle) On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
OK, I was just wondering if acceptance of this form of marketing was an American thing or more generally an English language thing. Obviously not universally acceptable to English speakers, even in USA and England, but possibly more offensive to people with other cultural backgrounds. Cheers, Peter. -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 02:27 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter No, I'm English. :) Chris ___ 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: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8764 - Release Date: 12/19/14 ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
Not even slightly, even though I speak English. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 02:41 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Are you American? On 19 Dec 2014 12:35, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t get it. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 19 December 2014 02:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English. On 19 December 2014 at 12:21, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 01:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that email. Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.* I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that actually raises money. It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and Wikimedia movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever). Chris *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that doesn't disprove the general principle) On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r =N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r =N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r =N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r =N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Hi, David Gerard wrote: Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English. Peter Southwood wrote: I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t get it. This line is a parody. Similarly to Everything that is eatable is an apple, particularly oranges. (The English = people from the UK = not American). -- svetlana ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: OK, I was just wondering if acceptance of this form of marketing was an American thing or more generally an English language thing. Obviously not universally acceptable to English speakers, even in USA and England, but possibly more offensive to people with other cultural backgrounds. Cheers, Peter. Ah, I wondered if that might have been your underlying point! I'm pretty sure the differences of views on this list on this subject reflect different individual perspectives, not a bigger point about cultural norms. This email could have originated from a British, Australian or Dutch non-profit just as easily - and probably would still be effective for the same reasons in a much wider range of cultures - I highlight those 3 because approaches to fundraising and philanthropy are pretty similar in them. There is a bigger difference in expected/preferred payment methods (which, obviously, is also a subject of debate here, and one I have quite strong views on) but that is a different question. Chris ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
I support the idea that translation also needs to happen between cultures within the same language. I made the example of the Italian because it is my own, but of course there are other English-speaking cultures other the American one, and they would deserve the same attention. Of course it is difficult, and of course it would be a burden for the Fundraising team to have different messages for different nations [1], but I think it's worth a real effort. The Wikimedia movement is multicultural and multilanguage. We need to keep it that way, also in delicate but fundamental aspects as the fundraising. As the WMF feels entitled to fundraise for the whole movement, she would feel the responsibility of speaking the movement language (meaning, all of them :-D). I really don't want to give the impression of *trashing* everything the WMF does: I already said it, but I 'll repeat here that the Edit 2014 video is passionate, clear, moving, inspiring and *honest*. I made me feel proud of being part of the movement, and I think it is a great result for a 2 minutes video :-) [2] Aubrey [1] I'm still assuming a centralised, WMF-driven fundraising, please don't we start with chapters fundraising in this very moment, although it could be part of the solution). [2] On a totally unrelated matter, I thought the same for the other Victor's video about the kids from South Africa. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j-ktiYTTds) He also set a crowdfunding for actually buying the laptops ( http://www.gofundme.com/74kx3g). It's maybe me, but I don't really understand why we don't use the sitenotice to spread these messages. On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Not even slightly, even though I speak English. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 02:41 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Are you American? On 19 Dec 2014 12:35, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t get it. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 19 December 2014 02:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English. On 19 December 2014 at 12:21, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Are you by any chance American? Cheers, peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 19 December 2014 01:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that email. Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.* I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that actually raises money. It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and Wikimedia movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever). Chris *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that doesn't disprove the general principle) On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r =N z U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
* Peter Southwood wrote: OK, I was just wondering if acceptance of this form of marketing was an American thing or more generally an English language thing. Obviously not universally acceptable to English speakers, even in USA and England, but possibly more offensive to people with other cultural backgrounds. I have found http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13545386 useful on this point, comparing the German and British as an example. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
There are some valid differences of opinion being expressed about the cultural-linguistic appropriateness of the language used in the fundraising email. But these are tangential to the substantive issue I was attempting to raise. Ideally, Wikimedians should feeling empowered and excited to share the message that we need to fundraise to continue our movement's important work with my friends and family. Instead, I feel embarrassed (and consequently demotivated and unempowered) by the fundraising campaign - and I believe a lot of others in the community are too. Let me reiterate the final, official WMF fundraising principle https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles: Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s fundraising efforts. Now, we can debate the minutiae of the fundraising banners/emails - and I am certainly guilty of raising a series of very specific linguistic/stylistic critiques - but the more strategic issue is that I believe that this maximal participation principle has been completely left behind. Furthermore, that the principle of minimal disruption has become to be defined as get the money as fast as possible. To reiterate: efficiency != effectiveness. The feeling being generated is that fundraising is a necessary evil that we all have to suffer through. But the maximal participation principle implies that fundraising should be an opportunity for us all as a community to FEEL PROUD to tell our friends that what we do is important and that if they can't provide time or expertise, then at least provide some money to show their support. I USED to do that. I want to again. So, How can we move from a position where I (and presumably many others) in the community are merely enduring the fundraising season, to a position where we can be proud ambassadors of our movement? We should get back to using this time as an opportunity to share our movement's value - We should celebrate collectively when we reach the fundraising goal because we know that means we can achieve the awesome things planned to do with that money. This requires seeking buy in from the community at all stages - from the annual budget to the banner translation to email responders. Not simply tolerating fundraising season Less efficient fundraising, more effective fundraising. WMF Board of Trustees, I'm looking at you to set a direction -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
Le 19/12/2014 00:08, Liam Wyatt a écrit : This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. Then what ? I suggest the reasons why the WMF and Sue Gardner did struggle for years against the ability of the chapters to fundraise were bad, or at least not good enough. They were complaint about the fundraising banners and messages, I guess one of the reason to centralize fundraising was to have full control on it and be able to switch it on and off at any time in any country (such as Russia), yet I don't think that it's even desirable. Furthermore the WMF shouldn't process the Project and Event Grants and Individual Engagement Grants in the countries were there is an active chapter. -- Mathias Damour User:Astirmay ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a thank you for donating email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented]. *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient *at getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been honed with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the core WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they actually appear to be following a principle of being as *maximally *disruptive as they can get away with, for as short a time as required. Can the WMF to say how minimal disruption and effective fundraising is defined in practice, and how they are measured? *Shareable vs Desperate* On the same day that the WMF communications team release this inspiring and positive year in review video https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/, this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about not advertising and staying online for another year. Couldn't the year in review video have been used in the fundraising email to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's the kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of moral-obligation. *Fundraising operating principles* I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical operating principles for fundraising that would give some real-world guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on this list from the last few weeks here:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Mailman clobbers HTML sent to this list (for good reason), but if you'd like to see it in all its technicolor glory, here's the e-mail in question: http://bit.ly/1zCPGQZ (Sorry, future list archive perusers, that's not a permanent link.) Austin On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: This email was sent by WMF fundraising today. I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below. *Da:* Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia don...@wikimedia.org *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1 *A: [email address removed]* *Oggetto:* *Our final email* *Rispondi a:* don...@wikimedia.org *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.* Dear [name removed], This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 . https://donate.wikimedia.org http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1b=0j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0mt=1rt=0 -- our final email? This is the last email reminder you'll receive? Surely that should be qualified with ... this year.?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising for the rest of the year, i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says we'll never run ads but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay ad-free another year. - Does the phrase Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a thank you for donating email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented]. *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient *at getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been honed with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the core WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they actually appear to be following a principle of being as *maximally *disruptive as they can get away with, for as short a time as required. Can the WMF to say how minimal disruption and effective fundraising is defined in practice, and how they are measured? *Shareable vs Desperate* On the same day that the WMF communications team release this inspiring and positive year in review video https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/, this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about not advertising and staying online for another year. Couldn't the year in review video have been used in the fundraising email to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's the kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not something that almost bullies you to donate out of
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
Liam Wyatt wrote: *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation solicitation e-mails are terrible and unbecoming. In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums. The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director, calling Brandon Harris a Wikipedia programmer, and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. +1 And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant falsehoods. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director, calling Brandon Harris a Wikipedia programmer, and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. Please add my name to the list of people who are troubled by what's been said and done in the latest round of fundraising. I think that most of us, even if we feel some distaste for begging for money, realise the importance and necessity of engaging in fundraising. The fact that we're asking for money is not the problem. The problem is that in order to maximise the amount of revenue gained, the Fundraising team has engaged in a misleading scare campaign. In the short term, that means that a few more dollars will flow into the Foundation's coffers, but in the long term it just damages the brand and the entire movement. It is very disappointing that the responses from the WMF to these entirely reasonable concerns so far have been either: a) Silence b) Completely ignoring the point (The fundraiser has been very successful because we've received more money, and those who are not aware that they've been mislead are not upset!) c) Semantic word games (Well, in a technical sense what we've said is not a lie, depending on how you look at it) The solution that I'd like to see for next time is less focus on A/B testing that has its sole purpose of maximising the amount of revenue raised, and more of a view to alternative ways to raise money. Imagine a world in which we gave our readers a positive message that we already had enough money to keep the lights on thanks very much, but needed more to build cool new tools, improve the quality of the project content, and implement more innovative projects to meet our movement's goals. Regards, Craig Franklin ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
These objectionable items are all standard advertising practice. No-one should be surprised. They work because they are targeted at an audience that expects this kind of crap and responds to it like Pavlovs dogs. If the fundraising team went to marketing school this is probably how they were programmed. This does not mean that we have to follow suit. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of MZMcBride Sent: 19 December 2014 02:13 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email Liam Wyatt wrote: *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles is *minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively* [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean **do the fundraising as quickly as possible. However, I contest that less disruption and more effective is not the same as shorter fundraiser. i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation solicitation e-mails are terrible and unbecoming. In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums. The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director, calling Brandon Harris a Wikipedia programmer, and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8764 - Release Date: 12/19/14 ___ 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] Fwd: Our final email
Liam Wyatt, 19/12/2014 00:08: PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! I read this as shame on you, users who use Wikipedia without paying for its costs!. Criminalising our users is really abusive. Sadly, this latest violation of the Wikimedia mission is a logical consequence of the incorrect ideological premises the WMF is run on. I've expanded the essay on the topic: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader#The_burden_of_the_reader Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
