Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Frederick Noronha]

e with subject or body 'help' to
>>> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>1. Re: Annoying ads (Chris Gates)
>>>2. Re: Annoying ads (Gnangarra)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:57:48 -0500
>>> From: Chris Gates 
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
>>> Message-ID:
>>> >> c4hm3dvi7+duitoof...@mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>>
>>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>>> the
>>> first):
>>>
>>> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>>> our
>>> readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
>>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>>> scroll away .“
>>>
>>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia
>>> like a
>>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information,
>>> knowing
>>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>>> some ad campaign?
>>>
>>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a
>>> goal
>>> of getting more donations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vermont
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>>> >
>>> > This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
>>> > how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
>>> > with a *2 page* advert.
>>> > * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
>>> > title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
>>> > fundraising notices.
>>> > * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
>>> > unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
>>> > non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
>>> > ever I saw one.
>>> > * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
>>> > followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
>>> > forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).
>>> >
>>> > I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
>>> > further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
>>> > thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
>>> > text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. Th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey WSC!

We have used variations on this line for at the last 7 years and the
counter-intuitive approach approach has been debated by marketing
professionals for much of the last decade.

What you describe is known as social proof and despite it being considered
a core tenet in marketing it doesn't work for our fundraising. We have
tested and tested and tested every year.

Chris Keating has written his thoughts [1] about why he thinks it doesn't
work; was recently explored as part of academic study done in partnership
with WMDE; [2] and I have some of noted some of my thoughts on twitter
which I'll include here:

The altruistic motives of any donor would often be based on a person's
personal experience with a cause or services of a non-profit. The
relationship between benefactor and beneficiary is intertwined.

For Wikipedia, those two groups are one and the same. Every donor is a
direct benefactor. Degree of separation between benefactor and beneficiary
is zero. Their personal experience is that of being a beneficiary,
receiving direct and instant benefit.

Personal benefit outweighs the social guilt felt for not supporting
something that is conceptually more distant from them. Social guilt is no
longer the driver. It's not that social proof doesn't work, its just that
for Wikipedia personal context works better.

[1]
https://medium.com/@chriskfundraising/why-doesnt-social-proof-work-for-wikipedia-fundraising-65d55a047911
[2]
https://hertieschool-f4e6.kxcdn.com/fileadmin/5_WhoWeAre/1_People_directory/Faculty_downloads/Traxler/Publications/LT-Wiki-CondCoop.pdf

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 10:21 PM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that praying emojis look like a certain type of religious
> practice, a hand gesture that implies certain religions and not others.
>
> I assume the fundraising team would have the good sense not to describe
> their campaign as a crusade or a jihad. Even if they had carefully targeted
> that emoji to cultures where it was close to common currency, I think it
> was inappropriate.
>
> But I'm also concerned at the 98% look away bit. Presumably this was
> tested and at least in the short term it raised more funds. The problem may
> be longer term, it looked to me the sort of counterproductive message that
> normalises not giving rather than normalising giving.
>
> We need to remember the long term impact of our messaging on the people
> who are less inclined to give as well as the short term impact on
> donations. To me that 98% pitch looked like as much of a mistake as the £5
> coffee ad that fed the overpaid and wasteful meme.
>
> I've seen some marketing from other organisations in the last few months
> that has been more along the lines of "We know that money is tighter than
> usual for a lot of the people who usually support us, and if you are one of
> them we get that you can't give us money this year. But if you find
>  useful, and you are one of those people who is financially OK in
> these troubled times, then please make a donation". Most people can
> identify with one or other of those groups, and I suspect neither would
> think the worse of us for pitching to them in those terms.
>
> Regards
>
> WSC
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 14:24, 
> wrote:
>
>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Annoying ads (Chris Gates)
>>    2. Re: Annoying ads (Gnangarra)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:57:48 -0500
>> From: Chris Gates 
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
>> Message-ID:
>> > c4hm3dvi7+duitoof...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>
>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>> the
>> first):
>>
>> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[WereSpielChequers]

I agree that praying emojis look like a certain type of religious practice,
a hand gesture that implies certain religions and not others.

I assume the fundraising team would have the good sense not to describe
their campaign as a crusade or a jihad. Even if they had carefully targeted
that emoji to cultures where it was close to common currency, I think it
was inappropriate.

But I'm also concerned at the 98% look away bit. Presumably this was tested
and at least in the short term it raised more funds. The problem may be
longer term, it looked to me the sort of counterproductive message that
normalises not giving rather than normalising giving.

We need to remember the long term impact of our messaging on the people who
are less inclined to give as well as the short term impact on donations. To
me that 98% pitch looked like as much of a mistake as the £5 coffee ad that
fed the overpaid and wasteful meme.

I've seen some marketing from other organisations in the last few months
that has been more along the lines of "We know that money is tighter than
usual for a lot of the people who usually support us, and if you are one of
them we get that you can't give us money this year. But if you find
 useful, and you are one of those people who is financially OK in
these troubled times, then please make a donation". Most people can
identify with one or other of those groups, and I suspect neither would
think the worse of us for pitching to them in those terms.

Regards

WSC




On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 14:24, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Annoying ads (Chris Gates)
>2. Re: Annoying ads (Gnangarra)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:57:48 -0500
> From: Chris Gates 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
> Message-ID:
>  c4hm3dvi7+duitoof...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>
> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing the
> first):
>
> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of our
> readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
> scroll away .“
>
> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>
> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
> some ad campaign?
>
> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
> of getting more donations.
>
> Regards,
> Vermont
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
> >
> > This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
> > how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads [and a Privacy Policy question]

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey Yury,

I want to note that my response specifically deals with the messaging you
raised. I will note that the privacy of our users is of paramount
importance across the organisation and is taken seriously and with care.
You can view with Wikimedia Foundation's data retention guidelines on Meta.
[1]

Regarding the specifics about fundraising, the system that delivers banners
is CentralNotice and the tools that we use are fairly basic. [2] [3]

CentralNotice notes how many times someone has seen a particular
fundraising campaign. This number is counted and kept within the web
browsers localstorage and not a cookie. This means that information is NOT
stored in the HTTP request header sent to our servers.

This feature is used for all sorts of community and programmatic banners as
well as fundraising. It means that when an individual has seen X number of
banners within their browser they don't see anymore. We wrote a blog post
about this a couple of years ago. [4]

All we are doing is taking the same number that is stored and using that to
note in the message. We don't track users through CentralNotice across
browsers to set messaging, nor do we track across devices via CentralNotice
to set messaging.

I will say that even though it IS privacy sensitive, the potential
perception of it is something we will need to think about and along with
the other feedback will be something we talk about as a team this week.

Regards
Seddon

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CentralNotice
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:CentralNotice
[4] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2017/10/03/fundraising-banner-limit/

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 7:40 PM Yury Bulka 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> In the context of this discussion, I think it might be appropriate to
> share the following. A few days ago I had a brief conversation with a
> (non-Wikipedian) user on social media regarding a fundraising banner
> they were seeing. In their case they had an additional concern with the
> banners (apart from "making Wikipedia unusable"). They wrote:
>
> "<...> I find it more than a little creepy that wikipedia is tracking
> how often I visit."
>
> Curious, I asked if the popup said anything about their browsing
> behavior, and it did (citing a snippet they have shared with me):
>
> "Hi, reader in Canada, it seems you use Wikipedia a lot; that's great!
> It's awkward, but this Tuesday we need your help. This is the 10th
> appeal we've shown you. We don't have salespeople. Thanks to the
> donations of 2% of our readers, Wikipedia remains open to all. If you
> donate just $2.75, or whatever you can this Tuesday, Wikipedia could
> keep thriving. Thank you."
>
> I have decided to look this up in the Privacy Policy, and indeed:
>
>   We want to make the Wikimedia Sites better for you by learning more
>   about how you use them. Examples of this might include how often you
>   visit the Wikimedia Sites, what you like, what you find helpful, how you
>   get to the Wikimedia Sites, and whether you would use a helpful feature
>   more if we explained it differently.
>
>
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Information_Related_to_Your_Use_of_the_Wikimedia_Sites
>
> This contradicted my intition about the privacy of anonymous Wikipedia
> readers. It seems like some behavioral data is collected and then used
> to target readers for fundraising in some ways.
>
> Is it specified in more detail anywhere what kind of behavioral data is
> collected, for how long it is stored, how it is associated with a
> reader's device(s), and what behavioral data is used in the context of
> fundraising specifically?
>
> Best,
> --
> Yury Bulka
> https://mamot.fr/@setthemfree
> #NotOnFacebook
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>


-- 
Seddon


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Gnangarra]

Kaya Aron

The software engineers are decent and many of them also have a Wikimedia
contribution background giving them the knowledge to benefit all the
projects, they are also spread across the globe making sure there is
someone available at all times to keep on top of any system issue should
they arise.

The WMF has hired people for movement strategy implementation, there have
been significant discussions on implementation over the last few months.
Both the key points you raised are being addressed and funded.

As a community we invested a lot of time and resources to be taken
seriously, we continue to do so. I agree with Vermont here that without the
emojis the banner looks more professional, whether emojis return or not the
must also remember that the projects are neutral, that they dont exclude
people nor drive them away.

Boodarwun

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 06:23, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Seddon,
>
> Thanks for removing the emojis; without them, the banner is infinitely
> more professional.
>
> Regards,
> Vermont
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:09 Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>> we've rolled back this change.
>>
>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>> campaigns.
>>
>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>
>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>
>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>> ).
>>
>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>>> seem childish
>>>
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

 Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
 the first):

 “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
 really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
 our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75
  and then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please
 don't scroll away .“

 It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and
 fundraising-focused teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s
 reputation. I, and I’m sure most editors, don’t care that praying and
 crying emojis illicit more money. There are social and reputation costs to
 portraying Wikipedia like a crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And
 though I understand the employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in
 front of every reader evidently do not care about the costs of their
 actions, and only whatever money they can get from it, it remains wholly
 unacceptable.

 Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
 regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
 seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
 Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
 Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
 the impression of a functional and reliable source of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi Seddon,

Thanks for removing the emojis; without them, the banner is infinitely more
professional.

Regards,
Vermont

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:09 Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
> we've rolled back this change.
>
> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
> campaigns.
>
> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>
> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>
> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
> ).
>
> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>> seem childish
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>>
>>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>>> the first):
>>>
>>> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>>> our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
>>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>>> scroll away .“
>>>
>>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>>> some ad campaign?
>>>
>>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>>> of getting more donations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vermont
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>>
 Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.

 This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
 how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
 with a *2 page* advert.
 * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
 title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
 fundraising notices.
 * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
 unencyclopaedic like "People 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads [and a Privacy Policy question]

[Yury Bulka]

Dear all,

In the context of this discussion, I think it might be appropriate to
share the following. A few days ago I had a brief conversation with a
(non-Wikipedian) user on social media regarding a fundraising banner
they were seeing. In their case they had an additional concern with the
banners (apart from "making Wikipedia unusable"). They wrote:

"<...> I find it more than a little creepy that wikipedia is tracking
how often I visit."

Curious, I asked if the popup said anything about their browsing
behavior, and it did (citing a snippet they have shared with me):

"Hi, reader in Canada, it seems you use Wikipedia a lot; that's great!
It's awkward, but this Tuesday we need your help. This is the 10th
appeal we've shown you. We don't have salespeople. Thanks to the
donations of 2% of our readers, Wikipedia remains open to all. If you
donate just $2.75, or whatever you can this Tuesday, Wikipedia could
keep thriving. Thank you."

I have decided to look this up in the Privacy Policy, and indeed:

  We want to make the Wikimedia Sites better for you by learning more
  about how you use them. Examples of this might include how often you
  visit the Wikimedia Sites, what you like, what you find helpful, how you
  get to the Wikimedia Sites, and whether you would use a helpful feature
  more if we explained it differently.

  
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Information_Related_to_Your_Use_of_the_Wikimedia_Sites

This contradicted my intition about the privacy of anonymous Wikipedia
readers. It seems like some behavioral data is collected and then used
to target readers for fundraising in some ways.

Is it specified in more detail anywhere what kind of behavioral data is
collected, for how long it is stored, how it is associated with a
reader's device(s), and what behavioral data is used in the context of
fundraising specifically?

Best,
--
Yury Bulka
https://mamot.fr/@setthemfree
#NotOnFacebook


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Demian]

Hey Seddon,

Thank you for reading and considering the feedback provided. I'd like to
add one more perspective to the picture:

IIRC in recent years the amount of donations was constantly increasing
year-by-year and it's now far more than what's necessary to cover
operational expenses of the WMF.
I believe one of the concerns with the fundraiser is that the size and
pushiness of the ad keeps growing while the WMF becomes less in need of
those donations. While it seems that the ad's size is proportional to the
funds raised, making this a successful strategy in the short term, it does
not come free as Wikipedia's reputation is traded in the long term.

A major concern is the sentences that manipulate readers' emotions to feel
bad if they don't donate. I think we have seen that approach for
fundraising many times in our lives from different sources, past and
present and it never raised trust.

Another non-obvious reason in my opinion why a big part of the community
can't condone these fundraisers is that we see the donations being
channeled to causes that don't benefit the communities proportionally to
the costs.
At the same time directly beneficial areas such as the developer team lacks
the funds to hire decently productive engineers with current knowledge -
leaving the software that makes Wikipedia possible always a decade behind
current software development and UX design practices.
The WMF's current goals with the Movement Strategy would also benefit from
hiring professional mediators and code of conduct educators to give a
chance for the UCoC to be implemented true to its purpose instead of a
dangerous tool in the hands of presumably untrained personnel.

These investments would make me suggest people to donate to the WMF, as it
goes to a clearly beneficial causes, but currently the way I see it the WMF
has more donations than it can invest beneficially. I find only a message
that's *humble in its length* - instead of just claiming to be humble -
would be appropriate.


Thank you for reading.

Aron


On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 18:04, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey Michel,
>
> There are some other points that Fae raised particularly around user
> experience and technical implementation that are distinctly more complex
> tasks and we are going to need to discuss and plan our testing to work on
> them, and the team is at very limited capacity on a Saturday. (I myself had
> been out enjoying the rather brisk winter air that's visiting the UK). Due
> to their very nature, rolling back the emoji's in the messaging could be
> done immediately.
>
> I've already brought the feedback back to the team, and I'll be reviewing
> with the team on Monday and hopefully work on them this week.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 4:36 PM Michel Vuijlsteke 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated
>> about this.
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>>> we've rolled back this change.
>>>
>>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>>> campaigns.
>>>
>>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>>
>>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>>
>>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>>> ).
>>>
>>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>>
 tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
 should be visible at 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Subhashish]

Apart from the usual suspects [ a. I think whether a certain emoji is
religious is not a grave problem; b. civil society orgs survive on
donations and fundraising is important; c. as a movement we can't probably
ever have everyone agreeing on everything but pushing fundraising messages
that brings some decent buck cannot be stopped -- after all, the same buck
is used for maintaining servers or fighting oppressive regimes that pose a
threat to open knowledge ] a few things really need to be thought through
while designing fundraising messages:

-  How does the message look on a low-end smartphone used by someone who
lives in a place where data is expensive (say Vanuatu or a small island
economy)? Can the real goal of the movement -- furthering open knowledge --
be seriously hampered by displaying too much text/image in the fundraiser?

- Can the opt out message be displayed more clearly so that a user can
clearly see it and turn off. It has often been a real pain for me to turn
off the ads while trying to check something on Wikipedia when I am not
logged in and I'm on a private tab/using VPN.

- From an accessibility PoV a user should be able to identify that the ad
is different from the content. It's otherwise a pesky way to fool a user
who might at times confuse a fundraising ad as Wikipedia content. Probably
a different background color or a distinguishable border or a clear sign
would help.

Subhashish

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 10:34 PM Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey Michel,
>
> There are some other points that Fae raised particularly around user
> experience and technical implementation that are distinctly more complex
> tasks and we are going to need to discuss and plan our testing to work on
> them, and the team is at very limited capacity on a Saturday. (I myself had
> been out enjoying the rather brisk winter air that's visiting the UK). Due
> to their very nature, rolling back the emoji's in the messaging could be
> done immediately.
>
> I've already brought the feedback back to the team, and I'll be reviewing
> with the team on Monday and hopefully work on them this week.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 4:36 PM Michel Vuijlsteke 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated
>> about this.
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>>> we've rolled back this change.
>>>
>>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>>> campaigns.
>>>
>>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>>
>>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>>
>>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>>> ).
>>>
>>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>>
 tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
 should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
 should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
 seem childish

 On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
 wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>
> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after
> closing the first):
>
> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98%
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey Michel,

There are some other points that Fae raised particularly around user
experience and technical implementation that are distinctly more complex
tasks and we are going to need to discuss and plan our testing to work on
them, and the team is at very limited capacity on a Saturday. (I myself had
been out enjoying the rather brisk winter air that's visiting the UK). Due
to their very nature, rolling back the emoji's in the messaging could be
done immediately.

I've already brought the feedback back to the team, and I'll be reviewing
with the team on Monday and hopefully work on them this week.

Seddon

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 4:36 PM Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:

> I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated about this.
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>> we've rolled back this change.
>>
>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>> campaigns.
>>
>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>
>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>
>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>> ).
>>
>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>>> seem childish
>>>
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

 Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
 the first):

 “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
 really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
 our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75
  and then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please
 don't scroll away .“

 It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and
 fundraising-focused teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s
 reputation. I, and I’m sure most editors, don’t care that praying and
 crying emojis illicit more money. There are social and reputation costs to
 portraying Wikipedia like a crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And
 though I understand the employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in
 front of every reader evidently do not care about the costs of their
 actions, and only whatever money they can get from it, it remains wholly
 unacceptable.

 Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
 regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
 seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
 Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
 Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
 the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
 that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
 some ad campaign?

 And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
 happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
 go out they are worse than the last, wholly 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated about this.

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
> we've rolled back this change.
>
> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
> campaigns.
>
> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>
> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>
> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
> ).
>
> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>> seem childish
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>>
>>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>>> the first):
>>>
>>> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>>> our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
>>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>>> scroll away .“
>>>
>>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>>> some ad campaign?
>>>
>>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>>> of getting more donations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vermont
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>>
 Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.

 This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
 how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
 with a *2 page* advert.
 * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
 title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
 fundraising notices.
 * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
 unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey all,

To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
we've rolled back this change.

For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
campaigns.

I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.

At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself. I've
been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
highlighted and gotten more input on this.

I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org ).

My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.

Seddon

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
> seem childish
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>
>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>> the first):
>>
>> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>> our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>> scroll away .“
>>
>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>
>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>> some ad campaign?
>>
>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>> of getting more donations.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vermont
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>
>>> Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>>>
>>> This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
>>> how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
>>> with a *2 page* advert.
>>> * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
>>> title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
>>> fundraising notices.
>>> * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
>>> unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
>>> non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
>>> ever I saw one.
>>> * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
>>> followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
>>> forever please' link, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Gnangarra]

tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article should
be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely should not
have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do seem
childish

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>
> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
> the first):
>
> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
> our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
> scroll away .“
>
> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>
> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
> some ad campaign?
>
> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
> of getting more donations.
>
> Regards,
> Vermont
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>>
>> This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
>> how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
>> with a *2 page* advert.
>> * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
>> title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
>> fundraising notices.
>> * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
>> unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
>> non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
>> ever I saw one.
>> * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
>> followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
>> forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).
>>
>> I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
>> further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
>> thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
>> text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
>> has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
>> other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
>> heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
>> humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
>> It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
>> emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
>> prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
>> thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.
>>
>> Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
>> to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
>> for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
>> there's no other honest way to describe it.
>>
>> Stay safe, wear a mask,
>> Fae
>>
>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
>> > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
>> WMF
>> > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a
>> few
>> > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
>> >
>> > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
>> But
>> > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
>> > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have
>> kept
>> > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing the
first):

“Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of our
readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
scroll away .“

It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.

Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
some ad campaign?

And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
of getting more donations.

Regards,
Vermont

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:

> Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>
> This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
> how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
> with a *2 page* advert.
> * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
> title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
> fundraising notices.
> * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
> unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
> non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
> ever I saw one.
> * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
> followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
> forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).
>
> I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
> further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
> thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
> text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
> has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
> other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
> heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
> humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
> It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
> emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
> prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
> thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.
>
> Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
> to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
> for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
> there's no other honest way to describe it.
>
> Stay safe, wear a mask,
> Fae
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
> >
> > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
> WMF
> > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
> > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
> >
> > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
> But
> > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
> > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> > Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
> > position to donate.
> >
> > WSC
> >
> > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Fæ]

Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.

This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
with a *2 page* advert.
* The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
fundraising notices.
* There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
ever I saw one.
* The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).

I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.

Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
there's no other honest way to describe it.

Stay safe, wear a mask,
Fae

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
 wrote:
>
> Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the WMF
> was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
> months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
>
> In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess. But
> the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
> their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
> position to donate.
>
> WSC
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, 
> wrote:
>
> > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Annoying ads (John Erling Blad)
> >2. Re: Annoying ads (Benjamin Ikuta)
> >3. Re: Annoying ads (Robert Fernandez)
> >4. Re: Annoying ads (Pierre-Yves Beaudouin)
> >5. Re: Annoying ads (Nick Wilson (Quiddity))
> >6. Re: Annoying ads (Samuel Klein)
> >7. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >8. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >
> >
> > --
> >Cheers
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:55:50 +0200
> > From: John Erling Blad 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
> > Message-ID:
> >  > 5ggwunkrfg6ejjsn6sb1rbf1h_fnyphpd_wjr5ot...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> > the top.
> >
> > /jeblad
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Todd Allen]

I don't see a particular issue with requesting totally voluntary donations.
It's not like we're putting up a paywall, so if someone can't afford it
right now, they lose nothing by not donating. It may even be that for some
(as per the feedback in the previous email from Nick) that making a small
donation to something helps people to feel better when they have little
other opportunity for social connection.

Todd

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:13 PM Nick Wilson (Quiddity) 
wrote:

> This has been on our departments' minds for the past few months. Since the
> beginning of the pandemic, we have been changing our campaign schedules
> (including shortening the Italian campaign) and steadily revising our
> messaging. We are closely monitoring reader and donor feedback, responding
> to what we hear, and making adjustments as we go. There is a lot of
> interest in fundraising right now and how we adapt in the current
> environment and going forward (including amongst Affiliates and closely
> related external orgs whom we talk to). It’s uncertain when things will go
> back to “normal” so it is important we start learning how to fundraise in
> this environment. We are working on a plan to share more information and
> updates. Our team is working with limited capacity right now so these
> deeper updates may not happen right away, but we are making this a
> priority.
>
> We'd also like to acknowledge GerardM’s point about giving people an
> opportunity to give, and note that we’re also hearing this from some donors
> - Some are giving because they are now realizing the huge value of the
> projects. These are some examples we can share:
>
> "I was prompted quite a few times to donate but so far I always rejected
> even if it didn't feel right. Probably this virus situation made me more
> aware of my environment; what's important and what's not."
>
> "I give because I appreciate that there is even a Wikipedia. Solid
> information ties in with our hope and is key to calming these uncertain
> times. Thanks again. Stay well and safe."
>
> "We need Wikipedia, and if everyone give some, well you know... In Norway
> we have a special word for this act... "dugnad" (when everyone contributes,
> it will not be so big efforts for a few) Like we have this corona situation
> now. We must help each other, take care of each other, and do what the
> governments tell us to do. Then the virus will go away much faster."
>
> "I really got into the Internet in 1995 with my 1st home PC…I never thought
> that one day, the global network would be our life-saving resource facing a
> global health crisis...You and all the Wikimedia teams do a TERRIFIC work.
> Wikipedia is the single most important website."
>
> I hope that helps.
> Best,
> Nick
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > To me this is similar to the argument why we do not really raise funds in
> > some countries that "are poor". Some people are poor, certainly, but many
> > others are not. The argument that we can afford has a relation to our
> > aspirations, ambitions what can we do better, more particularly in the
> > countries where people are stuck in their homes. If anything this is the
> > time to adapt to changing circumstances. People are at home, there is
> this
> > "captive audience" with many people that are helped mentally when they
> have
> > something worthwhile to do.
> >
> > We can reach out for readers, editors and donors.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 14:58, WereSpielChequers <
> > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> > > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
> > WMF
> > > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a
> few
> > > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
> > >
> > > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
> > But
> > > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> > > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have
> kept
> > > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> > > Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be
> in a
> > > position to donate.
> > >
> > > WSC
> > >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

This has been on our departments' minds for the past few months. Since the
beginning of the pandemic, we have been changing our campaign schedules
(including shortening the Italian campaign) and steadily revising our
messaging. We are closely monitoring reader and donor feedback, responding
to what we hear, and making adjustments as we go. There is a lot of
interest in fundraising right now and how we adapt in the current
environment and going forward (including amongst Affiliates and closely
related external orgs whom we talk to). It’s uncertain when things will go
back to “normal” so it is important we start learning how to fundraise in
this environment. We are working on a plan to share more information and
updates. Our team is working with limited capacity right now so these
deeper updates may not happen right away, but we are making this a priority.

We'd also like to acknowledge GerardM’s point about giving people an
opportunity to give, and note that we’re also hearing this from some donors
- Some are giving because they are now realizing the huge value of the
projects. These are some examples we can share:

"I was prompted quite a few times to donate but so far I always rejected
even if it didn't feel right. Probably this virus situation made me more
aware of my environment; what's important and what's not."

"I give because I appreciate that there is even a Wikipedia. Solid
information ties in with our hope and is key to calming these uncertain
times. Thanks again. Stay well and safe."

"We need Wikipedia, and if everyone give some, well you know... In Norway
we have a special word for this act... "dugnad" (when everyone contributes,
it will not be so big efforts for a few) Like we have this corona situation
now. We must help each other, take care of each other, and do what the
governments tell us to do. Then the virus will go away much faster."

"I really got into the Internet in 1995 with my 1st home PC…I never thought
that one day, the global network would be our life-saving resource facing a
global health crisis...You and all the Wikimedia teams do a TERRIFIC work.
Wikipedia is the single most important website."

I hope that helps.
Best,
Nick

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> To me this is similar to the argument why we do not really raise funds in
> some countries that "are poor". Some people are poor, certainly, but many
> others are not. The argument that we can afford has a relation to our
> aspirations, ambitions what can we do better, more particularly in the
> countries where people are stuck in their homes. If anything this is the
> time to adapt to changing circumstances. People are at home, there is this
> "captive audience" with many people that are helped mentally when they have
> something worthwhile to do.
>
> We can reach out for readers, editors and donors.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 14:58, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
> WMF
> > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
> > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
> >
> > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
> But
> > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
> > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> > Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
> > position to donate.
> >
> > WSC
> >
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

My apologies John for my overly basic initial response. I wanted to note
that regarding the banner design [1] we’ve definitely heard and taken the
feedback on board as a team. Our design team discussed it on Monday and are
exploring ways in which we might iterate on this in future tests.

We are always sympathetic about any potential impact that fundraising
campaigns have on reader experience. This is why we use tools to limit
impressions seen by readers, limit traffic or campaign length, and only
send a limited number of emails to past donors. Most non-profits and pretty
much every other online fundraising model involves running campaigns all
year around, all the time.

Regarding this related issue both Sam and you brought up about the use of
cookies in Central Notice and exploring the usage of hash id’s. It’s an
interesting idea but certainly one fraught with potential public
misconceptions along with ethical and technical challenges. Even with
navigating those I’m not sure Fundraising is really the team to take a lead
on this kind of device fingerprinting within MediaWiki and falls well
outside our team’s area of responsibility and expertise. There are also big
changes expected in the way browsers provide the necessary information so
we are going to need to see how this comes out in the wash. Either way,
we’ve created a phabricator ticket to facilitate future discussion about
this topic.[2]

Thanks again for your recommendation. Please do continue to leave any
feedback, ideas, or questions on the fundraising talk page.[3]

Best wishes,
Nick

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NASA=B1920_0331_enWW_dsk_p2_sm_twin1=en=1
[2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T252123
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:32 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> It happen after a reboot where the browsers was reset.
> No, I did not take a screenshot.
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:43 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > This is a complaint about multiple banners on the same page.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I believe it would be better to put the add on the lower part of the
> > > viewport, for all users, and for a limited time. Posting ads at random
> > > locations
> >
> >
> > I couldn't figure out how to experience this feature -- can you share a
> > screenshot?
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Nick "Quiddity" Wilson (he/him)
Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[John Erling Blad]

It happen after a reboot where the browsers was reset.
No, I did not take a screenshot.

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:43 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> >
> > This is a complaint about multiple banners on the same page.
>
>
>
> > I believe it would be better to put the add on the lower part of the
> > viewport, for all users, and for a limited time. Posting ads at random
> > locations
>
>
> I couldn't figure out how to experience this feature -- can you share a
> screenshot?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Samuel Klein]

>
> This is a complaint about multiple banners on the same page.



> I believe it would be better to put the add on the lower part of the
> viewport, for all users, and for a limited time. Posting ads at random
> locations


I couldn't figure out how to experience this feature -- can you share a
screenshot?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[John Erling Blad]

One of the browsers are set up with forced session cookies and web storage,
and also to block third parties. It breaks several features, also central
login. I have reported it as an issue, but none has bothered to create a
fix.

I believe it would be better to put the add on the lower part of the
viewport, for all users, and for a limited time. Posting ads at random
locations and disrupting (terrorizing) the readers is not a good idea.

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:04 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> >
> > If you're browsing in a private-window, this means the browser cannot
> > remember (save in a cookie) that you clicked "close" or saw the banner
> > already, hence you might be seeing more banners than most readers would.
> >
>
> Worth mentioning each time it comes up:
> This seems like an instance of where tracking interactions w/ a given {IP,
> day} or {hash of browser fingerprint+IP+daily salt} would vastly outweigh
> the challenges.  We can support private browsing, or any kind of browsing,
> without creating a painful experience [which is also... not likely to
> result in a donation].
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
To me this is similar to the argument why we do not really raise funds in
some countries that "are poor". Some people are poor, certainly, but many
others are not. The argument that we can afford has a relation to our
aspirations, ambitions what can we do better, more particularly in the
countries where people are stuck in their homes. If anything this is the
time to adapt to changing circumstances. People are at home, there is this
"captive audience" with many people that are helped mentally when they have
something worthwhile to do.

We can reach out for readers, editors and donors.
Thanks,
   GerardM


On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 14:58, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the WMF
> was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
> months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
>
> In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess. But
> the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
> their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
> position to donate.
>
> WSC
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, 
> wrote:
>
> > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Annoying ads (John Erling Blad)
> >2. Re: Annoying ads (Benjamin Ikuta)
> >3. Re: Annoying ads (Robert Fernandez)
> >4. Re: Annoying ads (Pierre-Yves Beaudouin)
> >5. Re: Annoying ads (Nick Wilson (Quiddity))
> >6. Re: Annoying ads (Samuel Klein)
> >7. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >8. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:55:50 +0200
> > From: John Erling Blad 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
> > Message-ID:
> >  > 5ggwunkrfg6ejjsn6sb1rbf1h_fnyphpd_wjr5ot...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way
> over
> > the top.
> >
> > /jeblad
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[John Erling Blad]

Thanks, but I do know how to log in at Wikipedia, its about 15 years since
I started editing.

This is a complaint about multiple banners on the same page.

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:02 PM Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi John, thank you for the feedback.
>
> The banners you see are continually changing, as we refine our designs
> based on feedback and efficacy. Donation banners are inherently disruptive,
> on any site. We try to minimize the annoyance whilst also maximizing the
> effectiveness in order to show as few banners as possible. It's a difficult
> balance, and feedback like yours, and the emails and comments we get from
> readers, help us out over time.
>
> If you don’t want to see fundraising banners, there are a few options: You
> can login to Wikipedia, or click the "close" button in a banner, or visit
> our donor thank you page.[1]
>
> If you're browsing in a private-window, this means the browser cannot
> remember (save in a cookie) that you clicked "close" or saw the banner
> already, hence you might be seeing more banners than most readers would.
>
> Thanks again,
> Nick
>
> [1] https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thank_You
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:56 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way
> over
> > the top.
> >
> > /jeblad
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Nick "Quiddity" Wilson (he/him)
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[John Erling Blad]

I am nearly always logged in, but I also quite frequently open browser
windows where I am not logged in. It might have something to do with who I
am and what I do.

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:27 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered logging in?
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way
> over
> > the top.
> >
> > /jeblad
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[WereSpielChequers]

Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the WMF
was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.

In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess. But
the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
position to donate.

WSC

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Annoying ads (John Erling Blad)
>2. Re: Annoying ads (Benjamin Ikuta)
>3. Re: Annoying ads (Robert Fernandez)
>4. Re: Annoying ads (Pierre-Yves Beaudouin)
>5. Re: Annoying ads (Nick Wilson (Quiddity))
>6. Re: Annoying ads (Samuel Klein)
>7. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
>8. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:55:50 +0200
> From: John Erling Blad 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
> Message-ID:
>  5ggwunkrfg6ejjsn6sb1rbf1h_fnyphpd_wjr5ot...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> the top.
>
> /jeblad
>
>
> --
>
> *
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Enock Seth Nyamador]

Do we already have a script or checkbox somewhere to disable banners?

Best,

Am Di., 5. Mai 2020 um 10:25 Uhr schrieb Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com>:

> Why do you ask? Unregistered readers are some kind of inferior creatures
> not worth of any attention?
> Registering an account and logging in is optional in Wikimedia.
>
> Paulo
>
> Robert Fernandez  escreveu no dia segunda,
> 4/05/2020 à(s) 16:27:
>
> > I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered logging in?
> >
> > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right
> now. I
> > > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in
> several
> > > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way
> > over
> > > the top.
> > >
> > > /jeblad
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Why do you ask? Unregistered readers are some kind of inferior creatures
not worth of any attention?
Registering an account and logging in is optional in Wikimedia.

Paulo

Robert Fernandez  escreveu no dia segunda,
4/05/2020 à(s) 16:27:

> I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered logging in?
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way
> over
> > the top.
> >
> > /jeblad
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

In the first days of the pandemic, while trying to read info on my
cellphone, where I'm usually logged out, I was bombed first with that ugly
black thing signed by Katherine Maher, then in the next page I navigated
to, with a red message directed at "my friend from Portugal", both of them
asking money using the context of the pandemic. Which I found not only
annoying but on a bad taste.

It seems to only affect wiki.en, but it is still quite annoying, as I read
it often using the cellphone.

On the other hand, if WMF insists in that strategy, maybe it means it's
working somehow? But there must be less aggressive ways of reaching to the
people...

Best,
Paulo

John Erling Blad  escreveu no dia segunda, 4/05/2020 à(s)
15:56:

> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> the top.
>
> /jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Samuel Klein]

>
> If you're browsing in a private-window, this means the browser cannot
> remember (save in a cookie) that you clicked "close" or saw the banner
> already, hence you might be seeing more banners than most readers would.
>

Worth mentioning each time it comes up:
This seems like an instance of where tracking interactions w/ a given {IP,
day} or {hash of browser fingerprint+IP+daily salt} would vastly outweigh
the challenges.  We can support private browsing, or any kind of browsing,
without creating a painful experience [which is also... not likely to
result in a donation].
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Hi John, thank you for the feedback.

The banners you see are continually changing, as we refine our designs
based on feedback and efficacy. Donation banners are inherently disruptive,
on any site. We try to minimize the annoyance whilst also maximizing the
effectiveness in order to show as few banners as possible. It's a difficult
balance, and feedback like yours, and the emails and comments we get from
readers, help us out over time.

If you don’t want to see fundraising banners, there are a few options: You
can login to Wikipedia, or click the "close" button in a banner, or visit
our donor thank you page.[1]

If you're browsing in a private-window, this means the browser cannot
remember (save in a cookie) that you clicked "close" or saw the banner
already, hence you might be seeing more banners than most readers would.

Thanks again,
Nick

[1] https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thank_You

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:56 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> the top.
>
> /jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Nick "Quiddity" Wilson (he/him)
Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Pierre-Yves Beaudouin via Wikimedia-l]

We should create a rule that state that each discussion on wikimedia-l
will end with "it's the fault of WMF!" ;)

The problem of viewing
several banners at the same time happens because some community members
still use Sitenotice. I think that it's a bad idea and that they should
only use Centralnotice. 

Pyb

Le 2020-05-04 17:26, Robert Fernandez a
écrit :

> I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered
logging in?
> 
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM John Erling Blad
 wrote:
> 
>> Often I surf Wikipedia without being
logged in, and so I did right now. I
>> got the usual banners, but this
time they popped up repeatedly in several
>> locations. This quickly
gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
>> Create one banner, and
stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
>> the top.
>> 
>>
/jeblad
>> ___
>>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to:
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Robert Fernandez]

I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered logging in?

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> the top.
>
> /jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Countless editors, myself included, have complained about this over the years. 

Regarding the WMF's response, actions speak louder than words. 



On May 4, 2020, at 7:55 AM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> the top.
> 
> /jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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