Not really, if you give your eyes to blogosphere global and hence
multingual, including mine. I hope some would go through mine to the
fundraising page, and some of trackbacks to my entry were clearly
positive (I've donated them, you can do too) too.
It is still anectodal, but I think it good to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk wrote:
geni geni...@gmail.com writes:
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk:
Now we can agree that fundraising banners that size are apparently
effective which is good but thankyou banners that size less so. If a
thank
And - the banners should now be gone in all languages.
In the coming days weeks we'll discuss what a consistent,
non-obnoxious but visible Donate / We're a non-profit link could
look like across projects. (Right now we have a Donate link in the
sidebar, and some projects have experimented with
Erik Moeller wrote:
As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to
volunteers like yourself), and I hope that we will continue to
Erik Moeller wrote:
As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to
volunteers like yourself), and I hope that we will continue
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Calling it a 23-people organization suggests a growing chasm between
the volunteers and the hired hands.
Well, I do indeed feel that chasm too, although perhaps it's more a
case of a felt distance between the foundation
on 1/8/09 4:30 AM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote:
The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten that
people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the
heart, it cannot live.
Marc Riddell
When this sort of thread
2009/1/7 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
In that regard, one thought I have had is to create an identified
place (on Meta for example) to solicit questions and feedback about
the fundraiser from potential donors (and community members) with
volunteers to respond.
A lot of that happened
Who is responsible for the code behind the fundraiser? I have a few
proposals he or she may like. Its too late for this fundraiser but would
help on the future ones
Additionally I think the foundation should set a donation goal for the end
of the year. Not as a begathon like the 6 mil one but
Hoi,
I think the foundation did great with the last fundraiser. When we
*need *something
like 6 million dollar we should ask for it and it is legitimate to ask for
it. It is really sad that people do not realise how much our aims suffer
from a lack of investment. We need to do better, we can do
2009/1/7 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
A quick update: the Thank You banner is currently scheduled to stay
up until January 9, 4 PM PST. We're keeping it up a while longer in
part because it's the first work week after the holidays for many
people, and in part because it's an opportunity
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/7 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
A quick update: the Thank You banner is currently scheduled to stay
up until January 9, 4 PM PST. We're keeping it up a while longer in
part because it's the first work week after the
2009/1/7 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I think your point was clear, but maybe not. Please restate it for me more
clearly.
You appear to be under the impression I'm objecting to the donation
banner ads. I'm not. I am however suggesting that while the donation
banner ads are a necessary evil
geni geni...@gmail.com writes:
Because I run daily searches of blogs for the term
wikipedia. Because complaints have turned up all over the place on
wikipedia. Because or editors who also have to read the thing have
gone so far as to have a gadget to get rid of it. Because adblock
which
Supposing every blog post that mentioned 'wikipedia' and 'fundraiser' was
negative, there would be 69,978.
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=wikipedia+fundraiser
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mathias Schindler
mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Brian
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk:
Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your
assesment. And since you haven't mentioned it by now,
geni geni...@gmail.com writes:
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk:
Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your
assesment. And since
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk:
geni geni...@gmail.com writes:
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk:
Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
this fact into the equation
Anecdotally, I thought it was about the same, but I did notice a LOT
more questioning of what the money was going to. Like you, just
impressions, no facts to back it up.
-Dan
On Jan 7, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Brian
geni writes:
It is also a opportunity to further annoy our readers. IT's pretty
clear they don't like it
and you know this because...?
Because I run daily searches of blogs for the term wikipedia. Because
complaints have turned up all over the place on wikipedia. Because or
editors who
2009/1/7 Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com:
Anecdotally, I thought it was about the same, but I did notice a LOT
more questioning of what the money was going to. Like you, just
impressions, no facts to back it up.
Perhaps so - an absolute increase of scrutiny is certainly to be
expected as
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Mathias Schindler
mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I challenge you to find 1% as many negative blog posts regarding the
fundraiser as there are positive comments left by donors.
Apart
23 matches
Mail list logo
