It could be worse. Internet archive is running their banners at moment. Quote:
Internet Archive is a non-profit. We don’t run ads, but still need to
pay for servers and staff. If everyone reading this gave $75, we could
end our fundraiser right now. For the cost of buying a book, you can
make a
Hoi,
I am really pleased that we have continuously enough money to do what needs
to be done. I am really pleased that the Dutch can deduct their gifts from
the tax man. As far as I know (from the moment this was arranged), it is
possible to have a European status for the WMF as well. Now that is
On 6 December 2014 at 20:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Whining about effective fundraising is just that.. Please help us with
approaches that bring in the additional money to do even more in stead.
Thanks,
GerardM
Oh, I don't know, maybe have smaller ads which
Phoebe, you said, ... in our meeting the board discussed whether we
should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
(which I personally think is wise, given current trends).
Phoebe and Samuel, I would be very concerned if your foundation created an
endowment fund to ensure its
A slight tangent: I did a quick Google search to try and refresh my memory
about the Wikipedia Forever thing, and these were the results:
http://imgur.com/7AU8kTp.
I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
fundraising message as a summary.
Cheers,
Michel
On 4 December
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
fundraising message as a summary.
Yep, this is very problematic. Even though the content is
JavaScript-generated, Google crawls it unless it's explicitly
Dear Ms. Ayers
Thanks for informing you are also a WMF trustee like Sam and you
concede that.these controversial banners are in your face.
Sam's last email had this remark concerning the poster below:-
PS: The poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm, now blocked from en:wp,
which has
Mr. Admin,
I fully support both transparency and free speech, and would never
suggest that you should be denied the right to ask the questions
you're asking. I can, however, object to your use of the mailing list
I administer (as a volunteer, in anticipation of your likely response)
to ask those
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@... writes:
Hello! Sorry, I didn't realize that's what you were referring to. I
haven't looked at all the raw fundraising data, no, and I haven't
looked at that set that Lila refers to. (The reports we get are
summaries, which is much preferable when you've got a
Hello all,
I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
==communication re:
On 5 December 2014 at 17:35, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not asking for the Foundation to stop the banners. I'm not trying to
make the fundraising team's life harder. What I want is acknowledgement that
there is indeed a problem and that it will be addressed for next fundraiser.
I
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
To others I imagine it reads like those spam emails with Have you seen
this article? in the subject line with spoofed email addresses.
Thank you for keeping working on this, and not getting pulled into emotion.
Thanks for this, Phoebe. It's a good summary.
(And if you could be so kind as to nudge Tilman about the 2012 editor
survey data - it's been over two years - and let the Gendergap list know
what the gender split was in that survey, it would be much appreciated.)
Andreas
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@... writes:
I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.
This is great. Thank you!
Anything else I missed?
Just seen online:
http://emptylighthouse.com/wikipedia-asks-users-help-keep-it-ad-free-fundraiser-344432888
---o0o---
If you've visited *Wikipedia.org* any time today you will have met up with
a *plea from the website. In order for the company to stay ad-free they
have appealed to their users
Phoebe - that's a great summary.
those unlucky souls who get a/b tested
There's a tradeoff here with not storing any cookies.
[Also, a couple people online say they still see a banner after donating]
current messages are seen as harming image
we want all the data, because...
Also: We all
Hello WMF
We agree with the previous posters RYAN about lack of transparency,
and COMPLETE INEFFICIENCY and arrogance in communications by/to/with
your communities and volunteers.
Please inform and educate why anonymous WMF communities are writing
false, concocted and fabricated articles about
This is a good thread -- it's important to be unified in our message, proud
of it, and aware of how broadly it spreads. Every campaign both raises
some funds for the project, gives supporters an opportunity to talk about
Wiki*edia with their friends, and shifts public perception of who we are,
Dear Mr. Klein
PS: The poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm, now blocked from en:wp,
which has started spamming WM mailing lists (see the India list) and is
squatting the site http://www.wikimedia.xyz/ . Please do not feed, and
moderate as needed.
As a WMF Trustee, we suggest that you
On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au
wrote:
John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
i.e. specifically asking
previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped
contributing
whether they feel the increase in funds has not
I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wording
assuming the current word count do so and after you pick top 3-5 we can
pilot with one of our next user groups.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru
wrote:
On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
i.e. specifically asking
previously highly productive
Just for reference, John is correct - our website has been having technical
issues lately, which sometimes results in old revisions being made
visible. I can confirm that John is not on the board of WMAU:
I checked my inbox today to find a note from a friend asking if
Wikipedia was okay. My reply was essentially Wikipedia is fine, if you
want to donate, make an edit or two.
I wonder how many Wikimedians are getting the same notes of concern. I'd
be quite surprised, for example, if Wikimedia
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I checked my inbox today to find a note from a friend asking if
Wikipedia was okay. My reply was essentially Wikipedia is fine, if you
want to donate, make an edit or two.
I wonder how many Wikimedians are getting the same
With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
financial health and
I think this discussion and the uproar is only in part because of the
wordings used, the size of the banners (which are maybe terrible, and I get
exhausted from seeing the banner all year round because I have bad luck to
be in so many test groups somehow). A big chunk is about the usual:
Lila, when you say, pilot with one of our next user groups, when would
this pilot happen, and whom/how many people would this pilot user group
comprise?
Best,
Andreas
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I recommend those of you who would like to come up with
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@... writes:
With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
concerned about and invested in our projects'
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@... writes:
With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:49 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
I'm seeing
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@... writes:
You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has
nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data
that shows that well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they
have a good donation rate. And if there was, why
On 12/5/14, 1:07 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
For me, the problem is with the combined impact of the phrase ask our
readers to help us, the word survive and the words keep it online and
ad-free for another year.
Yes, I've found myself in awkward discussions caused by this as well.
One person I
Hi,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 17:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
svetlana, 03/12/2014 23:20:
It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try
talking to the Fundraising Team.
{{citation needed}}
Go look at the number of people who tried on fundraiser@,
phoebe ayers, 04/12/2014 23:20:
Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we
should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
There is so much to say about this let's milk the cow before it's too
old approach that it's definitely out of scope for
On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
Megan Hernandez mhernandez@... writes:
As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising
campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the
mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign,
* Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as
quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the
yearly donation drive as short as possible.
Considering the rate at which the Foundation and its Chapters increase
and
Martijn Hoekstra, 03/12/2014 10:13:
I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
coincidence with this one, that would help.
Why December? Fundraising banners are up all year long. Due to the
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners
are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger
and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is
I don't think anyone is surprised when the Reg publishes a negative article
about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Someone there seems to have had an axe to grind
for years.
But in this case, we certainly need to stop giving them the ammo.
Regards,
Charles
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe
Note that there is a parallel e-mail campaign, which also seems to have
ruffled some feathers.
https://twitter.com/williampietri/status/539861727517868032
As shown in the screenshot of that tweet, the sender is Jimmy Wales,
Wikipedia, and the wording begins:
---o0o---
Dear name,
Thank you for
On Dec 3, 2014 12:00 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Martijn Hoekstra, 03/12/2014 10:13:
I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around
10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly
coincidence with this one, that would
Nicely put Martijn. Many a true word is spoken in jest.
Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email)
as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your
work. You should continue to take great personal pride in the crucial role
you play to make
No response yet :(
2014-12-03 16:09 GMT+03:00 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com:
-*Internationalism*: ...our fundraising practices must support the easiest
possible transfer of money internationally. Instead, we've had the recent
discussions about how donating is difficult from the Netherlands
Hoi.
The chapters are not relevant here. It is only the WMF who raises funds.
With more chapters the public is better served. Now THAT is worth the money
we are asking for.
Also the fundraising is NOT for Wikipedia. It is for the whole of our
movement and for all of our products.
Thanks,
Good points.
Many people feel sincere gratitude towards Wikipedia, and its volunteer
writers.
I would suggest that the fundraising messages could *also* mention that
another way people can express their gratitude to Wikipedia would be to
become contributors themselves.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at
Hi all,
This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
thinking about other options. But, as with anything, every action has
equal and opposite reaction. Anything we do, we have to consider the
consequences and we will find flaws.
Now for the specifics:
Yes -- the
Lila Tretikov lila@... writes:
This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
thinking about other options. But, as with anything, every action has
equal and opposite reaction. Anything we do, we have to consider the
consequences and we will find flaws.
Now for
Hi Lila,
Thanks for your response. In the past, fundraising was more of a
collaborative effort - maybe it would make sense to rethink the fundraising
process after this round, and see how the community can be made co-own the
process, so that the work of the team becomes easier, and friction less.
It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try talking
to the Fundraising Team.
Is it time to rename Teams to something else, something that suggests that they
don't work in a cave on the Moon?
--
svetlana
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 08:32, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Lila,
I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in
mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is
otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources,
many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)
Below is a soundbite I
I have no doubt that the banners work. But in the opinion of a number of
commentators here, the banners currently feature a very alarming wording –
making it sound as though there is not enough money to keep Wikipedia
online for another year without introducing advertising – and yet we know
that
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in
mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is
otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources,
many
John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
i.e. specifically asking
previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
being adequately supported?
Thanks for your great wording, John.
I belong to this category
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
i.e. specifically asking
previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work
being adequately
Hi,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 12:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
i.e. specifically asking
previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing
whether they feel the
Lila Tretikov lila@... writes:
I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in
mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is
otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources,
many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean
Hi all.
I can see clear interest in everyone on this thread wanting to figure out the
right way to do it. Let's not jinx it by painting WMF Fundraising as the guys
who break and community as the gwho rage. Both these groups are rather
capable of working things out (unlike the ...who break and
I wrote:
it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their
rage instead of communicating it early
I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say:
it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for
accumulating their rage instead of
svetlana svetlana@... writes:
I wrote:
it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating
their rage instead of
communicating it early
I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say:
it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for
Ryan Lane,
The whole of your post suggests that the fundraising folks are deaf. Your last
sentence doesn't make you more to the point. This makes you really
unapproachable and puts the fundraising folks into harder position as they have
to cry, beg pardon and spend time apologizing -- as if
Just as an aside - tweets about the fundraiser don't appear to be the best
source for informed commentary:
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtimeq=wikipedia%20donationssrc=typd
Examples:
Wikipedia is begging for $3 donations? That screams 'Hey, we're in a
little trouble over here'.
Silly
Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update. Fundraising trends and data
are always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and
test local messages.
I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team, who
have made great progress over the last few years – in
Hi all,
As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising
campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the
mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our goals
this year to-date.
Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of
On 2 December 2014 at 06:53, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
And how exactly would you describe this then?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oversized_donation_notice.png
--
geni
___
On 2 December 2014 at 20:27, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2014 at 06:53, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
And how exactly would you describe this then?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oversized_donation_notice.png
* geni wrote:
On 2 December 2014 at 06:53, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
And how exactly would you describe this then?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oversized_donation_notice.png
I got something like that on my mobile phone
Megan Hernandez mhernandez@... writes:
As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising
campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the
mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our goals
this year to-date.
Starting
Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. Advertising isn't evil
they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down.
https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481
Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*.
What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect
Ori Livneh wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's
values.
I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
the underlying sentiment.
What happened to we make the
All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of those
in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a
quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
fundraising.
Just to cover some basic
Thanks Lila, most enlightening.
And as always when it comes to WMFs fundraising efforts, most impressive
work being done! And metrics in the new quarterly report will be much
appreciated.
Anders
Lila Tretikov skrev den 2014-12-02 07:53:
All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
I know
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's
values.
I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
the underlying sentiment.
I agree that the urgency and alarm of the
I'm going to second Liam's comment here, it is disappointing that we're
discussing this here but the Foundation is not coming to the party and
explaining why they are doing these things. They're creating an
information void, and a void *will* be filled somehow; if the WMF is not
proactive in
Hi everyone,
Sending an update to let you know that we've heard your concerns and to
thank you for your feedback. We're working on some new banners including a
version without the overlay to try out based on feedback you've shared.
Our banners are always a work in progress, they will continue to
Megan Hernandez wrote:
Sending an update to let you know that we've heard your concerns and to
thank you for your feedback. We're working on some new banners including
a version without the overlay to try out based on feedback you've shared.
Our banners are always a work in progress, they will
You know, I think I'll pass on the actual content of the message that talks
about Commercial not being a Monster and The Bad. (and yes I know,
these are in a negative sentence but... seriously?).
This banner looks like an obituary I find. Where are the cool banners on
green leafy foresty
*TL;DR - If you're going to change something, inform the people who will be
affected before you change it!*
Interestingly, I have a different understanding of the text when I read it
- I find it to be a positive message and those words that you singled out
have different tones depending on their
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
I am however negatively-struck by the finishing statement, a return to the
old motto of keep us online without advertising for one more year. I
thought that we had collectively agreed that banners that directly threaten
Hi All --
A quick note to all of you. Please keep in mind this is one of the A/B
test, the design changes daily based on data/performance results. The team
will let you know which variations will be available next week, although
even those will change daily.
This is not to stifle this discussion
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi All --
A quick note to all of you. Please keep in mind this is one of the A/B
test, the design changes daily based on data/performance results. The team
will let you know which variations will be available next week,
These banners are problematic in that they are likely to trigger automatic
filtering of Wikimedia sites by certain types/brands of net
nanny/anti-spam/security software - including software used by many
employers, schools and libraries. And once the sites are filtered/blocked,
it will be
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:33 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be
incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not
cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool.
MZMcBride
I
On 26 November 2014 at 20:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png
Gah.
Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
David Gerard wrote:
Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?
Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say (again)
in the subject line. ;-)
There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these
banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused
86 matches
Mail list logo
