[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 47 -- 03 December 2014

[Wikipedia Signpost]

Featured content: ABCD: Any Body Can Dance!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-03/Featured_content

In the media: Embroidery and cheese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-03/In_the_media

Op-ed: Who edits health-related content on Wikipedia and why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-03/Op-ed

Traffic report: Turkey and a movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-03/Traffic_report

WikiProject report: Today on the island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-03/WikiProject_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-03


https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[svetlana]

Hi all.

Not doing propaganda is in the core of Wikimedia mission. I am not hurt by how 
big the banner is. I am hurt by its bias, bias of two types — lack of 
neutrality, and bias by lack of detail. I believe that the WMF should make the 
banner more informative and more neutral (including explanations how people may 
get involved with Chapters, IEG grants, and structured feedback Lila and others 
recently started asking what people need).

-- 
svetlana

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Samuel Klein]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian 
>
> > Will investment in the Content Translation
> > tool affect the balance between enwiki and local wiki pageviews going
> > forward?
> >
>
> That would be one long-term effect to watch for, I think!
>

I was blown away by the progress in the Content Translation tools +
interfaces that I saw a couple of months ago.  These are beautiful and
empowering; they deserve very wide use indeed.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Gendergap-I] Re: Fundraising banners (again)

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 14-12-06 04:44 AM, K. Peachey wrote:

The view at 3200x1800http://i.imgur.com/IY28Tmp.png


... yes?  Your point is?

Clearly the banner was constructed to occupy the width of the window, 
and it's height will be proportional to that (taking into account font 
metrics).


I'm no fan of the current banners - if only because they place too much 
emphasis on money and not enough on other ways to contribute - but the 
current conspiracy theories have descended from hyperbole into complete 
discconect from reality theory.


-- Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To donate or not

[Anthony Cole]

A similar line from the UK's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/11276717/Dashwood-Ladbrokes-on-the-inside-track-for-bookies-next-CEO.html

Quote:

Dashwood was confused to see a large banner ad flashing up on *the
Wikipedia homepage * last week. The
site was asking visitors for money, claiming that it “survives” on
donations averaging about $15.

“To protect our independence, we’ll never run ads,” said Wikipedia’s online
ad. “If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be
done within an hour.”

But Wikipedia hardly needs to scrabble around for small change. Latest
accounts for the Wikimedia Foundation, which controls the online library,
report revenues of $52.8m in the year to June, up from $48.6m in 2013, with
cash and “cash equivalents” up $5.7m to $27.9m.

The foundation also spent more than $680,000 on office furniture – a $2,862
allowance for each of its 239 paid employees. Presumably, the “small
non-profit” organisation doesn’t shop at Ikea.


Anthony Cole 


On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:14 AM, svetlana  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Milos Rancic wrote:
> > For example, I am sure that there are many people outside who
> > would be willing to donate ~$10/month if they don't have to think
> > about that (i.e., opt-in for monthly charge).
>
> I think that's precisely what happens to Chapters membership. And Chapters
> members probably have a say (?) in what the Chapters do. There is no
> Wikimedia membership, however.
>
> --
> svetlana
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Anthony Cole]

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 survival in perpetuity. If your foundation
were to disappear tomorrow, there would be a moment of chaos, followed by
business as usual, with hosting supplied by another (possibly
pre-existing), hopefully competent non-profit with a mission to educate.

I'm very optimistic that Lila is turning things around, but all we have to
go on at the moment is the past performance of your foundation. Your
failure of a foundation that has added nothing to the reliability and value
of the world's encyclopedia, while sucking up hundreds of millions of
readers' dollars does not deserve immortality, based on its performance up
to now. Consider an endowment fund when you have a track record that
justifies one.







Anthony Cole 


On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM, K. Peachey  wrote:

> On 6 December 2014 at 20:47, Gerard Meijssen 
> 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 don't cover up whole screens
> or over half (like in my case). We have seemed to do alright with smaller
> [screen wise] ads in previous years, which we could more efftively target
> rather then pushing people away.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[K. Peachey]

On 6 December 2014 at 20:47, Gerard Meijssen 
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 don't cover up whole screens
or over half (like in my case). We have seemed to do alright with smaller
[screen wise] ads in previous years, which we could more efftively target
rather then pushing people away.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 an
annoyance that this is not realised.

I wholeheartedly want the WMF to spend more money in order to achieve more.
We do not realise our vision. We are not yet sharing in the sum of all
knowledge. We can share the knowledge that is available to us and THAT is
something we can realise more of this year.

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

On 6 December 2014 at 10:50, Russavia  wrote:

> 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 book permanently available for the next generation. It’s is a
> small amount to inform millions. Help us do more. Thank you."
>
> Sorry, $75? :)
>
> They also give a shoutout to WMF for making the fundraising banner
> open source. Thanks for nothing WMF for making this intrusive begging
> the future of online fundraising. ;)
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:11 AM, phoebe ayers 
> 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.
> >
> > Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
> >
> > ==communication re: fundraising season==
> > * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team
> > already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> > * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> > communicate it to the stakeholders
> > * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged
> > that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
> > * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
> > at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
> > jobs"
> >
> > ==message content==
> > * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
> > the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
> > * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
> > go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [note, I'm
> > not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
> > because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
> > crisis terms.]
> > * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
> > clear/is too American [the latter is a problem esp. with English
> > Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
> > * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
> > * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
> > who get a/b tested
> > * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
> > demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
> > because of above points.
> >
> > ==banner size==
> > * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
> > * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this
> point]
> > * banners that obscure content are no good [note, though we agree on
> > the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
> > banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
> >  * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
> >
> > ==brand image==
> > * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
> > content points
> > * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
> > * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
> > worth exploring]
> > * user sentiment analysis is important [possible action point: maybe
> > user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
> > tests?]
> > * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
> > [note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
> > have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
> > Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
> > unusual in that way].
> >
> > ==data==
> > * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> > * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> > * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> > past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
> > * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've
> > been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> > the 

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

[Russavia]

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 book permanently available for the next generation. It’s is a
small amount to inform millions. Help us do more. Thank you."

Sorry, $75? :)

They also give a shoutout to WMF for making the fundraising banner
open source. Thanks for nothing WMF for making this intrusive begging
the future of online fundraising. ;)

Russavia


On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:11 AM, phoebe ayers  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.
>
> Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
>
> ==communication re: fundraising season==
> * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team
> already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
> * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
> communicate it to the stakeholders
> * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged
> that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
> * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
> at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
> jobs"
>
> ==message content==
> * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
> the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
> * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
> go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [note, I'm
> not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
> because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
> crisis terms.]
> * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
> clear/is too American [the latter is a problem esp. with English
> Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
> * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
> * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
> who get a/b tested
> * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
> demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
> because of above points.
>
> ==banner size==
> * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
> * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point]
> * banners that obscure content are no good [note, though we agree on
> the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
> banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
>  * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
>
> ==brand image==
> * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
> content points
> * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
> * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
> worth exploring]
> * user sentiment analysis is important [possible action point: maybe
> user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
> tests?]
> * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
> [note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
> have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
> Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
> unusual in that way].
>
> ==data==
> * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
> * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
> * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
> past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
> * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've
> been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
> the shorter fundraiser]
>
> ---
>
> Other questions for me:
> Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
> weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
> approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
> secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
> most exciting discussion.
>
> Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
> papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
> it to you if I did.
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Gendergap-I] Re: Fundraising banners (again)

[K. Peachey]

The view at 3200x1800 http://i.imgur.com/IY28Tmp.png

On 6 December 2014 at 17:59, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> Why would you need an "IT team" to track the A/B testing? 100% of the code
> for the banners and banner delivery is publicly accessible and there is a
> detailed automatically-generated log of all changes to fundraising banners
> and campaigns (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralNoticeLogs).
> If you want anybody to believe your asinine conspiracy theories, you're
> going to need to point to some code to prove it.
>
> Kaldari
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Site Admin <1924@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear David
> >
> > This is yet another example of how Wikipedia is seriously broken
> >
> > Here is a screenshot of a deliberate full screen advt being thrust on
> > the global south.
> > http://i.imgur.com/2J0FgAP.jpg
> >
> > Our IT team has extensively engaged in tracking the A-B testing WMF is
> > doing.
> > Here are some raw findings
> >
> > 1. WMF seems able to access Google's data base API to target logged-in
> > Google
> > users for their ads text content and initial banner size.
> >
> > 2. Males get larger banners then females.
> >
> > 3. Persons in UK and India get a large percentage of full screen ads.
> > Something to do with
> >
> > 4. Multiple viewed pages get these advts. In other words they don't
> > stop / give up after you've clicked the "X" and said "no".
> >
> > 5. Logged in Wikipedian declared females {we had a tiny sample
> > size on this} got advts no larger than 25% screen size.
> >
> > 6. The more "males" refuse these advts by clicking the "X",
> > the larger the advt size on your next visit. In one case, an
> > especially persistent "no" sayer, the banner width was 8x his
> > actual screen width.
> >
> > HRA1924
> >
> > On 12/5/14, David Gerard  wrote:
> > > Just used a not-logged-in browser for once. Literally the whole page
> > > was the ad. It was startlingly obnoxious. I'm sure you can get
> > > startling click-through rates with an ad that appears to completely
> > > replace the thing you actually went to the page for.
> > >
> > > - d
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Gender Gap" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to gender-gap+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Gendergap-I] Re: Fundraising banners (again)

[Ryan Kaldari]

Why would you need an "IT team" to track the A/B testing? 100% of the code
for the banners and banner delivery is publicly accessible and there is a
detailed automatically-generated log of all changes to fundraising banners
and campaigns (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralNoticeLogs).
If you want anybody to believe your asinine conspiracy theories, you're
going to need to point to some code to prove it.

Kaldari

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Site Admin <1924@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear David
>
> This is yet another example of how Wikipedia is seriously broken
>
> Here is a screenshot of a deliberate full screen advt being thrust on
> the global south.
> http://i.imgur.com/2J0FgAP.jpg
>
> Our IT team has extensively engaged in tracking the A-B testing WMF is
> doing.
> Here are some raw findings
>
> 1. WMF seems able to access Google's data base API to target logged-in
> Google
> users for their ads text content and initial banner size.
>
> 2. Males get larger banners then females.
>
> 3. Persons in UK and India get a large percentage of full screen ads.
> Something to do with
>
> 4. Multiple viewed pages get these advts. In other words they don't
> stop / give up after you've clicked the "X" and said "no".
>
> 5. Logged in Wikipedian declared females {we had a tiny sample
> size on this} got advts no larger than 25% screen size.
>
> 6. The more "males" refuse these advts by clicking the "X",
> the larger the advt size on your next visit. In one case, an
> especially persistent "no" sayer, the banner width was 8x his
> actual screen width.
>
> HRA1924
>
> On 12/5/14, David Gerard  wrote:
> > Just used a not-logged-in browser for once. Literally the whole page
> > was the ad. It was startlingly obnoxious. I'm sure you can get
> > startling click-through rates with an ad that appears to completely
> > replace the thing you actually went to the page for.
> >
> > - d
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Gender Gap" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to gender-gap+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,