Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Toby Negrin]

Hi Folks --

I would suggest that if you are unhappy with the banners you apply your
energy to the annual planning process[1]. As long as the budget goes up 20%
year over year and page views fall, the Fundraising team will need to crank
up the banners.

It's worth pointing out that Fundraising is one of the strongest voices for
fiscal restraint at the Foundation.

-Toby

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> I want to be clear about my previous message -- I am not questioning any
> individual person's integrity in the process, and I know from firsthand
> experience that a tremendous amount of good work goes into this stuff. But
> I think the process that has evolved around developing the campaign is
> broken.
>
> In Megan's message, I see a great deal of emphasis on the specific points
> that are attributable to community suggestions/requests. But there is a
> bigger point that gets lost: It's not about where the ideas come from, it's
> about whether the final result "gets it right."
>
> If the WMF produced mission-compatible banners without any community
> consultation at all, I'd be happy, and I think most others would be too.
> Running an open process is not the right way to measure success here. An
> open process is one of many ways to surface problems, and maybe to generate
> ideas; but it's not the be-all end-all.
>
> The fund-raising department is clearly held accountable on its
> easily-measured performance. It needs to also be held accountable to the
> mission. How to do that is a difficult design and management problem, and I
> don't pretend to have the perfect answer. But it's something that needs to
> be done.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > I agree, that banner does not reflect the values of this movement. Pure
> > and simple; it's not a grey area, and not worth my time to discuss for
> the
> > 97th time.
> >
> > Personally, I long ago gave up participating in these discussions, for
> the
> > most part -- because the same valid points get made over and over again,
> > and the same *AWFUL* errors are made year after year in the fund-raising
> > campaign.
> >
> > Leila's post here is heartening, and I'm glad that somebody has the
> energy
> > to articulate the concerns so well. I, myself, do not; I have simply lost
> > faith in the integrity of the Wikimedia Foundation's fund-raising
> > operation. I am, honestly, ashamed to tell people that I used to work in
> > the fund-raising department there (though I believe the work we did was
> > valuable).
> >
> > I recently heard from a high-ranking executive at a software company. She
> > told me that she had given money to the Wikimedia Foundation, and then
> > looked into the WMF's budget, and the messages in the campaign she had
> > responded to. The word she used to describe her feeling was "mortified."
> > She had considered asking for her money back, but had decided against it.
> >
> > Fortunately, she was sophisticated enough not apply her negative feelings
> > to Wikipedia, but rather to the Wikimedia Foundation. But can the WMF
> > afford to assume that will always be the case?
> >
> > Apparently, the thinking thus far is, "yes."
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Megan,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during
> >> Q1.
> >> My comments below.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <
> mhernan...@wikimedia.org
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand
> new
> >> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and
> >> > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the
> fundraising
> >> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the
> >> > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best-
> >> > performing banner from last quarter.
> >>
> >>
> >> I saw that banner and I want to do all I can to help you not use it even
> >> if
> >> it performs 20% better. I put my story in p.s. so it's easier to skip
> for
> >> whoever chooses to skip. This is a true story. :-\
> >>
> >>
> >> > Better performing banners are required
> >> > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue
> testing
> >> new
> >> > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've said this couple of times in the past through different channels
> >> (sorry to those of you who have heard this before) but I think it's key
> to
> >> repeat it here just so we are all clear about what we know and what we
> >> don't know.
> >>
> >> We know that our pageviews are not growing globally (depending on how
> you
> >> look at the trend and predictions, they are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Paolo B.]

Hi Liang,

Ellie did reach out to Josh recently regarding the Manila bid (after which
Josh relayed the message to our team) and, supposedly, she is also reaching
out to members of the Bali and Perth bids. We (in the Manila team) are
still discussing this, so I am not at liberty to provide further details at
this point.


Best regards,

Paolo Barazòn
Wikimedia Philippines

On Saturday, October 10, 2015, Liang-chih Shang Kuan 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I want to kindly ask a follow up on the issue Isabella Apriana has
> mentioned - "...it's not official yet for Montreal, but seems like
> there's nothing we can do about 2017 now because community discussion is
> expected to focus on 2018-2021."
>
> Is that true? Should all the bid team except Montreal stop to spend their
> energy for the 2017 bid anymore, or should they keep contact the local
> venue and service providers to have a better research on their bid?
>
> I personally really want to have another Wikimania in Asia (if so, I won't
> have big jet lag issue, haha), I see WMID is putting some lot of efforts of
> their organization on the bid process (I was having a meeting with them for
> 2 hours to know better about the venue situation in Bali), so I ask this
> question. Just want to make sure how the follow up should go for the
> bidders before the community consultation in November to prevent burned out
> and reduce feeling of frustration.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Liang, Wikimedia Taiwan
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Leila Zia]

Hi Lodewijk,

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

>
> I'm a little confused though, so I hope you (or someone else) can clarify
> something for me: what does a campaign look like these days? Because I'm
> seeing banners all year round (I live in the Netherlands, maybe that makes
> a difference), every now and then. But I also understood that the campaigns
> nowadays are more sophisticated, and don't show the banner 100% any longer,
> but only once per IP/computer/person?
>

The Fundraising team can better address this but since we're in a long
weekend, I'll say as much as I know:
There are different kinds of campaigns, ones that go constantly in a
country for a period of time, those that go on for a sample of the traffic
in a country for a specific period of time. The team is trying to spread
the effort across the year so all our eggs are not in one basket which is
December. :-)

In terms of frequency, I think the team experiments with different banner
frequencies. We know that if you see the banner more than 5 times, banner
fatigue will take over. So, I think we are mostly testing with showing
banners less than 5 times. For the December campaign in the US last year,
if I remember correctly, you would see it once big, and then after that as
a little bar on top of the page until you would close it or donate.

Leila


> Thanks,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Megan Hernandez  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There's a new Q1 fundraising update on meta
> >  and
> > posted here as well.
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation has just wrapped up the first quarter of the
> > 2015-16 fiscal year. Over these past three months, the fundraising team
> has
> > been running ran campaigns in Japan, Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa,
> > Belgium and Luxembourg and prepared for the upcoming year-end English
> > fundraising campaign. The online fundraising team missed the $6 million
> > goal for the quarter due to postponing the Italy fundraiser to October to
> > support the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. We raised roughly $5.7 million
> > in the first quarter of the year and plan to make up for the loss in the
> > next quarter. The 2014-15 fiscal year fundraising report
> >  was
> > also posted in this quarter. If you haven’t read it yet, please do check
> > out the report for a wealth of information on the last fiscal year.
> >
> > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand new
> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and
> > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the fundraising
> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the
> > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best-
> > performing banner from last quarter. Better performing banners are
> required
> > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing
> new
> > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.
> >
> > The banner message has also been updated with suggestions from the
> > Wikimedia community. Thank you to everyone who has suggested improvements
> > so far! We have changed “We survive on donations averaging about $15” to
> > “We are sustained by donations averaging about $15.” We’ve also changed
> > “Please help us end the fundraiser and get back to improving Wikipedia”
> to
> > “Please help us end the fundraiser and improve Wikipedia.” These message
> > edits did not positively or negatively affect donations and were made in
> > response to community feedback. In the past, we have also relied on
> > community feedback to improve our campaigns. In the last year, community
> > feedback has led to improvements to the usability of the close X icon
> and a
> > new line to highlight the editing community, “Wikipedia is written by a
> > community of volunteers with a passion for sharing the world’s
> knowledge.”
> > All of these community suggestions remain in the banner. Another sentence
> > that was briefly tested on a small percentage of users about a year ago
> > that received negative community feedback was “If everyone reading this
> > gave $3, we could keep it online and ad-free another year.” We did not
> end
> > up using that sentence for the campaign and we commit to not using it in
> > any future campaign. In the next quarter, we are planning many more
> message
> > tests -- with both brand new ideas as well as smaller tweaks to the
> > existing text. If you have an idea to test, please share on the 2015-16
> > test ideas page
> > .
> > Thanks again to everyone who has shared ideas so far.
> >
> > This upcoming quarter will be our biggest of the year with campaigns in
> > Italy, France, the US, UK, Canada, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Leila Zia]

Hi Toby,

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Toby Negrin  wrote:

> Hi Folks --
>
> I would suggest that if you are unhappy with the banners you apply your
> energy to the annual planning process[1]. As long as the budget goes up 20%
> year over year and page views fall, the Fundraising team will need to crank
> up the banners.
>

There are few things to address related to your suggestion:

1) Some banners involve messages that can clearly invoke potential donors
to donate for a reason they think they are donating for, but in reality
that reason is not completely valid. Those messages really should not be
shown, whether they are for meeting a budget need or any other reason.
Every person in the movement should agree on this simple statement and
support the Fundraising team for not showing those messages.

2) Banners are our most outward facing signals, especially when they
involve requests for donations. What goes to the banner is the face of the
Movement, not the Foundation (because we know many people don't know what
is the difference between Wikipedia, for example, and the source who is
asking for donation), so it's essential for our many volunteers to get
behind its message. Some things are the matter of taste and we can never
make everyone happy with, some things are more generally understood as
problematic: we need to address those.

3) The argument here is not that the Fundraising team should not crank up,
of course if they are asked to deliver more they should do something
differently. The issue is about the content of the messages and what they
deliver. If the Fundraising techniques with all the correct messages the
Movement can get behind don't deliver as much as the budget requires, then
the Movement should brainstorm about what to do. That conversation can
involve budget cuts, new approaches for raising more money, showing ads,
etc. My point is, we should make this decision together so we can all
support it. Raising money is not the Foundation's problem only, it's the
Movement's problem, and we need to solve it together.

4) The Fundraising team needs to get the budget they need to operate in a
way that is healthy for them and the movement. If they don't, all of us in
the Foundation should help them get the resources they need, if that means
some of us giving 10% of our time to the team, so be it. I'm happy to offer
that time if I see we, as a whole, are willing to make a difference, but I
would advocate for the team getting what they need in the first place
without extra help because it's a critical team.

5) The Fundraising team has been very receptive to my comments (both on the
meta page and offline) and I will talk to them offline some time next week
as well. I'm going to slow down a bit on this thread after couple of more
emails. :-)

Best,
Leila


> -Toby
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > I want to be clear about my previous message -- I am not questioning any
> > individual person's integrity in the process, and I know from firsthand
> > experience that a tremendous amount of good work goes into this stuff.
> But
> > I think the process that has evolved around developing the campaign is
> > broken.
> >
> > In Megan's message, I see a great deal of emphasis on the specific points
> > that are attributable to community suggestions/requests. But there is a
> > bigger point that gets lost: It's not about where the ideas come from,
> it's
> > about whether the final result "gets it right."
> >
> > If the WMF produced mission-compatible banners without any community
> > consultation at all, I'd be happy, and I think most others would be too.
> > Running an open process is not the right way to measure success here. An
> > open process is one of many ways to surface problems, and maybe to
> generate
> > ideas; but it's not the be-all end-all.
> >
> > The fund-raising department is clearly held accountable on its
> > easily-measured performance. It needs to also be held accountable to the
> > mission. How to do that is a difficult design and management problem,
> and I
> > don't pretend to have the perfect answer. But it's something that needs
> to
> > be done.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, that banner does not reflect the values of this movement. Pure
> > > and simple; it's not a grey area, and not worth my time to discuss for
> > the
> > > 97th time.
> > >
> > > Personally, I long ago gave up participating in these discussions, for
> > the
> > > most part -- because the same valid points get made over and over
> again,
> > > and the same *AWFUL* errors are made year after year in the
> fund-raising
> > > campaign.
> > >
> > > Leila's post here is heartening, and I'm glad that somebody has the
> > energy
> > > to articulate the concerns so 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: September 2015

[The 'This Month in GLAM' team]

*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings
within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and
more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums.
You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org.

*This Month in GLAM – Issue IX, Volume V – September 2015*
--

Argentina report: Edit-a-thon & editing challenges
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Argentina_report

Belgium report: Wiki Loves Art; Publications; SOIMA 2015: Unlocking Sound
and Image Heritage
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Belgium_report

France report: Clever September
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/France_report

Germany report: Opening up (with) the Prussians!
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Germany_report

Italy report: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 Italian edition and photographic
archives
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Italy_report

Macedonia report: Bringing Wikipedia closer to animal lovers
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Macedonia_report

Netherlands report: Who's afraid of Jacob van Ruisdael? Various gifts from
Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Netherlands_report

Spain report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Wiki Takes Ayora; Glaming Madrid;
Wikimedia Connection; Creative Commons Valladolid Film Festival
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Spain_report

Sweden report: Books, exhibitions, maritime connections and monuments
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Sweden_report

UK report: Wake me up, when September ends...
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/UK_report

USA report: Edit-a-thon in Seattle
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/USA_report

Open Access report: *Homo naledi*; Wikigate; Open Access Week
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Open_Access_report

Wikidata report: Wikidata this month
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Wikidata_report

Calendar: October's GLAM events
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Contents/Events


--


Single page view
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2015/Single

Twitter
http://twitter.com/ThisMonthinGLAM

Add your story / Work on the next edition
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom


-- 
The *This Month in GLAM* team
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
___
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] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Pine W]

Hi Toby,

I asked several questions about this year's Annual Plan, only some of which
received responses even after multiple pings from me, so I regret to say
that I get the impression that community questions and input on the annual
plan may be brushed aside. I wish that the situation was different. It
seems to me that responding to good-faith community inquiries and comments
about the Annual Plan should be a high priority throughout WMF. I would be
grateful to receive answers to my questions that are still awaiting replies.

Pine
On Oct 10, 2015 12:43 PM, "Toby Negrin"  wrote:

> Hi Folks --
>
> I would suggest that if you are unhappy with the banners you apply your
> energy to the annual planning process[1]. As long as the budget goes up 20%
> year over year and page views fall, the Fundraising team will need to crank
> up the banners.
>
> It's worth pointing out that Fundraising is one of the strongest voices for
> fiscal restraint at the Foundation.
>
> -Toby
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > I want to be clear about my previous message -- I am not questioning any
> > individual person's integrity in the process, and I know from firsthand
> > experience that a tremendous amount of good work goes into this stuff.
> But
> > I think the process that has evolved around developing the campaign is
> > broken.
> >
> > In Megan's message, I see a great deal of emphasis on the specific points
> > that are attributable to community suggestions/requests. But there is a
> > bigger point that gets lost: It's not about where the ideas come from,
> it's
> > about whether the final result "gets it right."
> >
> > If the WMF produced mission-compatible banners without any community
> > consultation at all, I'd be happy, and I think most others would be too.
> > Running an open process is not the right way to measure success here. An
> > open process is one of many ways to surface problems, and maybe to
> generate
> > ideas; but it's not the be-all end-all.
> >
> > The fund-raising department is clearly held accountable on its
> > easily-measured performance. It needs to also be held accountable to the
> > mission. How to do that is a difficult design and management problem,
> and I
> > don't pretend to have the perfect answer. But it's something that needs
> to
> > be done.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, that banner does not reflect the values of this movement. Pure
> > > and simple; it's not a grey area, and not worth my time to discuss for
> > the
> > > 97th time.
> > >
> > > Personally, I long ago gave up participating in these discussions, for
> > the
> > > most part -- because the same valid points get made over and over
> again,
> > > and the same *AWFUL* errors are made year after year in the
> fund-raising
> > > campaign.
> > >
> > > Leila's post here is heartening, and I'm glad that somebody has the
> > energy
> > > to articulate the concerns so well. I, myself, do not; I have simply
> lost
> > > faith in the integrity of the Wikimedia Foundation's fund-raising
> > > operation. I am, honestly, ashamed to tell people that I used to work
> in
> > > the fund-raising department there (though I believe the work we did was
> > > valuable).
> > >
> > > I recently heard from a high-ranking executive at a software company.
> She
> > > told me that she had given money to the Wikimedia Foundation, and then
> > > looked into the WMF's budget, and the messages in the campaign she had
> > > responded to. The word she used to describe her feeling was
> "mortified."
> > > She had considered asking for her money back, but had decided against
> it.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, she was sophisticated enough not apply her negative
> feelings
> > > to Wikipedia, but rather to the Wikimedia Foundation. But can the WMF
> > > afford to assume that will always be the case?
> > >
> > > Apparently, the thinking thus far is, "yes."
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Megan,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done
> during
> > >> Q1.
> > >> My comments below.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <
> > mhernan...@wikimedia.org
> > >> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand
> > new
> > >> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons,
> and
> > >> > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the
> > fundraising
> > >> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended
> the
> > >> > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the
> best-
> > >> > performing banner from last quarter.
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:


> Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during Q1.
> My comments below.
>

Thanks likewise, Megan.  I'm always impressed by your team's work.


> > Better performing banners are required
> > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing
> new
> > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.
>

I think a more pressing response to this is to reduce the budget to get
some breathing room, increase work through partnerships (which Wikimedia
doesn't have to fund entirely on its own), and increase non-banner revenue
streams.

It's also key to improve banner effectiveness.  How nice it would be to
have a composite that combines measures of the favorability of the banner
among readers (most of whom don't donate anyway), mood setting & meme
propagation, and the reduction in usability of the site (which may have an
effect over months), against the immediate fundraising impact.  A banner
that is 5% better with improved favorability among readers may be better
than a banner that is 20% better but with double the unfavorability.

There are thousands of worthy projects that have expanded their budgets as
far as they could, then expand in-your-face banners as far as they can, and
only stop once their sites are quite difficult to use.   It happens
gradually (I'm looking at you, Wikia ;) but the result is the usability
equivalent of linkrot.  Let's not let WP end up like that.

Sam
___
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] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Liang-chih Shang Kuan]

Hi all,

I want to kindly ask a follow up on the issue Isabella Apriana has
mentioned - "...it's not official yet for Montreal, but seems like
there's nothing we can do about 2017 now because community discussion is
expected to focus on 2018-2021."

Is that true? Should all the bid team except Montreal stop to spend their
energy for the 2017 bid anymore, or should they keep contact the local
venue and service providers to have a better research on their bid?

I personally really want to have another Wikimania in Asia (if so, I won't
have big jet lag issue, haha), I see WMID is putting some lot of efforts of
their organization on the bid process (I was having a meeting with them for
2 hours to know better about the venue situation in Bali), so I ask this
question. Just want to make sure how the follow up should go for the
bidders before the community consultation in November to prevent burned out
and reduce feeling of frustration.


Best,


Liang, Wikimedia Taiwan
___
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] [Wikimania-l] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Lodewijk]

Hi Siko,

Thanks for the constructive thoughts.

I agree it is good to focus on the future, and have a good discussion about
this. I hope that chapters and organised groups (who could have higher odds
for bidding/hosting) also discuss this topic, and use that as input. That
way, more people can be included indirectly.

While I do think we should really discuss this, I do also think Esino Lario
is a very brave experiment, and I would like to separate the discussion
between general goals, and how we accomplish them. I expect we will learn
many lessons from Esino Lario based on the very creative approach to the
conference. Some things will work out great, and should be repeated, others
probably give a less enthusiast feeling for repetition. That is nothing to
be ashamed of, because if we never try, we never find out.

So I would like to propose that this consultation does /not/ result in a
very rigid set of criteria and process, but that it focuses on the main
goals, the main ideas what we want with Wikimania - and that we revisit
that shortly after Esino Lario to incorporate those lessons. That also
gives some space to have a real life discussion at Wikimania about this
plan :) It would be nice to have a good set of input for that real life
discussion though!

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Siko Bouterse 
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Just letting you know that I’m reading the recent Wikimania-focused
> mailing list threads with interest, as the Community Resources team is now
> on-point for funding and coordinating WMF’s involvement in Wikimania.
>
> A couple of first thoughts to share:
>
> 1. WMF has learned from past Wikimanias that we need to do our
> due-diligence on venue etc before the host team and location is announced.
> One reason for this is that we have a limited budget for Wikimania, and
> doing a site visit before the host is finalized helps us ensure that we’re
> able to support the costs of the event in a given location. Ellie Young is
> headed to Montreal in 2 weeks and based on what she learns from that visit,
> we’re aiming to give the steering committee what they need to confirm
> selection before the end of 2015. That said, we recognize that
> communications around this haven’t gone as planned, and we are looking into
> improvements…(see thought 2)
>
> 2. We, too, would like to see the movement building towards a shared
> vision of Wikimania! It is great to see so many people, in true
> Wikimedian-style, thinking about big-picture questions of participation,
> representation, and content at Wikimania. Knowing that mailing list
> discussions have their limits, here’s how my team is thinking about
> collecting feedback more systematically for this going forward:
>
> We’ll be launching a community consultation in November to help build
> towards more shared vision and process improvements for Wikimania 2018 -
> 2021. Two key inputs we’ve been thinking about using to launch that
> conversation are 1) responses from the survey of last Wikimania’s attendees
> and 2) the steering committee’s recommendation for host selection going
> forward.
>
> We’re still regrouping from the latest Resources Consultation, and will
> begin planning for a Wikimania Consultation next week, so after that we’ll
> be able to share more information about what this consultation will look
> like and the exact timeline. Meanwhile, suggestions and open questions that
> you’d like to see resolved via this consultation are most welcome in this
> thread. My hope is that a consultation will help broaden participation in
> these conversations and get us from input to action.
>
> Warm regards,
> Siko
>
> --
> Siko Bouterse
> Director of Community Resources
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> sboute...@wikimedia.org
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. *
> *Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
> and help us make it a reality!*
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-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] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Lodewijk]

Hi Megan,

Thanks for sharing the update.

I'm a little confused though, so I hope you (or someone else) can clarify
something for me: what does a campaign look like these days? Because I'm
seeing banners all year round (I live in the Netherlands, maybe that makes
a difference), every now and then. But I also understood that the campaigns
nowadays are more sophisticated, and don't show the banner 100% any longer,
but only once per IP/computer/person?

Is the difference only the intensity of the banner? Or is there also a
media campaign involved?

Thanks,

Lodewijk

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Megan Hernandez 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There's a new Q1 fundraising update on meta
>  and
> posted here as well.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has just wrapped up the first quarter of the
> 2015-16 fiscal year. Over these past three months, the fundraising team has
> been running ran campaigns in Japan, Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa,
> Belgium and Luxembourg and prepared for the upcoming year-end English
> fundraising campaign. The online fundraising team missed the $6 million
> goal for the quarter due to postponing the Italy fundraiser to October to
> support the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. We raised roughly $5.7 million
> in the first quarter of the year and plan to make up for the loss in the
> next quarter. The 2014-15 fiscal year fundraising report
>  was
> also posted in this quarter. If you haven’t read it yet, please do check
> out the report for a wealth of information on the last fiscal year.
>
> The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand new
> banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and
> different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the fundraising
> message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the
> quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best-
> performing banner from last quarter. Better performing banners are required
> to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing new
> banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.
>
> The banner message has also been updated with suggestions from the
> Wikimedia community. Thank you to everyone who has suggested improvements
> so far! We have changed “We survive on donations averaging about $15” to
> “We are sustained by donations averaging about $15.” We’ve also changed
> “Please help us end the fundraiser and get back to improving Wikipedia” to
> “Please help us end the fundraiser and improve Wikipedia.” These message
> edits did not positively or negatively affect donations and were made in
> response to community feedback. In the past, we have also relied on
> community feedback to improve our campaigns. In the last year, community
> feedback has led to improvements to the usability of the close X icon and a
> new line to highlight the editing community, “Wikipedia is written by a
> community of volunteers with a passion for sharing the world’s knowledge.”
> All of these community suggestions remain in the banner. Another sentence
> that was briefly tested on a small percentage of users about a year ago
> that received negative community feedback was “If everyone reading this
> gave $3, we could keep it online and ad-free another year.” We did not end
> up using that sentence for the campaign and we commit to not using it in
> any future campaign. In the next quarter, we are planning many more message
> tests -- with both brand new ideas as well as smaller tweaks to the
> existing text. If you have an idea to test, please share on the 2015-16
> test ideas page
> .
> Thanks again to everyone who has shared ideas so far.
>
> This upcoming quarter will be our biggest of the year with campaigns in
> Italy, France, the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. The
> team is focused on providing the best donation invitation and experience
> possible to readers. We will be sharing plenty of more information about
> the upcoming campaigns over the next couple of months. Thank you for your
> support!
>
> --
>
> Megan Hernandez
>
> Director of Online Fundraising
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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,