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

Buying a photo, when we have ready access to massive amounts of freely usable content, would be quite unacceptable and a misuse of funds, no matter the amount of the funds. I hope someone can actually clarify what happened here. Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

A big advantage of having an endowment would be in conversations with our GLAM partners. - An organisation funded by an endowment can more credibly make longer-term commitments than one that is not. This would be particularly attractive to some of our current and potential GLAM partners; "Entrust

[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

"On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I > doubt it will be a click through to the file page. I couldnt find the image in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cups_of_black_coffee

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm

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

+1 A missed opportunity to celebrate one of our volunteer photographers, especially considering the competitions that have included photographs of food in the last year. Shame to fall back on stock photos and commercial pro-photographers when we have our own massive project to provide this as a

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

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts,

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

That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the reason there are readers at all. On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

I'm not an expert, but I like the idea of an endowment: there are many ways to put your money to good use out there, and if we will manage to do it ethically and in a transparent way, many good things can happen. Of course, "ethically" and "transparent" are crucial factors here, and a lot of work.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

Hoi, When you check out the Greenpeace website (at least here in the Netherlands) they have a powerful message that the likes of Google, Microsoft, Facebook use green energy to run the Internet. When we want to responsible, we could invest in green energy and offset the use of energy on a global

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

In light of this recent conversation I found this quote to be of interest. "Wikipedia readers tend not to be bothered by the fundraising messages they see on Wikipedia. Two-thirds (67%) say they don’t mind them, and a majority (55%) say they are not annoyed by these messages. Roughly equal shares

[Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia as the front matter to all research": A brown bag on scholarly citations in Wikipedia this Friday 12/4 @ 12 PT

Come and join us for a brown bag this Friday December 4 at 12 PT to learn about unique identifiers and scholarly citations in Wikipedia, why they matter and how we can bridge the gap between the Wikimedia, research and librarian communities. Wikipedia as the front matter to all research

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something fun to share - Jimmy jokes about his "stare" fundraising photo

In case anyone is interested, a commons version is available here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy%27s_Eyes.webm On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Ricordisamoa wrote: > After the latest cup of coffee, I really miss Jimbo's eyes :-( > And honestly, they

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

Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost all of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational matters. Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community revitalization

Thank you Lila for the update, it's indeed an important improvement and we can't wait to see this change. *Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all

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

Hoi, It is because of the readers that the work the volunteers do has a purpose. Volunteers are typically intrinsically motivated but their motivation is not necessarily focused on others. Some people are more focussed on themselves. That is ok as it takes all sorts. The question who is more

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

Hi Chris- A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned. These results are on slide 27. Here they are: "I don't mind when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia." 67% agree, 20% disagree, 12% had no opinion "I am not annoyed when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia." 55%

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

Yes, I also thought that was interesting. To invert the presentation of the statistics, 33% of users did mind the banners and 45% were irritated by them. These are actually quite high numbers in my view. (Not to say that the decision to proceed with these banners is wrong, which is a much more

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

Ah yes, I see - my fault for skim-reading the summary rather than paying attention to the tables. Thanks for pointing that out. Chris On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > Hi Chris- > > A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned. These

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments invited 2016 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process

Thanks everyone who has commented to date! It turns out that because Wikimania is quite early this year, the ASBS process will need to run earlier than in previous years as well. After discussions with James Hare and Laurentius, my fellow ex-ASBS-2014-facilitators, I would like to tentatively

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something fun to share - Jimmy jokes about his "stare" fundraising photo

After the latest cup of coffee, I really miss Jimbo's eyes :-( And honestly, they were not even annoying... Il 01/12/2015 16:50, Gregory Varnum ha scritto: Greetings, I have chatted with a number of folks over the years about ways to help promote the annual fundraising appeal - but in ways

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

Hoi, A much more fundamental question is do we actually want to do less or do we want to do more. I am not of the opinion that the WMF is bloated and ineffective. Yes it could do better in places but there is so much that we could do and fail to do because of lack of funding. No we should not go

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

Thanks Lisa. More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns. I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

29 million photos, 30 seconds type category:coffee cups https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_cups 90 photos subcategory cups of coffee a further 700 images not really difficult to find or navigate to what you need. There is no excuse for fundraising team to not use a Free licensed

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

I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I think they really appreciate all of your work: Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus of "why? why? why?" that

[Wikimedia-l] Community consultation on the future of Wikimania

Hi everybody, Last October, Siko committed to a community consultation on the future of Wikimania scheduled for November.[1] However, November came and went, and nothing has happened since then. As a matter of course, I have to ask whether the WMF is still committed to holding a community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Hoi, It is. I am one of the people who agitated for Commons to be created in the first place. I care about Commons and I hate the lack of usability with a passion. Wikimedians on the other hand cost us additional money in order to cope with Commons. What is your problem in acknowledging that

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

Lisa, I was just about to say that I like the new banner. It's a pleasant surprise. Who designed the lightbulb? I like how it's cohesive with the theme of "Keep Wikipedia Growing", and the lightbulb works well with the "light of knowledge" concept of an encyclopedia. Pine On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at

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

Hi Pine- We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner some. Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

There is a big difference here between an individual and the Wikimedia Foundation using Wikimedia Commons On 3 December 2015 at 07:03, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not > even try to find images in

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

On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" wrote: > > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote: > > > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial > > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia

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

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Craig Franklin wrote: > Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size) > of the ads so far this year. > Yes, a significant improvement over past years. Thank you. Andreas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Hoi, There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not even try to find images in Commons for my blog. It is too hard to find things. The search is neither efficient nor intuitive. For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of improved user

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

On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote: > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation > has not yet sunk to that yet. > [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too

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

No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying that the Foundation is in grave financial danger. Obviously the use of what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

I will second that recommendation. Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, 02 December 2015 8:14 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion As good as having an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

Hi Lila, There are some governance red flags that need your attention before signing up to a N * $100,000,000 endowment plan than will last for a thousand years... 1. The board is not fully elected. It is unlikely in the current environment for a board for an endowment trust to have a majority

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

"Community" is a loaded term, because it is typically self-praisingly used by a relatively small number of administratively-oriented Wikipedians to describe themselves. It's basically WP:AN/ANI, Arbcom & associated access level seekers, and those who use Wikipedia as a social or socializing

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

I would assume you are also going to provide some input some comment into the discussion other than just dumping a pile of quotes in here? On 3 December 2015 at 07:06, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of > the