Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the UK
Lisa On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2) When a U.K. donor is looking to add Gift Aid to their donation, we process the donation through our account with the U.K. Fund for Charities, which charges 1% for this service and returns the donor data to WMF. When a donor is looking to donate in country, we direct them to the chapter. Can you please confirm whether you are talking about large donors, or the every day type donors who keep Wikipedia free by clicking on the banners. The reason this is needed is that it contradicts what Sj has stated on the Board noticeboard, where a figure of 20% was mentioned for the nickel and dime donors (which come about by way of the banners, etc). Can you also give some further information on how many of these in country donors the WMF has sent WMUK's way? And what $/£ amount would we be talking about here? And are funds from these in country donors funnelled back to the WMF? Apologies if this is covered elsewhere. Russavia ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors
Minor correction: this system in the Netherlands works the other way around: donors can get back a part of their donation through their tax reduction - it is not that the charity gets a bonus. Interestingly, the Wikimedia Foundation has obtained this status (ANBI) in the Netherlands at the urging of the chapter several years ago (2010/2011). However, for some reason the WMF chooses not to advertize this (not so obvious) fact on the donation home page; which means that the donors are unaware that they can donate and get this reduction of their taxes (indeed up to 50% of the donation amount!). This is mindboggling to me - it should be an easy fix. Lodewijk On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, A similar possibility is in existence in the Netherlands... National charities can easily get such a status. It is possible for international organisations but it is more difficult.. In order to optimise fundraisers it is extremely relevant that we optimise it for our donors. That makes it very much in need of local efforts. As it is we lose 50% of the giftst of our donors in the Netherlands to the taxman. Thanks, GerardM On 4 December 2014 at 22:10, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I've split this from a more general thread, for convenience... On 3 December 2014 at 01:16, Megan Hernandez mhernan...@wikimedia.org wrote: Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract Gift Aid[*] tax releif? [* Gift AId is a UK scheme where the government gives, to a charity, tax paid by a donor. For every £80 such a donor gives, the charty would receive £100] -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
Hi all, If you do a Google search and look at the Wikipedia results, e.g. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Malvinas+Argentinas+International+Airportrlz=1C1NOOH_enAU555AU555oq=Malvinas+Argentinas+International+Airportaqs=chrome..69i57sourceid=chromees_sm=93ie=UTF-8 you will see that the results state: DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: You're probably busy, so we'll get right to it. This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence from corporate Instead of the article information. It doesn't sit right with me that fundraising is interfering with Google results, and even moreso due to it stating to protect our independence from corporate Is there some way that this can be prevented, short of not using Google? Russavia ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
I think Erik emailed last week to this list that this was an unintended side effect they are trying to solve. So I guess patience is the answer here. Lodewijk On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, If you do a Google search and look at the Wikipedia results, e.g. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Malvinas+Argentinas+International+Airportrlz=1C1NOOH_enAU555AU555oq=Malvinas+Argentinas+International+Airportaqs=chrome..69i57sourceid=chromees_sm=93ie=UTF-8 you will see that the results state: DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: You're probably busy, so we'll get right to it. This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence from corporate Instead of the article information. It doesn't sit right with me that fundraising is interfering with Google results, and even moreso due to it stating to protect our independence from corporate Is there some way that this can be prevented, short of not using Google? Russavia ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
Russavia asked me to check this to confirm it wasn't just him or his regional Google setup, and it's both correct and looking into it further it's hitting every single page on Wikipedia that Google has indexed. If you search for DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: You're probably busy, so we'll get right to it. This week we ask our readers to help us. This week we ask our readers to protect our site:en.wikipedia.org we're both getting 6,100,000 results. If you take, at random, some pages for that search result, and then try to find those pages through a fairly typical, sensible search result using the page title or keywords in the article, some search text results show the fundraising banner text, and other pages show a relevant text excerpt from the page. I'll pass this on to the developers too, but hopefully this helps here too. Nick On 7 December 2014 at 10:23, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, If you do a Google search and look at the Wikipedia results, e.g. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Malvinas+Argentinas+International+Airportrlz=1C1NOOH_enAU555AU555oq=Malvinas+Argentinas+International+Airportaqs=chrome..69i57sourceid=chromees_sm=93ie=UTF-8 you will see that the results state: DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: You're probably busy, so we'll get right to it. This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence from corporate Instead of the article information. It doesn't sit right with me that fundraising is interfering with Google results, and even moreso due to it stating to protect our independence from corporate Is there some way that this can be prevented, short of not using Google? Russavia ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Nick Birse w...@nbir.se wrote: Russavia asked me to check this to confirm it wasn't just him or his regional Google setup, and it's both correct and looking into it further it's hitting every single page on Wikipedia that Google has indexed. If you search for DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: You're probably busy, so we'll get right to it. This week we ask our readers to help us. This week we ask our readers to protect our site:en.wikipedia.org we're both getting 6,100,000 results. If you take, at random, some pages for that search result, and then try to find those pages through a fairly typical, sensible search result using the page title or keywords in the article, some search text results show the fundraising banner text, and other pages show a relevant text excerpt from the page. I'll pass this on to the developers too, but hopefully this helps here too. The devs have been aware since December 4, based on the date https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76743 was opened. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
On 7 December 2014 at 11:08, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: ... The devs have been aware since December 4, based on the date https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76743 was opened. Wow, 8 million returns on Google. Er, Lila, someone, how about making a decision to pause using fundraising banners until this is fixed or at least we understand why it is happening? It looks like a major global embarrassment from where I'm sitting and it really does not matter whether this is Google's fault or the Foundation's. I'm finding the text DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging ... completely replacing all sorts of content when searching for the simplest educational material. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
On 7 December 2014 at 12:19, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, 8 million returns on Google. Er, Lila, someone, how about making a decision to pause using fundraising banners until this is fixed or at least we understand why it is happening? See Erik's comment somewhere in this kilometre-long thread on the fundraising banners: This came to our attention this morning SF time, and we quickly deployed fixes on our end: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/177598/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/177611/ This should fix the issue, but Google will need to recrawl the affected pages. We've already reached out to our contacts there to see if this can be done more quickly. Best, Patrik ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors
2014-12-07 11:23 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Minor correction: this system in the Netherlands works the other way around: donors can get back a part of their donation through their tax reduction - it is not that the charity gets a bonus. Interestingly, the Wikimedia Foundation has obtained this status (ANBI) in the Netherlands at the urging of the chapter several years ago (2010/2011). However, for some reason the WMF chooses not to advertize this (not so obvious) fact on the donation home page; which means that the donors are unaware that they can donate and get this reduction of their taxes (indeed up to 50% of the donation amount!). This is mindboggling to me - it should be an easy fix. Strong +1. As an international movement who is fundraising globally this knowledge is (almost literally) gold. C ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors
Hoi, At the time I learned that there is the possibility of an European tax status. I do remember that it took several years of financial statements. This is something we can easily provide and also when the WMF does not quality as an organisation that is intended for the public good who is. Thanks, GerardM Yes that means at least all of the European Community On 7 December 2014 at 12:46, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-12-07 11:23 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Minor correction: this system in the Netherlands works the other way around: donors can get back a part of their donation through their tax reduction - it is not that the charity gets a bonus. Interestingly, the Wikimedia Foundation has obtained this status (ANBI) in the Netherlands at the urging of the chapter several years ago (2010/2011). However, for some reason the WMF chooses not to advertize this (not so obvious) fact on the donation home page; which means that the donors are unaware that they can donate and get this reduction of their taxes (indeed up to 50% of the donation amount!). This is mindboggling to me - it should be an easy fix. Strong +1. As an international movement who is fundraising globally this knowledge is (almost literally) gold. C ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
Thanks John for the link. I've made an edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushuaia_%E2%80%93_Malvinas_Argentinas_International_Airport as I've been told that Google will update text in their search results when articles are created and edited. Is that correct? If so, how long will the fundraising text potentially be appearing in Google results for you think? I can confirm that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_and_MacFarlane_Monument is displaying correctly in Google results. Cheers, Russavia On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Nick Birse w...@nbir.se wrote: Russavia asked me to check this to confirm it wasn't just him or his regional Google setup, and it's both correct and looking into it further it's hitting every single page on Wikipedia that Google has indexed. If you search for DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: You're probably busy, so we'll get right to it. This week we ask our readers to help us. This week we ask our readers to protect our site:en.wikipedia.org we're both getting 6,100,000 results. If you take, at random, some pages for that search result, and then try to find those pages through a fairly typical, sensible search result using the page title or keywords in the article, some search text results show the fundraising banner text, and other pages show a relevant text excerpt from the page. I'll pass this on to the developers too, but hopefully this helps here too. The devs have been aware since December 4, based on the date https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76743 was opened. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks John for the link. I've made an edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushuaia_%E2%80%93_Malvinas_Argentinas_International_Airport as I've been told that Google will update text in their search results when articles are created and edited. Is that correct? If so, how long will the fundraising text potentially be appearing in Google results for you think? I can confirm that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_and_MacFarlane_Monument is displaying correctly in Google results. This is a great opportunity to encourage people to edit ... How about a banner .. If everyone edited just one page today, the google search result snippets would be fixed in 2 hours. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors
Il 07/Dic/2014 13:12 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com ha scritto: This is something we can easily provide and also when the WMF does not quality as an organisation that is intended for the public good who is. I don't understand this sentence, can you please rephrase? C ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors
Hoi, It was intented as a rhetorical question... if the WMF is not contributing to the general good who is, who qualifies ?? The main point is that the WMF took responsibility and is not aware of the ball being in their corner. Thanks, GerardM On 7 December 2014 at 15:35, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Il 07/Dic/2014 13:12 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com ha scritto: This is something we can easily provide and also when the WMF does not quality as an organisation that is intended for the public good who is. I don't understand this sentence, can you please rephrase? C ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
Hi all, For the record, we've been able to confirm that our fixes, which were already deployed Thursday, immediately addressed the issue on our end. Google also picked up the updated robots.txt already on December 4, according to Google Webmaster Tools. GoogleBot, for better or for worse, nowadays executes JavaScript, which caused it to index the banner text since the JS was not blacklisted prior to December 4. We've pinged our Google contacts about faster re-crawling of impacted pages; will follow up further on that front. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Product Strategy, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
Thanks for the update Erik I can confirm that my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushuaia_%E2%80%93_Malvinas_Argentinas_International_Airport has now fixed the issue in Google search as it relates to that article, but the issue still remains on 8,600,000 articles (up from 8,540,000 articles yesterday). Cheers Russavia On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, For the record, we've been able to confirm that our fixes, which were already deployed Thursday, immediately addressed the issue on our end. Google also picked up the updated robots.txt already on December 4, according to Google Webmaster Tools. GoogleBot, for better or for worse, nowadays executes JavaScript, which caused it to index the banner text since the JS was not blacklisted prior to December 4. We've pinged our Google contacts about faster re-crawling of impacted pages; will follow up further on that front. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Product Strategy, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: I can confirm that my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushuaia_%E2%80%93_Malvinas_Argentinas_International_Airport has now fixed the issue in Google search as it relates to that article, but the issue still remains on 8,600,000 articles (up from 8,540,000 articles yesterday). site:wikipedia.org Dear Wikipedia readers produces 936,000 results for me. Please note that Google uses a distributed index, and depending where you are geographically, and where Google sends you based on server load, you will get inconsistent results from query to query. See this paper for a bit more detail on how these index inconsistencies manifest: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~snoeren/papers/bobble-pam14.pdf Pages we know to have been re-crawled don't exhibit the issue, so it should be only a matter of time for the index to catch up. Please also note that the text being in the index does not automatically mean that it will show up in a typical search. Any search for the phrase itself will highlight it in the snippet (extract) shown in the search result page as a match, while a typical search will not include the phrase and will much less frequently identify the text to be a good match for the user's search query, mitigating global user impact significantly. We'd still like to resolve this completely as quickly as possible, of course. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Product Strategy, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results
Thanks for the thorough updates Erik :-) On 7 Dec 2014 23:11, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: I can confirm that my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushuaia_%E2%80%93_Malvinas_Argentinas_International_Airport has now fixed the issue in Google search as it relates to that article, but the issue still remains on 8,600,000 articles (up from 8,540,000 articles yesterday). site:wikipedia.org Dear Wikipedia readers produces 936,000 results for me. Please note that Google uses a distributed index, and depending where you are geographically, and where Google sends you based on server load, you will get inconsistent results from query to query. See this paper for a bit more detail on how these index inconsistencies manifest: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~snoeren/papers/bobble-pam14.pdf Pages we know to have been re-crawled don't exhibit the issue, so it should be only a matter of time for the index to catch up. Please also note that the text being in the index does not automatically mean that it will show up in a typical search. Any search for the phrase itself will highlight it in the snippet (extract) shown in the search result page as a match, while a typical search will not include the phrase and will much less frequently identify the text to be a good match for the user's search query, mitigating global user impact significantly. We'd still like to resolve this completely as quickly as possible, of course. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Product Strategy, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Hi. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or is it to local wikis? Not actually an either/or. The answer seems to me to be yes, i.e. all wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages. It may *seem to you* to be yes, but the data indicates that the answer differs, depending where you look. For example, the data clearly indicates that the stunning rise in Iran is almost entirely due to enwiki. enwiki gains over 80 million page views, fawiki gains only 10 million. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics for a convincing graph. I think it's important that we determine the actual answers to these questions, instead of trusting our instincts. I definitely agree. I had misread your question to mean is the rise computed across all wikis, which is indeed not what you were asking. I apologize for the irrelevant answer. Some definitely do. Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in some countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device does give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages. Hm, the word colonial bothers me here. I know you mean historically colonial, but in the modern world English is also a trade language, not just a formerly-colonial language. Much access to enwiki is due to its trade-language status. Certainly, there are very strong economic incentives to use English these days, and additionally other incentives, such as prestige real and imagined, still operating (and those, themselves, are still ripples of colonialism), but I did not mean 'colonial' here particularly strongly. I could have written European, I suppose, except there are many languages in Europe, and only a handful have been colonial languages. But the term is not important here, I think. I feel strongly that we have a moral obligation to offer good local language support, but I also feel that we shouldn't label and dismiss readers who want to learn/practice/find information in a trade language. (This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of simplewiki, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.) I don't see that I (or anyone) did dismiss that. In terms of our strategic goals of Reach and Participation, we are agnostic about which languages people contribute in, or consume in. In terms of our strategic goal of Diversity however, we do want to work towards adequate offerings in all languages in which people are actually seeking to consume knowledge. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote: I was reading the presentation on metrics and the point about Mexico's decreasing of views on Wikipedia called my attention. I dug into the numbers a little more; see the graphs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics It's a bit confusing. At this moment I'm inclined to say that the computation of decliners was in some way erroneous; neither the page views for Mexico nor the overall pageviews for eswiki seem to support the large annual declines reported. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics I compute an annual decline for Mexico of 12.4% (compared to 23.2% reported at the metrics meeting), which compares to an eswiki annual decline of 4.8% (excludings bots and spiders). So Mexico is indeed concerning -- it's declining at three times the eswiki rate. But eswiki as a whole seems like it ought to also be a concern. And I'd like to understand why I can't reproduce the much higher numbers shown in the Metrics meeting. Thanks for taking another swing at the data. I do think it's important to get better data that we have high confidence in. We're not quite there yet. A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the UK
Hi Russavia- I haven't seen the specific comment from SJ that you are referencing, but I am guessing that he is referring to the Gift Aid percentage match, which used to be 20% and is now 25%. The 1% I mentioned is the processing fee WMF pays to the U.K. Fund for Charities for processing our donations. We most often see large donors asking about Gift Aid and that is why we set up the account, but it is not exclusively for large donations. We refer anyone who is wishing to add Gift Aid to their donation to our account with the U.K. Fund for Charities. When I said in country, I meant anyone wishing to give to the chapter, instead of WMF. Those donations stay with the chapter and do not come back to WMF. We should be able to provide some numbers around this when our donor services team comes up for air in January. Thank you, Lisa On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Lisa On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2) When a U.K. donor is looking to add Gift Aid to their donation, we process the donation through our account with the U.K. Fund for Charities, which charges 1% for this service and returns the donor data to WMF. When a donor is looking to donate in country, we direct them to the chapter. Can you please confirm whether you are talking about large donors, or the every day type donors who keep Wikipedia free by clicking on the banners. The reason this is needed is that it contradicts what Sj has stated on the Board noticeboard, where a figure of 20% was mentioned for the nickel and dime donors (which come about by way of the banners, etc). Can you also give some further information on how many of these in country donors the WMF has sent WMUK's way? And what $/£ amount would we be talking about here? And are funds from these in country donors funnelled back to the WMF? Apologies if this is covered elsewhere. Russavia ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
