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

[Todd Allen]

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. That's
really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, or
otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
inevitable butbutbut.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> +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 free resource.
>
> Fae
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 14:46, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> > "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
> >
> > The image is only on donate.wikimedia.org, uploaded by "BHouse
> > (Trilogy)", which I assume means they are an employee of
> > http://www.trilogyinteractive.com (see previous years Form 990):
> >
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg
> >
> > It appears to be a stock photo, by photographer Dimitrios Stefanidis.
> >
> > http://tineye.com/search/2267feed8737197d64056553011261b75ef34a9e/
> >
> > http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/coffee-on-white-25228505
> >
> > So my hopeful guess WMF bought a licence to the photograph, but even
> > that would be inappropriate IMO.
> >
> > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg
> >
> > (assuming the license is correct; I cant see CC0 on
> > http://rejke.deviantart.com/art/Coffee-384565868)
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
>
> --
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Endowment Discussion

[WereSpielChequers]

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 us with a copy of
your images and metadata and we have the funding to keep it on the Internet
for the foreseeable future" would be a very attractive commitment for us to
be able to make. 

We don't need an endowment large enough to keep the organisation going as
is, or even the pedias being still open to edit, before we can commit that
"the media library on Wikimedia Commons has an endowment that should
suffice to keep it on the web or on whatever replaces the internet for the
foreseeable future" . In a world of budget cuts and short term thinking
this would be a very positive thing for us to be able to say to museum
curators and similar custodians of cultural heritage. That doesn't mean we
commit to keeping everything in a particular image release, we might well
delete some images because our policy on copyright risk will be different
to theirs. But if you want to keep things in existence longterm then the
strategy used by the writers of the domesday book still works. Make several
copies and place them with organisations that intend to be around
for millennia to come. An endowment could mean that we become such an
organisation. I would hope that the WMF board aims for an endowment that
allows us to make such a commitment.

An endowment so large that we no longer need an annual fundraiser would be
a very much larger sum and harder in my view to justify. Why should this
generation pay so that people can edit Wikipedia in 2050 without there
being a fundraising banner?




> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 02:39:59 +0330
> From: Mardetanha 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion
> Message-ID:
> 

[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

"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

The image is only on donate.wikimedia.org, uploaded by "BHouse
(Trilogy)", which I assume means they are an employee of
http://www.trilogyinteractive.com (see previous years Form 990):

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg

It appears to be a stock photo, by photographer Dimitrios Stefanidis.

http://tineye.com/search/2267feed8737197d64056553011261b75ef34a9e/

http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/coffee-on-white-25228505

So my hopeful guess WMF bought a licence to the photograph, but even
that would be inappropriate IMO.

It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg

(assuming the license is correct; I cant see CC0 on
http://rejke.deviantart.com/art/Coffee-384565868)

-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 pretty sure
that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
used it.

... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
longer even try!!1!one!".

-- 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] Fundraising banner (again)

[Fæ]

+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 free resource.

Fae

On 2 December 2015 at 14:46, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> "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
>
> The image is only on donate.wikimedia.org, uploaded by "BHouse
> (Trilogy)", which I assume means they are an employee of
> http://www.trilogyinteractive.com (see previous years Form 990):
>
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg
>
> It appears to be a stock photo, by photographer Dimitrios Stefanidis.
>
> http://tineye.com/search/2267feed8737197d64056553011261b75ef34a9e/
>
> http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/coffee-on-white-25228505
>
> So my hopeful guess WMF bought a licence to the photograph, but even
> that would be inappropriate IMO.
>
> It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg
>
> (assuming the license is correct; I cant see CC0 on
> http://rejke.deviantart.com/art/Coffee-384565868)
>
> --
> John Vandenberg

-- 
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, 

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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, or
> otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
> makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
> inevitable butbutbut.



Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
issues with last month's survey.[1]

When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
representative sample.

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
___
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 banner (again)

[Todd Allen]

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"  wrote:

> 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,
> or
> > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
> > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
> > inevitable butbutbut.
>
>
>
> Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
> issues with last month's survey.[1]
>
> When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
> what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
> representative sample.
>
> [1]
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> ___
> 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] Endowment Discussion

[Andrea Zanni]

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.

Aubrey

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:08 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 us with a copy of
> your images and metadata and we have the funding to keep it on the Internet
> for the foreseeable future" would be a very attractive commitment for us to
> be able to make. 
>
> We don't need an endowment large enough to keep the organisation going as
> is, or even the pedias being still open to edit, before we can commit that
> "the media library on Wikimedia Commons has an endowment that should
> suffice to keep it on the web or on whatever replaces the internet for the
> foreseeable future" . In a world of budget cuts and short term thinking
> this would be a very positive thing for us to be able to say to museum
> curators and similar custodians of cultural heritage. That doesn't mean we
> commit to keeping everything in a particular image release, we might well
> delete some images because our policy on copyright risk will be different
> to theirs. But if you want to keep things in existence longterm then the
> strategy used by the writers of the domesday book still works. Make several
> copies and place them with organisations that intend to be around
> for millennia to come. An endowment could mean that we become such an
> organisation. I would hope that the WMF board aims for an endowment that
> allows us to make such a commitment.
>
> An endowment so large that we no longer need an annual fundraiser would be
> a very much larger sum and harder in my view to justify. Why should this
> generation pay so that people can edit Wikipedia in 2050 without there
> being a fundraising banner?
>
> 
>
>
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 02:39:59 +0330
> > From: Mardetanha 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion
> > Message-ID:
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 scale AND make money at the same time.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, Andrea Zanni  wrote:

> 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.
>
> Aubrey
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:08 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 us with a copy
> of
> > your images and metadata and we have the funding to keep it on the
> Internet
> > for the foreseeable future" would be a very attractive commitment for us
> to
> > be able to make. 
> >
> > We don't need an endowment large enough to keep the organisation going as
> > is, or even the pedias being still open to edit, before we can commit
> that
> > "the media library on Wikimedia Commons has an endowment that should
> > suffice to keep it on the web or on whatever replaces the internet for
> the
> > foreseeable future" . In a world of budget cuts and short term thinking
> > this would be a very positive thing for us to be able to say to museum
> > curators and similar custodians of cultural heritage. That doesn't mean
> we
> > commit to keeping everything in a particular image release, we might well
> > delete some images because our policy on copyright risk will be different
> > to theirs. But if you want to keep things in existence longterm then the
> > strategy used by the writers of the domesday book still works. Make
> several
> > copies and place them with organisations that intend to be around
> > for millennia to come. An endowment could mean that we become such an
> > organisation. I would hope that the WMF board aims for an endowment that
> > allows us to make such a commitment.
> >
> > An endowment so large that we no longer need an annual fundraiser would
> be
> > a very much larger sum and harder in my view to justify. Why should this
> > generation pay so that people can edit Wikipedia in 2050 without there
> > being a fundraising banner?
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > > Message: 3
> > > Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 02:39:59 +0330
> > > From: Mardetanha 
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion
> > > Message-ID:
> > > 

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

[Chris Koerner]

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 of
readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages, according
to their self-reports."

From
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf

I'm merely presenting for reference.

Yours,
Chris Koerner
clkoerner.com
___
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] "Wikipedia as the front matter to all research": A brown bag on scholarly citations in Wikipedia this Friday 12/4 @ 12 PT

[Dario Taraborelli]

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

YouTube stream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB_oexqz8pA 
 
Event information on Meta: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_as_the_front_matter_to_all_research 
 

Measuring citizen engagement with the scholarly literature through Wikipedia 
citations.
Geoffrey Bilder, CrossRef

Wikipedia (in toto) is probably the 5th largest referrer of citations to the 
scholarly literature. That is, more Wikipedia users click on and follow 
citations to the scholarly literature *from* Wikipedia domains than from any 
single scholarly publisher in the world. What does this tell us about general 
interest in the scholarly literature? What does this tell us about scholarly 
engagement with  editing Wikipedia articles? The short answer is “we don’t 
know.”  But we are actively working with Wikimedia to find out.

Building the sum of all human citations
Dario Taraborelli, WIkimedia Foundation

As sourcing and verifiability of online information are threatened 

 by the explosion of answer engines and the changing habits of web users, 
Wikimedia has an outstanding opportunity to extract and store source data for 
every conceivable statement and make it transparently verifiable by its users. 
In this talk, I’ll present a grassroots effort 
 to create 
a human-curated, comprehensive repository of all human citations in Wikidata.

–
Bonus read: a real-time tracker of scholarly citations added to Wikipedia, 
built with Raspberry Pi
http://blog.crossref.org/2015/12/crossref-labs-plays-with-the-raspberry-pi-zero.html
 






Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org 
 • @readermeter 
___
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] Something fun to share - Jimmy jokes about his "stare" fundraising photo

[Victor Grigas]

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 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 that did not feel so
>> serious that it was out of our character to post on social media.
>>
>> Good news - it appears this year Jimmy has participated in a video that
>> serves this purpose very well. :)
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njHebJTM0nk
>>
>> Entertaining way to help kick off the fundraising appeal, and one that I
>> am already having fun sharing on Twitter and FB. Given how seriously many
>> of us take and talk about the campaign, this was a bit of levity I
>> appreciated. :)
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>> ___
>> 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,
> 
>



-- 

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller  and Video
Content Producer
Wikimedia Foundation
vgri...@wikimedia.org
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, 

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

[Pine W]

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
encyclopedia. The exceptions are for WMF staff and affiliate staff who
weren't hired from within the community; an ongoing issue is the need to
acculturate these staff into the ways of the Wiki and to educate them about
our (often complex) ways, while leveraging the value that they can bring to
Wikimedia organizations in areas like legal advocacy, visual design, press
communications, tech ops, etc.

Viewers, content contributors, funders, volunteer tech and organizational
leaders, and paid staff are all necessary parts of the Wikimedia ecosystem.
These groups and individuals interact in complex and intricate ways, and
changes to the ecosystem are always in motion.

Pine
___
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] Community revitalization

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

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 knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Hi Michal -- good to hear from you and wonderful blog post. Congratulations
> on the partnership with the Academy of Hebrew Language.
>
> With respect to both cross-linking Wikimedia projects (not just Wiktionary)
> and SEO this is in the domain of the Discovery team which reports to Tomasz
> Finc. The Readership team, as Toby pointed out already, is also looking at
> cross-project integration. I think it may be easier to improve Wiktionary
> SEO in languages other than English sadly because there is less online
> content. You may want to connect with Tomasz and Toby directly to share
> ideas.
>
> We know we have a lot of content in sister-projects that is currently not
> easily discoverable and this is a topic of many discussions.
>
> L
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > Peter that would be very useful both the contributors and to readers
> >
> > On 18 November 2015 at 14:00, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > How about a tool to look up in Wiktionary from Wikipedia?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 11:40 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Toby Negrin
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community revitalization
> > >
> > > Thanks Michal.
> > > I periodically use English Wiktionary and am pleased with it as a
> reader.
> > > I am wondering what it might take to increase our readership of
> > > Wiktionaries in general, perhaps by increasing the prominence of them
> in
> > > Google search results. Pinging Toby to see if he has any ideas on how
> to
> > > increase the readership of Wiktionaries.
> > > Regards,
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Michal Lester <
> > mles...@wikimedia.org.il>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear friends and colleague,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would to share with you the post we published on Wikimedia Blog
> > > > (November 13, 2015) [1]. It describes how WMIL works with few
> > > > *Wiktionary* volunteers in a process of revitalization of
> *Wiktionary*
> > > > community. I believe it could be useful case study for those of you
> who
> > > deal with similar issues.
> > > >
> > > > I would be happy to provide more info. to anyone who is interested
> > > > Michal
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/13/hebrew-wiktionary-community-revi
> > > > talization/
> > > >
> > > > *Regards,*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Michal Lester,*
> > > >
> > > > *Executive DirectorWikimedia Israel*
> > > > *http://www.wikimedia.org.il   *
> > > > *972-50-8996046 ; 972-77-751-6032  *
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > > -
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11018 - Release Date:
> > 11/17/15
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > 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 banner (again)

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 important is hardly relevant, one cannot do
without the other. When it comes to donations though, it is the readers who
are more important. I for one do get messages from Jimmy and all he gets
from he is an additional edit or two.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 2 December 2015 at 17:36, Todd Allen  wrote:

> 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"  wrote:
>
> > 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,
> > or
> > > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
> > > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
> > > inevitable butbutbut.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
> > issues with last month's survey.[1]
> >
> > When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
> > what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
> > representative sample.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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 banner (again)

[Lisa Gruwell]

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% agree, 27% disagree, 18% had no opinion

Thank you,
Lisa

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> 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 complicated topic, and full credit to the fundraising team
> for firstly conducting and secondly publishing this research).
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Chris Koerner  wrote:
>
> > 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 of
> > readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages,
> according
> > to their self-reports."
> >
> > From
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> >
> > I'm merely presenting for reference.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Chris Koerner
> > clkoerner.com
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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 banner (again)

[Chris Keating]

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 complicated topic, and full credit to the fundraising team
for firstly conducting and secondly publishing this research).

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Chris Koerner  wrote:

> 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 of
> readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages, according
> to their self-reports."
>
> From
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
>
> I'm merely presenting for reference.
>
> Yours,
> Chris Koerner
> clkoerner.com
> ___
> 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 banner (again)

[Chris Keating]

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 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% agree, 27% disagree, 18% had no opinion
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Chris Keating  >
> wrote:
>
> > 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 complicated topic, and full credit to the fundraising team
> > for firstly conducting and secondly publishing this research).
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Chris Koerner  wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> of
> > > readers do (44%) and don’t (41%) pay attention to these messages,
> > according
> > > to their self-reports."
> > >
> > > From
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> > >
> > > I'm merely presenting for reference.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Chris Koerner
> > > clkoerner.com
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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] Comments invited 2016 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process

[Chris Keating]

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 propose the
following timeline:

*Dec 30th 2015* - Deadline for comments on 2016 process*If need be*, first
week of January for a straw poll of affiliates if necessary on any
outstanding issue*By end of January*, adoption of revised resolution and
selection of election facilitators*Sat 13 Feb 2016* - Opening of
Nominations*Sat
19 Mar 2016* - Closing of Nominations*Sun 3 April 2016* - Opening of Voting*If
need be*, possible discussion/presentation April 22-24 at Wikimedia
Conference*Sat 7th May* - Voting period ends. Announcement of result could
be more or less immediate unless there is some issue that holds things up.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats#Provisional_timeline

Please do continue to discuss on Meta. :)

Chris

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> It is only a few months until someone will need to organise the 2016
> Affiliate Selected Board Seats process.
>
> Thinking about the process last time I have set up a discussion here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats#Request_for_Comments_regarding_2016_process
>
> Comments are invited from everyone, including the WMF Board, affiliates
> and the community at large.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> (writing in a personal capacity but informed by my role as one of the 2014
> selection facilitators)
>
___
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] Something fun to share - Jimmy jokes about his "stare" fundraising photo

[Ricordisamoa]

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 that did not feel so serious that 
it was out of our character to post on social media.

Good news - it appears this year Jimmy has participated in a video that serves 
this purpose very well. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njHebJTM0nk

Entertaining way to help kick off the fundraising appeal, and one that I am 
already having fun sharing on Twitter and FB. Given how seriously many of us 
take and talk about the campaign, this was a bit of levity I appreciated. :)

Enjoy!

-greg (User:Varnent)
___
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] Endowment Discussion

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 bare bones. Arguably the whole notion of an endowment
fund is a bad idea because it gets people to think in terms of spending
less not more.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 2 December 2015 at 00:25, Risker  wrote:

> Heh.  $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on
> an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants
> that are separate from direct fundraising.  It *might* last 5-7 years of
> bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no
> software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own
> desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to
> chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for
> free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major
> changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep
> up-to-date with this.
>
> This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to
> include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating
> functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to
> proceed.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha  wrote:
>
> > do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any
> > fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the
> > position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and
> keep
> > running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
> >
> > Mardetanha
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi all-
> > > >
> > > > For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions
> > > >  about whether and when
> to
> > > begin
> > > > building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an
> attempt
> > > to
> > > > rekindle this conversation with the community.  We included launching
> > an
> > > > endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
> > >
> > > Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving
> > > forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is
> > > > probably worthwhile.
> > >
> > > I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
> > >
> > > The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an
> > > investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think
> > > directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual
> > > funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate,
> > > much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and
> > > levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might
> > > not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other
> > > large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
> > >
> > > 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/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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,
> 
>
___
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 banner (again)

[Pine W]

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 one issue I
think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size of
the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
might be a good tradeoff.

I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze for
next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
continue to grow income.

Pine
___
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] (no subject)

[Gnangarra]

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
photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying to
support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an image
of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose from,

On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> 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 pretty sure
> that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> used it.
>
> ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
> reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> longer even try!!1!one!".
>
> -- 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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 banner (again)

[Lisa Gruwell]

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 has run through my brain since I was old enough to
think. I also believe its a factor in why I am currently in the eligible
Jeopardy! contestant pool. In short, thanks Wikipedia.

Wikipedia helps me almost daily, I cannot count the number of times me and
friends have been debating the answer to life, the universe and everything
(42, in case you were wondering!) and Wikipedia has dispelled the
discrepancies in one or more of our arguments. Thanks to wiki, we have been
able to convince each other we were wrong, and educate on topics we have
never considered. Wiki is very important, and for this I will continue to
donate as long as I can afford to. The more the world has open access to
information for free, the sooner mankind will get along. Wikipedia is
making the world a better place one article at a time. Thank you.

I've had a roadrunner and wild turkey with poults in my yard and I've used
Wiki to obtain information about them.

There was a time I used to get embarrassed due to lack of general
knowledge. Wikipedia gave me confidence. Thank you.

well, over time, using it became a reflex, like breathing but when i pause
to think about it, it is one of the source of knowledge I use most and I am
the better for it.

It's one of a tiny number of fund raising calls that I respond to. The
charter or quest of Wikipedia , I think is among the highest ideals that
humans can aspire to.

Wikipedia is the first point of call for any research i am performing,
especially on a new subject. It has been a life-saver on more than one
occasions

Wikipedia is part of my information ecosystem. It's like a road map for new
intellectual territory.

There was (more than) one time when I needed to know if some dumb obscure
TV actor from the 70s was still alive and Wikipedia was there for me. Plus
all the other times when I just need a quick bit of info: size of a
country's population, name of a president, details about a math function;
it's endless.

Helped me with my uni degree, gave me medical information on health
problems, let me learn new things about animals that I like :D Helps me
answer questions from my kid about the world that I want to give her, but
don't know the answers to

I think you're the only organisation that can fundraise that way and you
deserve it.

My older sister doesn't have a computer (she's 82), so we talk on the phone
and I look up stuff for her. It's a nice way to spend time with her, and it
brings us together

As a journalist and travel writer, this online research is often my first
port of call. For a quick scan of even just the most basic information
about a topic, I used to have to walk down to the basement of the national
television building I worked in to ask the archivist to dig out a series of
reference books that applied to my topic. Sometimes the books were already
in use by someone else, which meant I had to wait even longer or beg the
person to share the book with me. Now, I just Google it and often end up on
Wikipedia. While I always still double check everything I read on these
pages and use other sources for my actual fact finding, it no longer takes
hours or days to get started with my research

I've lost many bets because of wikipedia. So because of you I have looked
stupider than if you didn't exist

Wikipedia is the first step in any student's research. When it comes to
education, Wikipedia is the real MVP!

As a student, Wikipedia is a goldmine. I love you guys.

I use it for everything from government and politics to celebrities and tv
shows to authors and books. There's a facebook group I'm a part of called
"Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club." People post weird, strange, interesting
wikipedia pages they've found. Basically, wikipedia is awesome! (I'd really
love there to be an accuracy scale though, since I usually end up
researching stuff after I read the wikipedia page, just to make sure it's
correct.)

I'm an engineer. I was not the smartest nor the dumbest in uni. I was
average and over the years I forget concepts/theories/formulae all the time
and I use Wikipedia to give my memory the nudge it needs to get back on
track. Thank you.

It is my main source of information.

Taking AP Physics in high school I would constantly get confused with all
of the unites and what they actually measured. Joules, watts, newton's,
difference between power and work. Lucky wiki saved that day with wonderful
articles that explained what everything meant. It helped me solidify my
foundation in physics, helping me to conquer a college level class at the
age of 16.

Keeps Me from lying awake at night wondering about past events & historical
data

it is just just always super handy

I see Wikipedia as my 

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

[Josh Lim]

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 consultation on Wikimania, and if so, when.  In addition, 
we’d like to know what the WMF and the Wikimania Committee have been doing 
since what happened last October that could allay all our fears over what’s 
happening with the future of the community’s conference.

On behalf of the Wikimania Manila team,

Josh

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079310.html

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com  | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim 
___
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] (no subject)

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 using Commons is a big problem.
It is so bad that I typically refuse to add categories because they are not
easy to guess and therefore to apply. At some stage it is at least what I
hoped for, a repository for use for WMF projects. As a re-use facility it
is a failure.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3 December 2015 at 00:09, Gnangarra  wrote:

> 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 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 interface. It is geared up for people adding data not
> really
> > for people using data. The approach is way too dogmatic as well. So no,
> > thank you.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 2 December 2015 at 23:56, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying
> to
> > > support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an
> > image
> > > of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose
> > from,
> > >
> > > On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 pretty
> sure
> > > > that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> > > > used it.
> > > >
> > > > ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks*
> for
> > > > reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> > > > longer even try!!1!one!".
> > > >
> > > > -- 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,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> 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 banner (again)

[Pine W]

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 11:22 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
wrote:

> 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,
> more quickly.  We have also looked into reader opinions of the
> intrusiveness of the banner.  Readers found the larger banners only
> slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones.  Those findings are here
> (slide 24):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf=24
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf=24
> >
>
> We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner.
> The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so
> lengthening the campaign has a diminished return.  Here is the data on that
> from last December:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Review_-_Q2-1415.pdf=12
>
>
> With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and
> then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions.  Not everyone
> visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the
> course of weeks.
>
> Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic.  Let us
> know what you think.
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > 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 one issue I
> > think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size
> of
> > the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
> > color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
> > while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
> > that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
> > might be a good tradeoff.
> >
> > I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze
> for
> > next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
> > continue to grow income.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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 banner (again)

[Lisa Gruwell]

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,
more quickly.  We have also looked into reader opinions of the
intrusiveness of the banner.  Readers found the larger banners only
slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones.  Those findings are here
(slide 24):
 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf=24


We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner.
The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so
lengthening the campaign has a diminished return.  Here is the data on that
from last December:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Review_-_Q2-1415.pdf=12


With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and
then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions.  Not everyone
visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the
course of weeks.

Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic.  Let us
know what you think.

Thank you,
Lisa

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> 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 one issue I
> think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size of
> the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the
> color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention
> while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me
> that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners
> might be a good tradeoff.
>
> I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze for
> next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to
> continue to grow income.
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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] (no subject)

[Gnangarra]

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 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 interface. It is geared up for people adding data not really
> for people using data. The approach is way too dogmatic as well. So no,
> thank you.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 23:56, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying to
> > support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an
> image
> > of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose
> from,
> >
> > On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> >
> > > 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 pretty sure
> > > that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> > > used it.
> > >
> > > ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
> > > reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> > > longer even try!!1!one!".
> > >
> > > -- 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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 banner (again)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

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 Foundation
> > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> >
>
> [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
ideas!
>
> Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
> of the ads so far this year.

You approve of WMF using stock photos?

--
John
___
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 banner (again)

[Andreas Kolbe]

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
___
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] (no subject)

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 interface. It is geared up for people adding data not really
for people using data. The approach is way too dogmatic as well. So no,
thank you.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 2 December 2015 at 23:56, Gnangarra  wrote:

> 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
> photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying to
> support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an image
> of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose from,
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>
> > 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 pretty sure
> > that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> > used it.
> >
> > ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
> > reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> > longer even try!!1!one!".
> >
> > -- 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> 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 banner (again)

[Craig Franklin]

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 loudly and give anyone ideas!

Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
of the ads so far this year.

Cheers,
Craig
___
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 banner (again)

[Craig Franklin]

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
available on our own projects is not ideal.  The ads themselves are also as
ugly as hell, although I'm sure there's some A/B testing that shows that
such monstrosities extract slightly more cash from the readers that will be
used to justify that.

Cheers,
Craig

On 3 December 2015 at 10:01, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> 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
> Foundation
> > > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> > >
> >
> > [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone
> ideas!
> >
> > Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the
> size)
> > of the ads so far this year.
>
> You approve of WMF using stock photos?
>
> --
> John
>
___
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] Endowment Discussion

[Peter Southwood]

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 endowment might be, I would like to see substantial 
improvements to WMF's budget transparency and annual plan process before the 
fundraising for an endowment starts.

Pine
On Dec 1, 2015 15:25, "Risker"  wrote:

> Heh.  $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and 
> spent) on an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, 
> including grants that are separate from direct fundraising.  It 
> *might* last 5-7 years of bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" 
> functions, but that would mean no software upgrades (except what 
> volunteers do in accord with their own desire as opposed to actual 
> need), no community support, no funds to chapters, no Wikimania or 
> hackathons or other conferences, no support for free-as-in-libre work, 
> and very little assurance that if there were major changes in the most 
> commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep up-to-date with this.
>
> This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to 
> include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal 
> operating functions of the project, and how long it would need to be 
> able to proceed.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha  wrote:
>
> > do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any 
> > fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in 
> > the position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand 
> > up and
> keep
> > running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
> >
> > Mardetanha
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> > >  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi all-
> > > >
> > > > For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having 
> > > > discussions  about 
> > > > whether and when
> to
> > > begin
> > > > building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an
> attempt
> > > to
> > > > rekindle this conversation with the community.  We included 
> > > > launching
> > an
> > > > endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
> > >
> > > Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this 
> > > moving forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber 
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is 
> > > > probably worthwhile.
> > >
> > > I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
> > >
> > > The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will 
> > > have an investment manager and perhaps even an investment 
> > > committee. I think directing that group to look at investment 
> > > vehicles (i.e. mutual
> > > funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, 
> > > much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and 
> > > levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be 
> > > might not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies 
> > > of other large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
> > >
> > > 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,
> > >  > > e>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@li
> sts.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,
> 
___
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] Endowment Discussion

[Fæ]

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 of
elected trustees. This means that choices of when and how the
endowment is invested in years to come might be on projects or
organizations that would never be approved of by the volunteer
community of Wikimedians, and volunteer trustees could be outvoted on
every key decision.

2. The WMF struggles to become convincingly transparent or
accountable. As a simple to fix example, long term Wikimedians are
denied access to reports that the WMF (i.e. you) holds about them;
circumstances that would be unlawful in Europe.

3. There is huge potential for a financial scandal. The WMF does not
have policies or procedures in place to ensure that investment on this
scale can be handled well, year after year. These types of fiscal
controls are entirely different from handing and reporting on a $100m
cash flow.

4. With an endowment scheme in place, the WMF would be naturally
*less* accountable to Wikimedians for its actions each year. There
would be less incentive to answer questions, less incentive to
established a community consensus for the annual strategy and less
incentive to put volunteers at the center of decision making.
Similarly there would be less incentive for the WMF to attempt to
repair declining numbers of contributors to its on-line projects, or
ensure that issues such as gender disparity or on-line harassment are
targeted for investment. At the current time I cannot imagine how any
system would ensure this was not an inevitable consequence in a
volunteer based organization. I have no prior examples of
volunteer-centric organizations where this has worked well.

As the CEO, it would be helpful for you to spell out in a public
recommendation to your board the good governance practices and core
competences that would have to be established and tested before
proceeding to put money into a massive long term endowment scheme.

Thanks,
Fae

On 30 November 2015 at 17:27, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> Lisa,
>
> Thank you for sharing these exciting news and all the work the team has
> completed so far.  I know I have spoken with many of our community members
> in the past about this important milestone in protecting our community's
> work long-term. I am looking forward to hearing more from everyone as we
> make this real.
>
> Lila
-- 
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, 

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

[Trillium Corsage]

"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 network. The vast 
majority of *content* editors, occasional or prolific, are completely unaware 
of this other side of Wikipedia. It's they who build the encyclopedia. I'd 
argue that where Wikipedia articles are good, it's a result of the content 
editors, not the administrative participants lauding themselves for riding herd 
on them.

Lila Tretikov has said that the proper definition of the Wikipedia "community" 
is *all* the editors, administrative participants, and readers. The 
administrative subset is not a *representative* subset of that. It's rather a 
self-selecting and much smaller subset with its own behaviors. You can see this 
recently I think, where in the current Arbcom elections, it has installed a 
filter to screen editors with less than 500 edits from asking questions of the 
candidates. I'm not aware that it has yet barred such editors from actually 
voting, but that would be the next step following its own logic. What the 
administrative component is doing is protecting its own influence and position 
by keeping these others out of the process.

Todd Allen took it a step farther below by proclaiming "community members" as 
"way more important than readers." Seems pretty brazen and non-inclusive to me, 
and illustrative of the attitudes of the administrative set.

Trillium Corsage


02.12.2015, 16:36, "Todd Allen" :
> 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"  wrote:
>
>>  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,
>>  or
>>  > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
>>  > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
>>  > inevitable butbutbut.
>>
>>  Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
>>  issues with last month's survey.[1]
>>
>>  When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
>>  what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
>>  representative sample.
>>
>>  [1]
>>
>>  
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
>>  ___
>>  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, 
> 

___
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 banner (again)

[K. Peachey]

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 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 has run through my brain since I was old enough to
> think. I also believe its a factor in why I am currently in the eligible
> Jeopardy! contestant pool. In short, thanks Wikipedia.
>
> Wikipedia helps me almost daily, I cannot count the number of times me and
> friends have been debating the answer to life, the universe and everything
> (42, in case you were wondering!) and Wikipedia has dispelled the
> discrepancies in one or more of our arguments. Thanks to wiki, we have been
> able to convince each other we were wrong, and educate on topics we have
> never considered. Wiki is very important, and for this I will continue to
> donate as long as I can afford to. The more the world has open access to
> information for free, the sooner mankind will get along. Wikipedia is
> making the world a better place one article at a time. Thank you.
>
> I've had a roadrunner and wild turkey with poults in my yard and I've used
> Wiki to obtain information about them.
>
> There was a time I used to get embarrassed due to lack of general
> knowledge. Wikipedia gave me confidence. Thank you.
>
> well, over time, using it became a reflex, like breathing but when i pause
> to think about it, it is one of the source of knowledge I use most and I am
> the better for it.
>
> It's one of a tiny number of fund raising calls that I respond to. The
> charter or quest of Wikipedia , I think is among the highest ideals that
> humans can aspire to.
>
> Wikipedia is the first point of call for any research i am performing,
> especially on a new subject. It has been a life-saver on more than one
> occasions
>
> Wikipedia is part of my information ecosystem. It's like a road map for new
> intellectual territory.
>
> There was (more than) one time when I needed to know if some dumb obscure
> TV actor from the 70s was still alive and Wikipedia was there for me. Plus
> all the other times when I just need a quick bit of info: size of a
> country's population, name of a president, details about a math function;
> it's endless.
>
> Helped me with my uni degree, gave me medical information on health
> problems, let me learn new things about animals that I like :D Helps me
> answer questions from my kid about the world that I want to give her, but
> don't know the answers to
>
> I think you're the only organisation that can fundraise that way and you
> deserve it.
>
> My older sister doesn't have a computer (she's 82), so we talk on the phone
> and I look up stuff for her. It's a nice way to spend time with her, and it
> brings us together
>
> As a journalist and travel writer, this online research is often my first
> port of call. For a quick scan of even just the most basic information
> about a topic, I used to have to walk down to the basement of the national
> television building I worked in to ask the archivist to dig out a series of
> reference books that applied to my topic. Sometimes the books were already
> in use by someone else, which meant I had to wait even longer or beg the
> person to share the book with me. Now, I just Google it and often end up on
> Wikipedia. While I always still double check everything I read on these
> pages and use other sources for my actual fact finding, it no longer takes
> hours or days to get started with my research
>
> I've lost many bets because of wikipedia. So because of you I have looked
> stupider than if you didn't exist
>
> Wikipedia is the first step in any student's research. When it comes to
> education, Wikipedia is the real MVP!
>
> As a student, Wikipedia is a goldmine. I love you guys.
>
> I use it for everything from government and politics to celebrities and tv
> shows to authors and books. There's a facebook group I'm a part of called
> "Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club." People post weird, strange, interesting
> wikipedia pages they've found. Basically, wikipedia is awesome! (I'd really
> love there to be an accuracy scale though, since I usually end up
> researching stuff after I read the wikipedia page, just to make sure it's
> correct.)
>
> I'm an engineer. I was not the smartest nor the dumbest in uni. I was
> average and over the years I forget concepts/theories/formulae all the time
> and I use Wikipedia to give my memory the nudge it needs to get back on
> track. Thank you.
>
> It is my main source of information.
>
> Taking AP Physics in high school I would constantly get confused with all
> of the unites and what they actually measured. Joules, watts,