Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 29: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#20)

2017-06-29 Thread Natacha Rault
Dear Katherine, 

I wish a nice holiday to all the WMF staff in the US! Thank you for this 
comprehensive and detailed summary, it’s great to have a diggest pinpointing at 
suggestions that one would not have noticed otherwise. 

I completely agree with the Australian community: we need more appropriate help 
to start editing. This is what the French community tried with the WikiMOOC. It 
actually generated tutorials and content that anyone running an editathon or a 
workshop can use (in French). I must thank Jules Xenard (Jules78120) for his 
inspiring role in coordinating  & leading the French Wikimooc.

I am personally glad to have been able to participate in this survey, and to 
see that someone is actually looking into into detail. 
Being able to hear about other communities and chapters makes us feel being 
part of a global movement, stepping over borders and languages. 

#whatmakesmehappythisweek !

Kind regards (and a nice holiday) 

Natacha / Nattes à chat





> Le 30 juin 2017 à 02:48, Katherine Maher  a écrit :
> 
> Hi all!
> 
> *Summary: The summary of the Cycle 2 discussions is now online.*
> 
> A summary of the Cycle 2 discussions has been posted on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> Please review the summaries, they’re really informative![2] In the
> meantime, I wanted to highlight some of the things you said during this
> most recent cycle:
> 
> Australian Community participants said we can only create a trusted source
> of knowledge if we are a good community. They also discussed problems
> dealing with new users, and more appropriate help in starting editing.[3]
> 
> Some participants in the Wikimedia Chile Strategy meetup believed that
> without healthy and inclusive communities, content will become “impossible
> and irrelevant”.[4] Marco Correa Pérez, Wikimedia Chile President, and the
> language liaison for the Spanish community, also spoke about this event
> during our monthly metrics and activities meeting earlier today.[5]
> 
> Members of the Wikimedians of Korea User Group talked about improving human
> translation capabilities, the environment for multimedia uploading,
> understanding cultural diversity, and mobile editing.[6]
> 
> On the French Wikipedia discussion participants think we should involve
> experts to improve the verifiability of content, stop “confronting” humans
> against machines. They believe that if we want Wikimedia to be a force in
> the broader knowledge ecosystem, Wikimedia must partner with institutional
> actors to build legitimacy.[7]
> 
> We will be starting Cycle 3 in the next few days. In addition to the
> community and organized group discussions, we have hosted conversations
> with more than 150 experts and partners or potential partners. We have also
> been conducting research in both countries where Wikimedia is well known,
> and those regions where we are not.
> 
> This final cycle is dedicated to considering the findings from these
> conversations with experts and independent research. We want to consider
> the challenges and opportunities that have been identified, and how we may
> want to evolve in response to changes in the world around us.
> These conversations, along the results from cycles 1 and 2, will be used by
> the drafting group to write the draft strategic direction, which will be
> available for your review in August.
> 
> *On a related note*
> 
> We are in the middle of a holiday week in the United States, and as a
> result some Foundation staff are enjoying time off with family and friends.
> Responses may be a bit delayed as a result. I wish everyone enjoying
> holidays have a safe, restful, and joyful time away!
> 
> Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”)
> 
> Katherine
> 
> PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[8]
> 
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Final_summary
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Australian_Community
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Wikimedia_Chile_-_Strategy_meetup_in_Santiago_(June_6,_2017)
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings/2017-06
> [6]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Wikimedians_of_Korea_User_Group
> [7]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/French_Wikipedia
> [8]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/29_June_2017_-_Update_20_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process
> 
> -- 
> Katherine Maher
> 
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
> 
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> 

[Wikimedia-l] June 29: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#20)

2017-06-29 Thread Katherine Maher
Hi all!

*Summary: The summary of the Cycle 2 discussions is now online.*

A summary of the Cycle 2 discussions has been posted on Meta-Wiki.[1]
Please review the summaries, they’re really informative![2] In the
meantime, I wanted to highlight some of the things you said during this
most recent cycle:

Australian Community participants said we can only create a trusted source
of knowledge if we are a good community. They also discussed problems
dealing with new users, and more appropriate help in starting editing.[3]

Some participants in the Wikimedia Chile Strategy meetup believed that
without healthy and inclusive communities, content will become “impossible
and irrelevant”.[4] Marco Correa Pérez, Wikimedia Chile President, and the
language liaison for the Spanish community, also spoke about this event
during our monthly metrics and activities meeting earlier today.[5]

Members of the Wikimedians of Korea User Group talked about improving human
translation capabilities, the environment for multimedia uploading,
understanding cultural diversity, and mobile editing.[6]

On the French Wikipedia discussion participants think we should involve
experts to improve the verifiability of content, stop “confronting” humans
against machines. They believe that if we want Wikimedia to be a force in
the broader knowledge ecosystem, Wikimedia must partner with institutional
actors to build legitimacy.[7]

We will be starting Cycle 3 in the next few days. In addition to the
community and organized group discussions, we have hosted conversations
with more than 150 experts and partners or potential partners. We have also
been conducting research in both countries where Wikimedia is well known,
and those regions where we are not.

This final cycle is dedicated to considering the findings from these
conversations with experts and independent research. We want to consider
the challenges and opportunities that have been identified, and how we may
want to evolve in response to changes in the world around us.
These conversations, along the results from cycles 1 and 2, will be used by
the drafting group to write the draft strategic direction, which will be
available for your review in August.

*On a related note*

We are in the middle of a holiday week in the United States, and as a
result some Foundation staff are enjoying time off with family and friends.
Responses may be a bit delayed as a result. I wish everyone enjoying
holidays have a safe, restful, and joyful time away!

Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”)

Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[8]

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Final_summary
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Australian_Community
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Wikimedia_Chile_-_Strategy_meetup_in_Santiago_(June_6,_2017)
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings/2017-06
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/Wikimedians_of_Korea_User_Group
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/French_Wikipedia
[8]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/29_June_2017_-_Update_20_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process

-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Wiki Ed Annual Plan 2017-18

2017-06-29 Thread LiAnna Davis
Thanks to everyone who commented on the draft. The final version was
approved by our board at their June meeting, and is now available on our
website:
https://wikiedu.org/annual-plan/

LiAnna


On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:14 PM, LiAnna Davis  wrote:

> (Standard apologies for the cross-post!)
>
> The Wiki Education Foundation's draft annual report for 2016–17 and draft
> annual plan for 2017–18 is now available on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_
> Foundation/Annual_Plan_2017-18_(draft)
>
> This marks the first time that Wiki Ed staff have solicited Wikimedia
> community comments and questions on our draft. We're doing so this year
> based on conversations with members of the Simple APG Committee. As you can
> see in our plan, Wiki Ed intends to enter the FDC process this fall. During
> the review process from the Simple APG committee this spring, committee
> members raised concerns about a lack of opportunity for comments on Wiki
> Ed's draft annual plans. While we always publish our board-approved annual
> plan on our website, we haven't offered a draft for comments in the past.
> In an effort to be more transparent and respond to the Simple APG
> committee's feedback, I've posted the draft of the annual plan on Meta and
> invite comments and questions from the broader Wikimedia community on the
> draft talk page. Comments made prior to May 28 will be taken into account
> when Wiki Ed staff prepare a final version of the plan for the board to
> vote upon.
>
> As with all nonprofits, our board is the final decision-maker on our
> annual plan.
>
> LiAnna
>
>
>
> --
> LiAnna Davis
> Director of Programs; Deputy Director
> Wiki Education Foundation
> www.wikiedu.org
>



-- 
LiAnna Davis
Director of Programs; Deputy Director
Wiki Education Foundation
www.wikiedu.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising pilot on Facebook

2017-06-29 Thread James Heilman
Thanks Sam

Interesting experiment. Can you provide versions of the fundraiser
notifications so people can provide feedback?

Best
James

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Samuel Patton 
wrote:

> Hi, John. Thanks for taking the time to share your questions, and I'm happy
> to answer them. I've included your original questions and my answers
> inline:
>
>
> *Does this involve paying Facebook and Instagram? If so, how much is being
> allocated that part of this pilot?*
> Yes; we’ll pay a cost per click, or per impressions, for these ads. We’ve
> allocated $5,000 USD for this experiment.
>
>
> *What targets have been set to evaluate whether this pilot will be
> considered successful?*
> The ultimate goal of running an ads program would be 100% ROI; $2 raised
> for every $1 spent. We will also be able to compare ROI with that of our
> existing payment processors and determine if Facebook helps increase our
> efficiency. But we have no expectations because we don’t yet have data. For
> the purpose of this experiment, we simply want to establish benchmarks that
> could guide further testing. That being said, our online fundraising model
> is entirely built around a/b iterative testing, and we'll employ those
> principles in this pilot.
>
> *If it is just to *learn* about potential demographics, I fear that most of
> the knowledge gained will already have been published previously by other
> non-profits who've tried similar.*
>
> A fair point, though I’d note that, as far as our banners and emails, ‘our
> donors don’t always behave like other donors.’ The copy, design, and ask
> amounts that work for us do not track exactly with the experiences of other
> non-profit peers, whom we also monitor and consult.
>
> If the ROI is favorable, it also gives us the opportunity to engage a new
> set of Wikipedia users. This new medium opens the possibility to get new
> donors on our list, and educate more people about the Foundation and the
> movement.
>
> *I cant help but notice that you mentioned the work will be done by Middle
> Seat >, and not that it is
> former staff member Zack Exley's company. Is there a requirement that this
> consulting job will culminate in a published and openly licensed report by
> Middle Seat?*
>
> Zack Exley is not directly involved in this experiment, though he is a
> founding member of Middle Seat. We’re working with Middle Seat to tap into
> their expertise in social advertising and targeting, but all content
> approval and reporting will be handled by the Foundation in keeping with
> our established best practices.
>
> I appreciate your scrutiny and the chance to offer some more clarity on
> this test.
>
> regards,
> sam
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > Does this involve paying Facebook and Instagram?
> > If so, how much is being allocated that part of this pilot?
> >
> > IIRC, at least Facebook has a separate program for non-profits, but
> > they didnt offer ads for non-profits at reduced rates as part of that
> > program.
> >
> > What targets have been set to evaluate whether this pilot will be
> > considered successful?
> > If it is just to *learn* about potential demographics, I fear that
> > most of the knowledge gained will already have been published
> > previously by other non-profits who've tried similar.
> >
> > I cant help but notice that you mentioned the work will be done by
> > Middle Seat , and not that it is former staff
> > member Zack Exley's company.
> > Is there a requirement that this consulting job will culminate in a
> > published and openly licensed report by Middle Seat?
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Samuel Patton 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'm writing to let you know about a project we're trying on the
> > > Foundation's fundraising team. Thanks to all the help and advice we've
> > > received from our colleagues in Communications, Legal, and Community
> > > Engagement.
> > >
> > > *I've posted this announcement as an update on Fundraising's Meta Page
> > > , and would be
> > happy
> > > to answer questions and keep the discussion up there.*
> > >
> > > Over the next three weeks, the Advancement team will be conducting a
> > small
> > > fundraising pilot on Facebook and Instagram. This will involve
> sponsored
> > > posts, served in English to people in the United States, that will
> direct
> > > users to donate to the Foundation using our own donation processing
> > pages.
> > >
> > > Fundraising is always interested in exploring new ways to reach people
> > who
> > > find value in Wikipedia and are interested in supporting the
> Foundation’s
> > > mission. Advertising across social networks is a proven and popular way
> > for
> > > nonprofits to find new supporters and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-06-29 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Robert

I speak only for myself, as I presume do you.  I make observations that
relate to the Foundation, the wider Community and their interactions, as I
presume do you.  I sometimes comment on those matters here, as do you.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Robert,
> What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia
> movement strategy process (#19)
>
> >By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening
> >initially,
>
> Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
> their response was quite clear.
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Greg and Anna
> >
> > This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the
> > value of transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community
> > what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place
> > itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours
> > of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going
> > to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control
> > over this multi-million dollar project.
> >
> > Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible
> > question about a point of financial management you will be more ready,
> > willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the
> > community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more
> > information you share with the community, the more acceptance,
> > goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better
> > placed the community wil be to help you.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum
> > 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pine,
> > >
> > > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number
> > > of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> > >
> > > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for
> > > expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over
> > > Fiscal Year
> > > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 -
> > > June 2018).
> > >
> > > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more
> > > on
> > the
> > > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> > calling
> > > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> > Board),
> > > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on
> > > this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with
> > > which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample
> > > financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> > >
> > > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and
> > > a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the
> > > cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> > >
> > > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior
> > > leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours:
> > > Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated
> > > amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of
> > > staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > > salary)
> > >
> > > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided
> > > not to provide that response because we have ample financial
> > > oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending
> > > resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You
> > > are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way
> > > for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
> > >
> > > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith
> > > that
> > it
> > > was written.
> > >
> > > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Anna,
> > > >
> > > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > > >>> from
> > what
> > > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > > >>> that
> > > the
> > > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
Robert,
What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Robert Fernandez
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement 
strategy process (#19)

>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening 
>initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their 
response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the 
> value of transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community 
> what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place 
> itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours 
> of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going 
> to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control 
> over this multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible 
> question about a point of financial management you will be more ready, 
> willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the 
> community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more 
> information you share with the community, the more acceptance, 
> goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better 
> placed the community wil be to help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> 
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to 
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number 
> > of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and 
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for 
> > expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over 
> > Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - 
> > June 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more 
> > on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on 
> > this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with 
> > which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample 
> > financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, 
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and 
> > a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the 
> > cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior 
> > leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours: 
> > Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated 
> > amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of 
> > staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require 
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided 
> > not to provide that response because we have ample financial 
> > oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending 
> > resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You 
> > are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way 
> > for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our 
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith 
> > that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and 
> > >>> from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume 
> > >>> that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source 
> > >>> of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this 
> > >> process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikipedia Library User Group

2017-06-29 Thread Samuel Patton
Very cool, congratulations!

sam

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Subhashish Panigrahi  wrote:

> This is a great news! Congratulations everyone involved in bringing this
> awesome collective.
>
> Subhashish
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
> > Welcome and congratulations!
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Samuel Klein 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Awesome.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Tito Dutta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Congratulations on getting the recognition. :)  I wish you all the
> > best.
> > > >
> > > > On 29 June 2017 at 17:53, Kirill Lokshin 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> > > recognized
> > > > >  the Wikipedia Library User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.
> The
> > > > > group aims
> > > > > to combine and multiply collaboration with libraries and
> librarians,
> > > from
> > > > > edit-a-thons hosted at libraries to the Wiki Loves Libraries
> outreach
> > > > > campaign and the broader institutional and publisher outreach of
> the
> > > > > Wikipedia Library, and to serve as a forum open to all Wikimedia
> > > > community
> > > > > members and any librarians interested in working with Wikipedia.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user
> group!
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Library_User_Group
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
> > 4266
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Katherine Maher
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 149 New Montgomery Street
> > San Francisco, CA 94105
> >
> > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > kma...@wikimedia.org
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising pilot on Facebook

2017-06-29 Thread Samuel Patton
Hi, John. Thanks for taking the time to share your questions, and I'm happy
to answer them. I've included your original questions and my answers inline:


*Does this involve paying Facebook and Instagram? If so, how much is being
allocated that part of this pilot?*
Yes; we’ll pay a cost per click, or per impressions, for these ads. We’ve
allocated $5,000 USD for this experiment.


*What targets have been set to evaluate whether this pilot will be
considered successful?*
The ultimate goal of running an ads program would be 100% ROI; $2 raised
for every $1 spent. We will also be able to compare ROI with that of our
existing payment processors and determine if Facebook helps increase our
efficiency. But we have no expectations because we don’t yet have data. For
the purpose of this experiment, we simply want to establish benchmarks that
could guide further testing. That being said, our online fundraising model
is entirely built around a/b iterative testing, and we'll employ those
principles in this pilot.

*If it is just to *learn* about potential demographics, I fear that most of
the knowledge gained will already have been published previously by other
non-profits who've tried similar.*

A fair point, though I’d note that, as far as our banners and emails, ‘our
donors don’t always behave like other donors.’ The copy, design, and ask
amounts that work for us do not track exactly with the experiences of other
non-profit peers, whom we also monitor and consult.

If the ROI is favorable, it also gives us the opportunity to engage a new
set of Wikipedia users. This new medium opens the possibility to get new
donors on our list, and educate more people about the Foundation and the
movement.

*I cant help but notice that you mentioned the work will be done by Middle
Seat >, and not that it is
former staff member Zack Exley's company. Is there a requirement that this
consulting job will culminate in a published and openly licensed report by
Middle Seat?*

Zack Exley is not directly involved in this experiment, though he is a
founding member of Middle Seat. We’re working with Middle Seat to tap into
their expertise in social advertising and targeting, but all content
approval and reporting will be handled by the Foundation in keeping with
our established best practices.

I appreciate your scrutiny and the chance to offer some more clarity on
this test.

regards,
sam

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> Does this involve paying Facebook and Instagram?
> If so, how much is being allocated that part of this pilot?
>
> IIRC, at least Facebook has a separate program for non-profits, but
> they didnt offer ads for non-profits at reduced rates as part of that
> program.
>
> What targets have been set to evaluate whether this pilot will be
> considered successful?
> If it is just to *learn* about potential demographics, I fear that
> most of the knowledge gained will already have been published
> previously by other non-profits who've tried similar.
>
> I cant help but notice that you mentioned the work will be done by
> Middle Seat , and not that it is former staff
> member Zack Exley's company.
> Is there a requirement that this consulting job will culminate in a
> published and openly licensed report by Middle Seat?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Samuel Patton 
> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm writing to let you know about a project we're trying on the
> > Foundation's fundraising team. Thanks to all the help and advice we've
> > received from our colleagues in Communications, Legal, and Community
> > Engagement.
> >
> > *I've posted this announcement as an update on Fundraising's Meta Page
> > , and would be
> happy
> > to answer questions and keep the discussion up there.*
> >
> > Over the next three weeks, the Advancement team will be conducting a
> small
> > fundraising pilot on Facebook and Instagram. This will involve sponsored
> > posts, served in English to people in the United States, that will direct
> > users to donate to the Foundation using our own donation processing
> pages.
> >
> > Fundraising is always interested in exploring new ways to reach people
> who
> > find value in Wikipedia and are interested in supporting the Foundation’s
> > mission. Advertising across social networks is a proven and popular way
> for
> > nonprofits to find new supporters and build organizational awareness, and
> > we’re excited to dip our toes into this.
> >
> > Like the many tests we run for Fundraising, this pilot will involve
> > experiments testing different imagery, copy, and calls to action. We hope
> > to answer the question: how well does our on-Wikipedia.org messaging
> > perform when presented on another site? It will also examine how our
> > appeals perform across demographic and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikipedia Library User Group

2017-06-29 Thread Subhashish Panigrahi
This is a great news! Congratulations everyone involved in bringing this
awesome collective.

Subhashish

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> Welcome and congratulations!
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Awesome.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Congratulations on getting the recognition. :)  I wish you all the
> best.
> > >
> > > On 29 June 2017 at 17:53, Kirill Lokshin 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone!
> > > >
> > > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> > recognized
> > > >  the Wikipedia Library User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The
> > > > group aims
> > > > to combine and multiply collaboration with libraries and librarians,
> > from
> > > > edit-a-thons hosted at libraries to the Wiki Loves Libraries outreach
> > > > campaign and the broader institutional and publisher outreach of the
> > > > Wikipedia Library, and to serve as a forum open to all Wikimedia
> > > community
> > > > members and any librarians interested in working with Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Library_User_Group
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
> 4266
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-06-29 Thread Robert Fernandez
>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
their response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of
> transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community what was
> happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the
> community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten
> hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the
> Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this
> multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question
> about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and
> able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and
> pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more information you
> share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will
> build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to
> help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of
> > things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses
> > related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June
> > 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I
> > imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went
> > from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight,
> > to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a
> > demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of
> > this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
> > • 2: Number of Board members now involved
> > • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
> > • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
> > • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to
> > provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we
> > would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this
> > level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this
> > community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is
> > why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > >>> perspective.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising pilot on Facebook

2017-06-29 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
Hi Sam,

Does this involve paying Facebook and Instagram?
If so, how much is being allocated that part of this pilot?

IIRC, at least Facebook has a separate program for non-profits, but
they didnt offer ads for non-profits at reduced rates as part of that
program.

What targets have been set to evaluate whether this pilot will be
considered successful?
If it is just to *learn* about potential demographics, I fear that
most of the knowledge gained will already have been published
previously by other non-profits who've tried similar.

I cant help but notice that you mentioned the work will be done by
Middle Seat , and not that it is former staff
member Zack Exley's company.
Is there a requirement that this consulting job will culminate in a
published and openly licensed report by Middle Seat?

Regards,
John

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Samuel Patton  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm writing to let you know about a project we're trying on the
> Foundation's fundraising team. Thanks to all the help and advice we've
> received from our colleagues in Communications, Legal, and Community
> Engagement.
>
> *I've posted this announcement as an update on Fundraising's Meta Page
> , and would be happy
> to answer questions and keep the discussion up there.*
>
> Over the next three weeks, the Advancement team will be conducting a small
> fundraising pilot on Facebook and Instagram. This will involve sponsored
> posts, served in English to people in the United States, that will direct
> users to donate to the Foundation using our own donation processing pages.
>
> Fundraising is always interested in exploring new ways to reach people who
> find value in Wikipedia and are interested in supporting the Foundation’s
> mission. Advertising across social networks is a proven and popular way for
> nonprofits to find new supporters and build organizational awareness, and
> we’re excited to dip our toes into this.
>
> Like the many tests we run for Fundraising, this pilot will involve
> experiments testing different imagery, copy, and calls to action. We hope
> to answer the question: how well does our on-Wikipedia.org messaging
> perform when presented on another site? It will also examine how our
> appeals perform across demographic and interest groups.
>
> *Where will the ads appear?*
>
> This pilot will use “sponsored posts,” which is what Facebook calls content
> that appears in the news feed of Facebook users.
>
> They will also appear on Instagram as “sponsored stories” that appear
> within the flow of photo and video posts users scroll on that network.
> (Instagram is a Facebook property.)
>
> They will not appear as banners, pop-ups, or display ads that appear
> alongside the news feed. This is a test in what is called “native”
> advertising, meaning it uses the same content display area that users
> expect from Facebook and Instagram.
>
> *How will you target your ads?*
>
> In addition to the broad parameters of language (English) and country
> (U.S.), we have identified a few target audiences that might respond
> particularly well to our appeals: educators, philanthropists, and frequent
> consumers of news. We will build these audiences based off self reported
> information about educational achievement, news readership, and
> philanthropic interest. I've included details on each audience below. In
> addition to these, we have discussed the value of comparing effectiveness
> across other characteristics - age, gender, etc.
>
> A large part of the value in running this experiment is to *learn* whether
> there are any demographic differences in how people respond to our
> messaging. If this experiment does give us compelling info about who is
> more likely to donate, that is exciting! And we'll talk as a group about
> what to do with that knowledge.
>
> *Can users opt out?*
>
> Of course. Users can hide individual ads if they are not of interest to
> them. This is also something we can measure to better understand how to not
> annoy or impose on social media users in future fundraising drives.
>
> *Who is working on this?*
>
> Fundraising is partnering with the social media folks in Communications to
> run this test. The promotion and measurement of ads is being managed by a
> small company called Middle Seat.
>
> *Will you keep us in the loop?*
>
> Absolutely. By July 15 we intend to share an overview of our testing so far.
>
> Stay tuned for more updates!
>
> sam
>
> ---
>
> *Possible target audiences:*
>
> *STUDENTS & EDUCATORS*
> *How likely to donate are current students and educators?*
> Age: 18 - 65+
> Target: Current students above high school level and educators based on
> self-reported “job title”
> Reach: 1,000,000+
>
> *PHILANTHROPISTS*
> *How likely to donate are Facebook users interested in both philanthropy
> and donating to charitable causes?*
> Age: 18 - 65+
> Target: Facebook 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikipedia Library User Group

2017-06-29 Thread Katherine Maher
Welcome and congratulations!

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Awesome.
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Congratulations on getting the recognition. :)  I wish you all the best.
> >
> > On 29 June 2017 at 17:53, Kirill Lokshin 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> recognized
> > >  the Wikipedia Library User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The
> > > group aims
> > > to combine and multiply collaboration with libraries and librarians,
> from
> > > edit-a-thons hosted at libraries to the Wiki Loves Libraries outreach
> > > campaign and the broader institutional and publisher outreach of the
> > > Wikipedia Library, and to serve as a forum open to all Wikimedia
> > community
> > > members and any librarians interested in working with Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Library_User_Group
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising pilot on Facebook

2017-06-29 Thread Samuel Patton
Hi everyone,

I'm writing to let you know about a project we're trying on the
Foundation's fundraising team. Thanks to all the help and advice we've
received from our colleagues in Communications, Legal, and Community
Engagement.

*I've posted this announcement as an update on Fundraising's Meta Page
, and would be happy
to answer questions and keep the discussion up there.*

Over the next three weeks, the Advancement team will be conducting a small
fundraising pilot on Facebook and Instagram. This will involve sponsored
posts, served in English to people in the United States, that will direct
users to donate to the Foundation using our own donation processing pages.

Fundraising is always interested in exploring new ways to reach people who
find value in Wikipedia and are interested in supporting the Foundation’s
mission. Advertising across social networks is a proven and popular way for
nonprofits to find new supporters and build organizational awareness, and
we’re excited to dip our toes into this.

Like the many tests we run for Fundraising, this pilot will involve
experiments testing different imagery, copy, and calls to action. We hope
to answer the question: how well does our on-Wikipedia.org messaging
perform when presented on another site? It will also examine how our
appeals perform across demographic and interest groups.

*Where will the ads appear?*

This pilot will use “sponsored posts,” which is what Facebook calls content
that appears in the news feed of Facebook users.

They will also appear on Instagram as “sponsored stories” that appear
within the flow of photo and video posts users scroll on that network.
(Instagram is a Facebook property.)

They will not appear as banners, pop-ups, or display ads that appear
alongside the news feed. This is a test in what is called “native”
advertising, meaning it uses the same content display area that users
expect from Facebook and Instagram.

*How will you target your ads?*

In addition to the broad parameters of language (English) and country
(U.S.), we have identified a few target audiences that might respond
particularly well to our appeals: educators, philanthropists, and frequent
consumers of news. We will build these audiences based off self reported
information about educational achievement, news readership, and
philanthropic interest. I've included details on each audience below. In
addition to these, we have discussed the value of comparing effectiveness
across other characteristics - age, gender, etc.

A large part of the value in running this experiment is to *learn* whether
there are any demographic differences in how people respond to our
messaging. If this experiment does give us compelling info about who is
more likely to donate, that is exciting! And we'll talk as a group about
what to do with that knowledge.

*Can users opt out?*

Of course. Users can hide individual ads if they are not of interest to
them. This is also something we can measure to better understand how to not
annoy or impose on social media users in future fundraising drives.

*Who is working on this?*

Fundraising is partnering with the social media folks in Communications to
run this test. The promotion and measurement of ads is being managed by a
small company called Middle Seat.

*Will you keep us in the loop?*

Absolutely. By July 15 we intend to share an overview of our testing so far.

Stay tuned for more updates!

sam

---

*Possible target audiences:*

*STUDENTS & EDUCATORS*
*How likely to donate are current students and educators?*
Age: 18 - 65+
Target: Current students above high school level and educators based on
self-reported “job title”
Reach: 1,000,000+

*PHILANTHROPISTS*
*How likely to donate are Facebook users interested in both philanthropy
and donating to charitable causes?*
Age: 18 - 65+
Target: Facebook users with self-reported interests in philanthropy and
donating to charity
Reach: ~460,000

*NEWS READERS*
*How likely to donate are Facebook users whose behavior suggests they’re
daily news consumers?*
Age: 18 - 65+
Target: Facebook users with interests and behavior that suggests daily news
consumption
Reach: ~1,000,000
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF June 2017 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, June 29, 18:00 UTC

2017-06-29 Thread Lena Traer
REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes.


On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Lena Traer  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> The next Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting will take
> place on Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC
> channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will be
> broadcast as a live YouTube stream.[1]
>
> During the June metrics meeting, we'll hear from community members and
> staff on their experiences with the movement strategy process so far. We’ll
> hear more about research findings related to the process, community-led
> strategy events and conversations, and next steps for how you can engage in
> the movement strategy process moving forward.
>
> Meeting agenda:
>
> * Welcomes, theme introduction
> * Movement update
> * Community conversations around movement strategy
> * New Voices research findings from movement strategy
> * Strategy next steps
> * Questions and discussion
> * Wikilove
>
> Please review
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> metrics_and_activities_meetings
> for further information about the meeting and how to participate.
>
> We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
>
> Thank you,
> Lena
>
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6nIP4VFIi8
>
> Lena Traer
> Project Assistant // Communications // Advancement
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikipedia Library User Group

2017-06-29 Thread Samuel Klein
Awesome.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Congratulations on getting the recognition. :)  I wish you all the best.
>
> On 29 June 2017 at 17:53, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> >  the Wikipedia Library User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The
> > group aims
> > to combine and multiply collaboration with libraries and librarians, from
> > edit-a-thons hosted at libraries to the Wiki Loves Libraries outreach
> > campaign and the broader institutional and publisher outreach of the
> > Wikipedia Library, and to serve as a forum open to all Wikimedia
> community
> > members and any librarians interested in working with Wikipedia.
> >
> > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kirill Lokshin
> > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Library_User_Group
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] COH Challenge

2017-06-29 Thread Eric Luth
Dear Wikimedians,

1-31 July, Wikimedia Sverige and UNESCO co-arranges the second competition
as part of the Connected Open Heritage
 project. The
competition, called the COH Challenge
, will
focus on adding great, new images to articles about cultural heritage
uploaded as part of the project.

As part of the COH project, more than 12,000 images have been uploaded on
Commons
.
The goal is thus to make sure that these images are used on Wikipedia. To
ensure a qualitative approach, only 5 images per article (with image
captions) will be awarded points. Twice the points are awarded if the
article with the added image is also improved.

Some of you may recall the previous competition, the UNESCO Challenge,
where the focus was on improving articles! The results were great. 96 users
registered, and more than 8 million bytes of data were created. We hope
that many of you wish to take part in this competition as well. Just as
last time, nice prizes are awarded to the winners.

Best,


*Eric Luth*
Projektadministratör,
Wikimedia Sverige
eric.l...@wikimedia.se
+46 (0) 765 55 50 95
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikipedia Library User Group

2017-06-29 Thread Tito Dutta
Congratulations on getting the recognition. :)  I wish you all the best.

On 29 June 2017 at 17:53, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
>  the Wikipedia Library User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The
> group aims
> to combine and multiply collaboration with libraries and librarians, from
> edit-a-thons hosted at libraries to the Wiki Loves Libraries outreach
> campaign and the broader institutional and publisher outreach of the
> Wikipedia Library, and to serve as a forum open to all Wikimedia community
> members and any librarians interested in working with Wikipedia.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Library_User_Group
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] What to do when the WMF is stingy with the community?

2017-06-29 Thread Gergő Tisza
Making a bunch of unsupported and mostly unrelated accusations of bad faith
is usually not a great way of raising support for your grant request. Long
rants about how more money would be needed without even a hint of what that
money would be used for are also unhelpful. I recommend letting this thread
die and then starting a fresh one about the mission impact of the Wikidata
conference and how it could be raised by a larger budget.

I would also recommend talking with the other organizers first, as right
now it is unclear whether you are complaining about the WMF not willing to
give a larger grant or about the organizers not feeling the need for one.

(FWIW the WikidataCon budget is ~75.000 EUR, planned to be supported by a
36.000 EUR WMF grant and a 40.000 EUR WMDE grant.)

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:52 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Recently the review for the Wikidata conference grant application has
> started, and I have complained that the funds allocated are insuficient to
> cover the needs of the grants. The requested amount for the grants was
> 36,000 EUR, but in my opinion that should be at least 72,000 EUR.
>
> I have the feeling that the WMF is sitting on a pile of money just giving
> breadcrumbs to the community, and the community has to suffer in silence
> about this stinginess.
> What can we do as a community to request with a clear voice the funds that
> we need?
>
> Why are there two standards? One standard seems to be that everything that
> the WMF needs to allocate can go unsupervised, whereas another standard
> seems to apply to community activities where every penny is so supervised
> that it becomes a pain in the ass to organize anything big.
>
> The Wikidata Conference needs more funds to be a success and I think that
> in the grand scheme of things, the money requested is just peanuts compared
> to the money that the WMF has collected from donors.
>
> If things have to be done well, then the community has every right to claim
> the money from the donors. The WMF has no right to appropriate that money
> and use it as a hammer to sabotage events that could have a real impact
> like the Wikidata Conference.
>
> I request that the amount of funds allocated for grants to be increased
> from 36,000 eur to 72,000 eur, and this is an informed request that I
> perform both as a community member and as a member of the Wikidata
> Conference Grants Committee.
>
> The link to my complaint can be found here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/
> WMDE/WikidataCon#Complaint_about_this_grant_application
>
> The link to the Wikidata Conference Grants Commitee can be found here:
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikidataCon_2017/
> Volunteer/Scholarships_committee
>
> I hope to have some feedback about this complaint. Thank you,
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] What to do when the WMF is stingy with the community?

2017-06-29 Thread Craig Franklin
I'm afraid I don't really see the logic in this.  Even if we assume for a
moment that the WMF is sitting on top of an enormous, inexhaustible pile of
cash, it doesn't make sense that it should just splash that money around on
community initiatives without carefully assessing whether it is the best
possible use for that money, and whether additional cash would actually
lead to increased benefits.  I'm quite skeptical about the idea that flying
an additional bunch of people for a holiday in Germany, at considerable
expense to the movement, is really the most cost-effective way to develop
Wikidata.  It seems especially odd to me that one would be upset about an
event like this not being adequately funded, when it appears that the
organisers got 100% of the funding that they requested.

Cheers,
Craig

On 29 June 2017 at 04:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> Dariusz,
>
> What is the point of spending the funds frugally if our mission is not
> accomplished? Why do we need to compare an event of this magnitude to a
> small chapter?
>
> The money is there to be used, not to sit on top of it without knowing what
> to do with it. If the WMF doesn't know what to do with it, at least it
> should go back to the community in the form of grants like this one. And if
> that is not feasible, then it should be given back to donnors. And if that
> is not feasible, then we should stop taking so much money because it seems
> that we don't need it. Or do we?
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > hi David,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:52 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Recently the review for the Wikidata conference grant application has
> > > started, and I have complained that the funds allocated are insuficient
> > to
> > > cover the needs of the grants. The requested amount for the grants was
> > > 36,000 EUR, but in my opinion that should be at least 72,000 EUR.
> > >
> >
> > You realize that this is pretty much what an annual budget of a small
> > Wikimedia chapter is, right?
> >
> >
> > > I have the feeling that the WMF is sitting on a pile of money just
> giving
> > > breadcrumbs to the community, and the community has to suffer in
> silence
> > > about this stinginess.
> > >
> >
> > The WMF, just as the movement, has a responsibility to our donors, to
> spend
> > the money wisely and frugally. We surely do not always do so, but we try.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Why are there two standards? One standard seems to be that everything
> > that
> > >
> > the WMF needs to allocate can go unsupervised, whereas another standard
> > > seems to apply to community activities where every penny is so
> supervised
> > > that it becomes a pain in the ass to organize anything big.
> > >
> >
> > The WMF's spending is actually reviewed and commented on by the community
> > and the FDC.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Wikidata Conference needs more funds to be a success and I think
> that
> > > in the grand scheme of things, the money requested is just peanuts
> > compared
> > > to the money that the WMF has collected from donors.
> > >
> >
> > I believe we have a responsibility to treat our donor's contributions
> with
> > respect and care. I don't think that 70k Euro is peanuts, and rarely you
> > will find any foundation or NGO considering such an amount to be
> > insignificant.
> >
> >  best,
> >
> > dariusz
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,