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
Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.
A big advantage of having an endowment would be in conversations with our
- 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
"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
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
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
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,
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"
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
Of course, "ethically" and "transparent" are crucial factors here, and a
lot of work.
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
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
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
Wikipedia as the front matter to all research
In case anyone is interested, a commons version is available here:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Ricordisamoa
> After the latest cup of coffee, I really miss Jimbo's eyes :-(
> And honestly, they
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
Thank you Lila for the update, it's indeed an important improvement and we
can't wait to see this change.
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
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
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."
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
Ah yes, I see - my fault for skim-reading the summary rather than paying
attention to the tables. Thanks for pointing that out.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote:
> Hi Chris-
> A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned. These
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
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:
I have chatted with a number of folks over the years about ways to help promote
the annual fundraising appeal - but in ways
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
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
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
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
Last October, Siko committed to a community consultation on the future of
Wikimania scheduled for November. 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
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
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.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at
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,
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
> There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not
> even try to find images in
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
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Craig Franklin
> 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.
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
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
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
I will second that recommendation.
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, 02 December 2015 8:14 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion
As good as having an
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
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
"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
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
Mail list logo