Apologies if my response seemed to infer something I did not intend it to.
I was referring to the strategic direction which provides high level goals
for the movement as a whole developed by people from across the movement.
Measureable contributions in working towards those goals, comes down to
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 19:24, Joseph Seddon wrote:
> ... but the
> movement has set itself some pretty significant goals for the next 10
Could you provide a link to where the movement, presumably not the
report published in February 2018 that was written by the
"Foundation’s staff and
I know the history of our content and I know the slip ups that have been
made along the way but the team take this seriously. Our internal review
processes have significantly improved over the years and for this
fundraiser it's definitely been our most rigorous yet and I think it's
proven to be
Your dad is right, in some regards. More than 85% of our revenue comes from
the general public. It's how we've survived and has supported our growth
over the last decade.
We have conducted surveys, focus groups and user testing over the years to
get better insights into our
I've sent in multiple emails about this issue already, the last one about a
week ago. I was given a response within a few hours; a boilerplate
explaining why one might be seeing banners after they had donated, and
explaining my options on how to hide them.
I had not donated, and I did not mention
Samuel Klein wrote:
>[Some banners are so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a
>page without; and I've occasionally thought we should run some of those,
>w/ low probability, continuously year-round.]
Which banners are delightful? The ones I've seen this year take up two
Yeah, I've been getting this feedback each year for at least the past years
too. I am pretty sure that most of the people who were alarmed and told me,
did not thoroughly read the message, but mostly picked up on cues. It may
be that I have more of such people in my circle of acquaintances than
I think the current messages are quite good and clear, the ones I've seen
get better each year.
I don't find the messaging alarmist or misleading. But perhaps subtle cues
can change how they are perceived.
[I also don't usually get this feedback from people outside our community
(last: in 2012),
This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same
reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better, that
things have been tested, etc.
The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff
*works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere.
I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently
* A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok)
* A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once before)
* A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP went
down during finals)
All worried either
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the
country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's
problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that
the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up
Just wanted to acknowledge your email and let you know I'll respond in full
as soon as possible.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta
> My dad recently said to me:
> "I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using the
mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to scroll
down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to be
much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki
Mail list logo