Note that there is a parallel e-mail campaign, which also seems to have ruffled some feathers.
https://twitter.com/williampietri/status/539861727517868032 As shown in the screenshot of that tweet, the sender is "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia", and the wording begins: ---o0o--- Dear <name>, Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia online and ad-free. I'm sure you're busy, so I'll get right to it. We need your help again this year. Please help us forget about fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year. We are the small non-profit that runs one of the top websites in the world. We only have about 200 staff but serve 500 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, programs, and ... ---o0o--- The subject line is "<name>, I'll keep it short". Best, Andreas On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Charles Gregory <wmau.li...@chuq.net> wrote: > I don't think anyone is surprised when the Reg publishes a negative article > about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Someone there seems to have had an axe to grind > for years. > > But in this case, we certainly need to stop giving them the ammo. > > Regards, > Charles > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < > > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our > > banners > > > > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get > > bigger > > > > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an > > > exception. > > > > However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems > > to > > > be > > > > more fear inducing as well. > > > > > > > > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was > > in > > > > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the > content > > > > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him > that > > > > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the > budget > > > > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, > because > > > there > > > > isn't. > > > > > > > > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the > > first > > > > person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a > > real > > > > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel > > > > manipulated. > > > > > > > > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is > > rare > > > for > > > > him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's > > ads > > > > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate. > > > > > > > > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce > > the > > > > number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when > > people > > > > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch > to > > > an > > > > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search). > > > > > > > > - Ryan Lane > > > > > > > > > > Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every > > year > > > on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I > > know > > > how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc. > > etc. > > > Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have > to > > > tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies > for > > > taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So > > > please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December > > for > > > now on. > > > > > > Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the > fundraiser > > as > > > quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep > > the > > > yearly donation drive as short as possible. > > > > > > Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the > > appearance > > > and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and > > > obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the > > reader > > > as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but > do > > > we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our > > content > > > forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority > of > > > the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it > all > > > for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two > people. > > > > > > Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise > > to > > > the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been > > > written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm. > > > But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the > > > donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't > go > > > off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline. > > We're > > > not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to > > want > > > the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the > > > messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They > > > will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they > would > > be > > > right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much > of > > > the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm > part > > > of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long > > run, I > > > think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year. > > > > > > For now, two requests. > > > # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal? > > > # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the > > > don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more > > than > > > 50% of the space above the fold. > > > > > > I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief > as > > > possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our > > > reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > --Martijn > > > > > > I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around > > > 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly > > > coincidence with this one, that would help. > > > > > > > > > > For reference, there was an article in The Register on this a couple of > > days ago: > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/penniless_and_desperate_wikipedia_sits_on_60m_cash/ > > > > Slashdot: > > > > > > > http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/02/1528227/a-mismatch-between-wikimedias-pledge-drive-and-its-cash-on-hand > > > > Discussion of the Register article on Jimmy Wales' talk page: > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Article_in_the_Register > > > > Best, > > 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, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
