Ryan Lane, The whole of your post suggests that the fundraising folks are deaf. Your last sentence doesn't make you more to the point. This makes you really unapproachable and puts the fundraising folks into harder position as they have to cry, beg pardon and spend time apologizing -- as if they had killed a kitten -- before they can approach you and ask for help.
On one side, such hostile approach is something you might feel these folks deserve for their awful mistakes. You might feel that you're being more clear about it - but clarity doesn't really have to come at the cost of shaming and not having made a single move toward changing the situation. We are all learning. We should work out measurable, actionable steps toward solving the problem. Such steps should look pleasant, nice, encouraging, motivating, and informative. When looking at them, everyone reading the thread should smile and feel that they should've come up with these steps long ago (including all of the WMF staff and the fundraising folks), and feel motivated to expand them. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles was mentioned in this thread earlier as a collaboration space. It is probably a good one (although it lacks geometry specs or any kind of time or statistics suggestions or past analysis results). That's a wiki. It is just waiting for you to touch it and put it in better shape. -- svetlana On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 15:34, Ryan Lane wrote: > svetlana <svetlana@...> writes: > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating > their rage instead of > > communicating it early > > > > I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say: > > > > > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for > accumulating their rage instead of > > communicating it early > > > > I worked for Wikimedia Foundation for a little over four years. Every year I > (and many other staff members) have expressed worry about the size and > message of the banners. There's been plenty of early communication. > > Every year we get promises that they'll work on making the banners better. > However, it seems when they say better, they mean more effective from the > perspective of generating revenue. The message from the fundraising staff > and Lila is more of the same. > > This year I've started having people I know worry that Wikipedia is in > financial trouble. It makes me feel ashamed when I have to tell them > Wikipedia is in fact fine, but that the foundation uses this messaging to > more effectively drive donations. It makes them angry to hear it. > > I'm not trying to paint this as us vs them. I'm trying to express that > planting heads firmly in the sand is not an effective approach to dealing > with the brand damage that's readily apparent on social media. > > - Ryan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
