phoebe ayers <> writes:

> You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has
> nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data
> that shows that "well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they
> have a good donation rate." And if there was, why in the world would
> anyone who cares about the projects make that choice? We are all on
> the same side here regarding wanting to preserve the love that people
> have for our projects.
> So no, I don't have data for you about the no doubt diverse set of
> reactions that exist in the world to the banners. (Beyond anecdotal
> info that we all have access to: twitter, this mailing list, etc.)
> What I do have is information about whether the banners are compelling
> enough to donate -- that's where the a/b testing etc. comes in -- and
> that is info that Megan et al shares with everyone.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Lila wrote in a previous post that
they have data that shows the banners are not causing brand damage. I'm
asking if you've seen that data. I trust you if you say you've been given
the data and can say it does indeed prove there's no brand damage. Based on
your reaction I know the answer to my question. Can you please get access to
the data in question and give us your take on it?

I also asked for the foundation to share the methodology they used to obtain
and analyze this data. There's nothing private about this and no reason it
shouldn't be possible to share it now. It would be excellent to have this,
because we'd know if their methodology is appropriate.

Of course, I'm still eager to see the anonymized data, but based on Lila's
post it looks like we won't get a chance until after the fundraiser.

The data from social media isn't anecdotal. It's public and is
overwhelmingly negative towards the banners. It shows there's a negative
reaction to both the message and size of the banners. Something I don't
understand is why this isn't at least being acknowledged as being a problem.

> Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
> last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
> point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
> I'm seeing in the U.S. at the moment:
> "This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence,
> we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now
> is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our
> fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price
> of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs
> of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something
> special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to
> think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to
> keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you."
> And all of that is certainly true. We do have the costs of a top
> website, we are a small nonprofit (bigger than many, but smaller than
> most brand-name NGOs), and we do survive on donations averaging $15
> (something like 85% of our revenue comes from these donations, IIRC).
> Additionally, I think we're all in agreement that we never will and
> should never run ads.
> I am not just saying this because I am a trustee -- I've seen every
> fundraising campaign that the WMF has ever run, and participated in
> discussions about most of them, and I genuinely do like this year's.
> Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that
> it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away
> (forever, I think). Obviously, opinions on the banner aesthetics can
> and will vary. But discussions on how much money we should raise
> (which, of course, is not an either/or choice) -- that's a different
> conversation.

Thank you.

- Ryan

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to