I don't know, in Australia you can get a cup of International Roast for $3, but I don't know that that would motivate a programmer, other than perhaps as a threat.
Cheers, Craig On 20 December 2014 at 05:00, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > It's now "If everyone reading this right now gives £3, our fundraiser > will be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of > coffee is all we need." > > So I suppose the take-home message is that WMF fundraising has high > estimates of what a coffee costs, rather than their programmers having > expensive tastes ;-) > > (In all seriousness: I generally agree with Liam's concerns, but I'd > also like to note that the banners running on mobile are much more > discreet, though are just as eye-catching. Well done to whoever > thought of those.) > > Andrew. > > On 19 December 2014 at 08:44, WereSpielChequers > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Two weeks ago I emailed the fundraising team with the following note, > quietly and discretely pointing out an error in their messaging. Sadly I > haven't had a reply and I think that in the UK they are still using the £3 > buys a coffee for a programmer line: > > > >> Aside from the incidental nature of the appeal, £3 and $3 are very > different sums of money. When I saw $3 I thought that was an expensive way > to buy coffees and that the WMF should invest in a kettle and some mugs. > But £3 for a coffee, now that just looks wasteful, even to someone living > in an expensive part of London. I dread to think what it looks like to > someone living in other parts of England, let alone cheaper parts of the > world. "£3 gets coffee and biscuits for a potential wikipedian coming to a > training session", that I could defend. > >> > >> There's also the honesty/credibility factor. I doubt I am the only > person seeing different versions of these ads including different > currencies, if the sums are this far apart the suspicion has to be that > none of the figures are to be trusted. Not a great help to our program of > improving Wikipedia quality and getting such details right in our articles. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Jonathan Cardy > > > > > >> > >> 3. > >>> > >>> > >>> To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no > government > >>> funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors > >>> simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us > forget > >>> fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. > >>> > >>> We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please > consider > >>> making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia > >>> < > http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0 > > > >>> . > >>> > >>> https://donate.wikimedia.org > >>> < > http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0 > > > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Jimmy Wales > >>> Wikipedia Founder > >>> > >>> PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia > running. > >>> Your contribution counts! > >>> *DONATE NOW »* > >>> < > http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0 > > > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> > >>> "our final email"? > >>> This is the last email reminder you'll receive"? > >>> Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."?? > >>> If that weren't embarrassing, what about... > >>> > >>> - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at > the > >>> same time in the heading. > >>> - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past > >>> donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need > to do > >>> any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!! > >>> - On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence > >>> immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another year". > >>> - Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep > >>> Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, > which is > >>> enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who > have > >>> donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other > 99% of > >>> donors didn't donate enough)? > >>> - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a > >>> "thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should > note > >>> that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and > >>> mission-oriented]. > >>> > >>> > >>> *Effectiveness != Efficiency* > >>> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles > >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal > >>> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis > is > >>> original]. > >>> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising > team to > >>> mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest > that > >>> "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter > >>> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. > >>> > >>> I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are > *efficient *at > >>> getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been > honed > >>> with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the > core > >>> WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, > they > >>> actually appear to be following a principle of being "as *maximally > *disruptive > >>> as they can get away with, for as short a time as required". > >>> > >>> Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective > fundraising" is > >>> defined in practice, and how they are measured? > >>> > >>> *Shareable vs Desperate* > >>> On the same day that the WMF communications team release this > inspiring and > >>> positive "year in review" video > >>> < > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/ > >, > >>> this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about > not > >>> advertising and staying online for another year. > >>> > >>> Couldn't the "year in review" video have been used in the fundraising > email > >>> to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's > the > >>> kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not > >>> something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of > >>> moral-obligation. > >>> > >>> *Fundraising "operating principles"* > >>> I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical > >>> "operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world > >>> guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member > Phoebe > >>> has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations > on > >>> this list from the last few weeks here: > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles > >>> I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this > fundraiser is > >>> finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative > process > >>> with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the > future, > >>> the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join > >>> the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it > >>> will go away as quickly as possible. > >>> > >>> After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is: > >>> "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment > >>> underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and > groups > >>> world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public > >>> outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s > >>> fundraising efforts" > >>> > >>> -Liam > >>> p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community > yet > >>> about why they aren't allowed to donate? > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >>> [email protected] > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 4 > >> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:12:41 -0500 > >> From: MZMcBride <[email protected]> > >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email > >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >> > >> Liam Wyatt wrote: > >>> *Effectiveness != Efficiency* > >>> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles > >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal > >>> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis > is > >>> original]. > >>> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising > team > >>> to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I > contest > >>> that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter > >>> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. > >> > >> Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation > solicitation > >> e-mails are terrible and unbecoming. > >> > >> In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem > >> to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding > >> principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much > >> stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation > Board > >> of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior > on > >> the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines > >> aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how > >> big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard > maximums. > >> > >> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly > >> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest > >> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. > >> The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in > >> an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include > calling > >> Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a > >> "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and > misleading > >> suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. > >> > >> The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a > generous > >> $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ > >> that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for > money > >> again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that > >> suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. > >> > >> MZMcBride > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 5 > >> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:21:31 +0000 > >> From: David Gerard <[email protected]> > >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email > >> Message-ID: > >> <caj0tu1gosobr6texio5u+gpb2kzsxqq1n8ykkmsa1alpof2...@mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >> > >>> On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly > >>> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest > >>> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant > falsehoods. > >> > >> > >> - d. > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 6 > >> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:59:50 +1000 > >> From: Craig Franklin <[email protected]> > >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email > >> Message-ID: > >> <cahf+k3-6xezdz+q5o45-kneefd7o-92aeuzd83ahun30lds...@mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >> > >>> On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly > >>> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest > >>> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. > >>> The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers > in > >>> an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include > calling > >>> Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris > a > >>> "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and > misleading > >>> suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online. > >>> > >>> The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a > generous > >>> $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six > _years_ > >>> that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for > money > >>> again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that > >>> suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today. > >> Please add my name to the list of people who are troubled by what's been > >> said and done in the latest round of fundraising. > >> > >> I think that most of us, even if we feel some distaste for begging for > >> money, realise the importance and necessity of engaging in fundraising. > >> The fact that we're asking for money is not the problem. The problem is > >> that in order to maximise the amount of revenue gained, the Fundraising > >> team has engaged in a misleading scare campaign. In the short term, > that > >> means that a few more dollars will flow into the Foundation's coffers, > but > >> in the long term it just damages the brand and the entire movement. > >> > >> It is very disappointing that the responses from the WMF to these > entirely > >> reasonable concerns so far have been either: > >> > >> a) Silence > >> b) Completely ignoring the point ("The fundraiser has been very > successful > >> because we've received more money, and those who are not aware that > they've > >> been mislead are not upset!") > >> c) Semantic word games ("Well, in a technical sense what we've said is > not > >> a lie, depending on how you look at it") > >> > >> The solution that I'd like to see for next time is less focus on A/B > >> testing that has its sole purpose of maximising the amount of revenue > >> raised, and more of a view to alternative ways to raise money. Imagine > a > >> world in which we gave our readers a positive message that we already > had > >> enough money to keep the lights on thanks very much, but needed more to > >> build cool new tools, improve the quality of the project content, and > >> implement more innovative projects to meet our movement's goals. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Craig Franklin > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > >> > >> > >> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 129, Issue 85 > >> ******************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > - Andrew Gray > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
