It has been my experience that site banners are the best way to reach
casual readers who are not already integrated into the projects and
existing communication channels.  This is why the Fundraising team run
banners, rather than begging for money through Facebook and targeted talk
page messages, I would imagine.  The communications channels you're
referring to are excellent for reaching existing contributors, but when
you're trying to reach new or casual contributors, a big banner at the top
of articles can't be beat.


On 19 August 2015 at 05:18, Nathan <> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Romaine Wiki <>
> wrote:
> > Hi Antanana,
> >
> > And I forgot to mention, this same issue existed in 2014 as well, with
> also
> > there the downside effects.
> >
> > This subject is of banners has been discussed internally with the local
> > Wiki Loves Monuments team, after I tried to gave some insights in the
> > matter. I think this is done so because me and others have always thought
> > and assumed that it is possible to find a solution with understanding of
> > both sides. With these outcomes I think I can safely say that that
> > assumption and thought can't be considered realistic.
> >
> > I think it would be better in future to have the community decide somehow
> > how they perceive this matter. After all, they create the content of
> > Wikipedia and bear the bunt as result of it.
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> >
> It seems like there are other communication channels you could take
> advantage of - other types of banners, bot-distributed talk page messages,
> WMF-assisted mass e-mail campaigns, social networking messages (FB,
> Twitter, etc.) and so on. Is it really true that having to share banners
> with fundraising will result in an unavoidable loss of 90% of contributors?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to