Mentioning the first two points can be either red herring or an interesting digression to read, I'll opt for the second interpretation.
The International Committee of the Red Cross had a global budget of $1.6 > billion in 2016. > Quite a rilevant comparison, I'd say. Discussions on this mailing list and elsewhere are a classic example of the > concept of voice, as formalized by Albert Hirschman in his work on > responses to decline in organizations. [4] We are unhappy with a decision > but reluctant to simply exit the group, either because we don't > see an alternative, or because of the sunk costs of emotional investment, > or because of the sense of identity that comes with belonging to the group, > or because ultimately we can live with the decision. And so, with exit not > available as an option, we use our voice instead, even though it has proved > to only have a very limited effect on making different decisions. (And also > because we *do* love to argue.) > "Cope or go away" in this context is interesting rather than simply rude highlighting some widespread misconception about what is the most interesting part of the Wiki-ecosystem for the majority of people around. So now we're left with how we raise money, and the common complaints about > the size, frequency, and tone of fundraising banners. The argument is that > fundraising messages use unduly alarmist language, and that donors are > therefore misled into thinking that Wikimedia is facing imminent danger. I > do believe that not enough credit is given to the people who craft those > messages in banners and emails. These people care an extraordinary amount > about doing the "right thing." They have literally spent years doing A/B > tests to soften the tone and figure out the least alarming language > possible to raise the required amounts. All that while enduring constant > criticism of their work. They are heroes. > They don't do the "right thing", instead, they do the "most effective thing". Also, * to raise the required amounts* is not true, given that targets were always exceeded. > if we look beyond privileged communities and we strive to make up for > historical oppression. The modesty of financial ambitions reflects a > certain privilege and ignores the vast resources required to actually focus > on communities left out by structures of power and privilege. If we are to > live up to our commitment to epistemic justice, we must give ourselves the > financial means to do so. The longer the injustice persists, the more > compounding harm is done. Our work *is* urgent, even if it's not the same > urgency that drives donors. > There we go with this strawman, once again. Totally unrelated to how donations are asked, definitely unrelated to how funds are currently allocated. Summing up a long, brilliant, essay to justify ambiguity in banners. Vito
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DHJBMN7ZURCCSCJFYI6XVJPRFTNPKM2X/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
