Sorry resend from a different email address Hi Paul,
I strongly dispute the claim that non-profits are famous for having terrible websites. See http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/charity-editorials/anatomy-of-an-internet-charity as an example of a non-profit which is hugely successful online and www.our-africa.org as a cutting edge non-profit website Andrew > ======================================= > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Paul Houle <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here's a crazy question. >> >> Non-profit organizations are famous for having terrible web >> sites. Generally they get a fixed budget and after they spend it, they >> have a party and announced that they succeeded. Nobody ever tells the >> users, or rather, the people who might have been the users if they >> found out about it. >> >> For a long time I thought "non-profit" was a cause of failure, or >> rather, that profit was a cause of success. Nobody at a library >> benefits from making a digital library 5% easier to use, but if a >> company like AMZN improves its site by 5%, that translates into happy >> customers plus a pile of money that can go into bonuses, dividends, etc. >> >> That continuous improvement is missing in most non-profits. At >> best they get a series of grants to do things and set goals for major >> upgrades. Sometimes these upgrades fail, sometimes they really help, >> often they end up spending a lot of money for 3 years to get something >> that's about the same as what they had before. >> >> How does the Wikimedia foundation escape this trap? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
