Erik,
I would like to intervene here since I often read that WMDE ran an
agressive campaign this year (and that being one of the major reason for
its success).
In my opinion that is not true.
Duration of the campaign: we started Nov. 14th and ended Jan. 5th. I
think every other chapter and even
Dear Till,
thanks for the clarifications and comments. I wasn't referring here to
any other aspect of the campaign than the specific set of banner
choices, and like I said, WMF made the same choices in the previous
campaign.
Wikimedia CEO: Yes, we titled Pavel as Wikimedia CEO in the thank you
On 11 January 2012 04:48, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is not a criticism of WM-DE: We used that language last year, and
I felt much of the criticism of it was unreasonable, especially yours.
I
On 1/10/12 10:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From the standpoint of creating a balanced, community-friendly
campaign that's respectful and responsive, decentralizing
decision-making about the shape of the campaign to
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is not a criticism of WM-DE: We used that language last year, and
I felt much of the criticism of it was unreasonable, especially yours.
I find it interesting, though, in the context of the discussion that's
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It got worse. They changed it to Wikimedia Executive Director
At the risk of reviving this thread, I find it worth noting that the
German chapter apparently used very similar banners this year to these
banners you
I'm on the same page as the last three posts to this thread, and
thanks guys for saying it in a reasonable and non-confrontational
manner.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 14:50, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Fabricating a sense of urgency that donations are immediately
necessary at the end of the campaign to keep the projects operational
and freely available (ie, Please help Wikipedia pay its bills in
2012 [1], Last day to
On 1/3/12 9:28 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
they want it so that if they've donated it removes the banner for the
rest of the fundraiser.
This was in place for this year's fundraiser, so I'm surprised to see it
on the list...
pb
___
foundation-l mailing
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Would it be an idea to have some kind of RfC or something like that on
Meta where community members could come up with a list of things we
roughly agree are the limits for fundraising.
I think the fundraising team have
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 17:54, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
In fairness to the Foundation, they did have a very public strategic
planning process and they do seem to be adhering to the outcome of
that process. From what I saw, a pretty fair amount of the strategic
planning output and
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
This year pictures at top left, blinking banners, etc - are becoming a norm.
This is simply untrue hyperbole. The fader was used in the same way as
last year, at the same time. (In fact, I think last year they used the
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
This year pictures at top left, blinking banners, etc - are becoming a
norm.
This is simply untrue hyperbole. The fader was used in the same way
On Jan 4, 2012 12:44 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
The WMF's conclusions about what banners work best are based on
extensive testing. What are yours based on?
My guts.
BTW How have those tests worked
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011
Start at the bottom.
Ryan Kaldari
On 1/3/12 4:44 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 3 January 2012 22:36, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com wrote:
WMF started the email campaign last
Hi Thomas
I really dont
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
There were numerous non-Jimmy banners used during the fundraiser because
they were tested and proved to work well. The Jimmy banners were used
extensively too because they still perform very
This isn't the kind of compromise that we should be making.
On 12/31/11, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:59 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2011/12/31 geni geni...@gmail.com:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
They are not blinking in a manner that is even remotely obnoxious. And
they are also used for displaying bilingual messages, which is very
useful for areas in
On 31 December 2011 09:00, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Login or wait a day?
My understanding is that on any given day we have rather a lot of
users. I'm not sure it is entirely reasonable to expect them all to
log in and that would in any case rather negate the point.
--
geni
On 31 December 2011 09:06, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
They are not blinking in a manner that is even remotely obnoxious.
There is a reason that people tend to talk about static plain-text
options when they talk about acceptable web ads. Something blinking
away at the
geni, 31/12/2011 10:22:
And
they are also used for displaying bilingual messages, which is very
useful for areas in which you can't be sure whether people prefer
English or the local language, like India.
Except both versions I was getting were in English.
I guess you mean the set of
Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
I would have thought it was common sense that such things were
inappropriate, I am taken aback that we have
On 31 December 2011 12:01, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
Indeed. Inspiring people to install AdBlock may
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/12/31 geni geni...@gmail.com:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
They are not blinking in a manner that is even remotely obnoxious. And
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right balance.
We're always trying to find the least annoying banners that make the most
money so that we can run
Hi Zack
I have a questions. I donated in the past, so I saw some donation request
emails also came in. Are there likely to be more emails between now and the
end?
I understand the point about efficiency and maximizing the revenue, but a
heads-up before the team tries something new might also be
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right balance.
This banner isn't just
On 31 December 2011 14:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure I raised both these concerns last year when you ran
similar banners and they were never addressed other than to say that
such banners raise a lot of money (which is the point - they are
misleading people
Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right balance.
Not at all. You can always
David Gerard wrote:
On 31 December 2011 12:01, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
Indeed. Inspiring people to
Seriously, get over it.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
On 31 December 2011 17:31, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, get over it.
That's your attitude to the WMF misleading donors? Being honest when
raising funds in incredibly important.
___
foundation-l mailing list
Theo -
We sent the same number of waves of email this year as last year. But we
asked a little less. We asked past donors twice. (Taking out anyone who
donated.)
And we emailed this year's donors and ask them to share our email with a
friend.
That is exactly 9945% fewer emails than any other
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years!
Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was
making. It certainly seems to be the case that the WMF doesn't
consider reducing expenditure,
I almost hesitated sending this knowing it's just feeding fuel to a pointless
flame. However, having been on the receiving end of debates like this - I'm
empathetic to the blight of only hearing from a vocal minority. Plus I think
WMF did a reasonably good job with this fundraiser and feel
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years!
Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was
making. It
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
You're a year late to mark it. The year-end fader banner was first
used in 2010, e.g.:
On 1 January 2012 00:24, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
And when it was pointed out that a reference to Sue Gardner as
Wikipedia Executive Director was inaccurate, Zack's initial response
was We're going to test Wikimedia against Wikipedia in the banner
right now. (In other words,
On 31 December 2011 19:36, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
It got worse. They changed it to Wikimedia Executive Director and
when it was pointed out that it should be Wikimedia Foundation
Executive Director Philippe (who was running the fundraiser last
year) said (on 13
On 1 January 2012 02:23, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken today,
you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The
actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This
is called
On 31 December 2011 21:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2012 02:38, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps, Thomas, you might want to reflect that your point of view is not
the only one worthy of consideration. If you have concerns about the
spending
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who
have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about
how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to
me that
On 31 December 2011 21:46, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you
who
have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially
about
how
On 12/31/11 3:21 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
And, not rhetorically at all, the question of how much to raise is one
of the important questions to face us strategically. We are incredibly
lucky that we have the ability, through our tremendous readership, to
raise a substantial amount of money. We
48 matches
Mail list logo
