Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

+1 On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Pine W wrote: > I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia > thriving." (: > > Pine > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia thriving." (: Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

(resending to thread with subject line, apologies if this comes through twice!) Hi all, just wanted to weigh in on a few things brought up in this and the other threads. * The coffee cup stock image was a mistake and miscommunication with a contractor. IANAL but my understanding is that they had

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Article in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just about fullscreen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the person donated. On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt" wrote: > TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising > model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Buying a photo, when we have ready access to massive amounts of freely usable content, would be quite unacceptable and a misuse of funds, no matter the amount of the funds. I hope someone can actually clarify what happened here. Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

+1 A missed opportunity to celebrate one of our volunteer photographers, especially considering the competitions that have included photographs of food in the last year. Shame to fall back on stock photos and commercial pro-photographers when we have our own massive project to provide this as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the reason there are readers at all. On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

In light of this recent conversation I found this quote to be of interest. "Wikipedia readers tend not to be bothered by the fundraising messages they see on Wikipedia. Two-thirds (67%) say they don’t mind them, and a majority (55%) say they are not annoyed by these messages. Roughly equal shares

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost all of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational matters. Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Hoi, It is because of the readers that the work the volunteers do has a purpose. Volunteers are typically intrinsically motivated but their motivation is not necessarily focused on others. Some people are more focussed on themselves. That is ok as it takes all sorts. The question who is more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Hi Chris- A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned. These results are on slide 27. Here they are: "I don't mind when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia." 67% agree, 20% disagree, 12% had no opinion "I am not annoyed when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia." 55%

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Yes, I also thought that was interesting. To invert the presentation of the statistics, 33% of users did mind the banners and 45% were irritated by them. These are actually quite high numbers in my view. (Not to say that the decision to proceed with these banners is wrong, which is a much more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Ah yes, I see - my fault for skim-reading the summary rather than paying attention to the tables. Thanks for pointing that out. Chris On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > Hi Chris- > > A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned. These

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Thanks Lisa. More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns. I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I think they really appreciate all of your work: Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus of "why? why? why?" that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Lisa, I was just about to say that I like the new banner. It's a pleasant surprise. Who designed the lightbulb? I like how it's cohesive with the theme of "Keep Wikipedia Growing", and the lightbulb works well with the "light of knowledge" concept of an encyclopedia. Pine On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Hi Pine- We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner some. Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" wrote: > > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote: > > > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial > > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Craig Franklin wrote: > Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size) > of the ads so far this year. > Yes, a significant improvement over past years. Thank you. Andreas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote: > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation > has not yet sunk to that yet. > [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying that the Foundation is in grave financial danger. Obviously the use of what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

"Community" is a loaded term, because it is typically self-praisingly used by a relatively small number of administratively-oriented Wikipedians to describe themselves. It's basically WP:AN/ANI, Arbcom & associated access level seekers, and those who use Wikipedia as a social or socializing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

I would assume you are also going to provide some input some comment into the discussion other than just dumping a pile of quotes in here? On 3 December 2015 at 07:06, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of > the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again) http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK. (That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.) wctaiwan ___ Wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

for the plea you can't ignore. Erik Zachte -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wctaiwan Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again) http

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

The reply every year is that the banners are keyed for maximum effectiveness, even if they are intrusive, in order to make the overall fundraising drive as short as possible. Fundraising has made small tweaks to various banners, but generally have not been willing to significantly reduce the

[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK. (That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.) wctaiwan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I doubt it will be a click through to the file page. Which style guide was used for the creation of this ad? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Bohdan Melnychuk wrote: >Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we >are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads >but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I >really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

] Fundraising banner (again) Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows me