Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
2008/12/24 Robert Rohde : > So, if not visibility, then what is really going on. In my opinion, > if you want someone to read something, personalizing it is a very good > idea. I think describing it as a personal message and putting a face > to it, provides engagement and gets people to pay attention. That > Jimbo has excellent name recognition helps (if it were Sue or Michael > Snow, for example, I don't think it would do as well). Jimbo applying his rock star factor is one of his most useful jobs for WMF :-) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Within the last 24 hours, we've raised a total of $283,859. That's > more than 10 times as much as we made during a typical weekday in the > last few days of the fundraiser, and the single highest day on record > for community gifts. We don't know yet how steep the inevitable > drop-off will be, but it's obvious that the appeal is working beyond > everyone's expectations. > > I think it's worth noting that this tenfold increase has been possible > without the use of additional pixel real estate, without scrolling > marquees, interstitials, or other serious interruptions of the > Wikipedia reader/editor experience. All it took were less than 60 > characters of text on each page in a highly visible font, linking to a > personal appeal that makes our case in more detail. > > We should ask ourselves why it is that based on the previous > sitenotices, 9 in 10 people who would be clearly willing to give to > us, did not do so. There seem to be at least three principal reasons > for that: > > * The previous messages were below the visibility threshold for most > people: They considered them to be an unimportant part of the page > that should be ignored. > > * The previous messages did not, clearly enough, make a case for > giving. They appealed to people who instantly "get" the non-profit > donation model, but not to those for whom Wikipedia is essentially the > same as any other website. The appeal directly addresses this > distinction, to the satisfaction of a great number of people. > > * Because it's a personal appeal, rather than an impersonal donation > message, the letter seems more likely to resonate with people. I would opine that points 2 and 3 are the core characteristics, with 2 somewhat ahead of 3. Most of the banners are quite visible, and so I think 1 is negligible factor. Or perhaps more directly, I think most of the banners are visible to the point that people notice them, but after reading them many fail to care about that message they offer. For example, both the donation bar and the scales graphic starkly standout on the page, and yet they are no where near as successful. (I also suspect that the ability to extract gains by making the message more visibile has already been saturated, and one could probably reduce the height of the banner by 1/3 or so with little marginal change in the response rate.) So, if not visibility, then what is really going on. In my opinion, if you want someone to read something, personalizing it is a very good idea. I think describing it as a personal message and putting a face to it, provides engagement and gets people to pay attention. That Jimbo has excellent name recognition helps (if it were Sue or Michael Snow, for example, I don't think it would do as well). But ultimately, once one captures eyeballs, I think the biggest factor in getting people to hit the big red button is message. We tend to forget that among the 100s of millions of people that occasionally use Wikipedia, a substantial fraction don't really understand our operation or our goals. Saying "we are a non-profit" or a similar banner-sized message doesn't capture who we are in the way the longer text can. I suspect that simply providing the larger community with more information about what-the-hell-Wikipedia-is goes a long way to encouraging donations. It also suggests that the current donations landing page could probably be improved by providing more of that information. If I am right that the new message captures a larger number of people with only a casual familiarity with Wikipedia, then one might also guess that the donations early in the drive tended to come more from hard-core Wiki supporters who were already well acquainted with who we are and how we work. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
It works and isn't terribly invasive, and realistically financial difficulty will find sympathy right now. I think it's brilliant. -Original Message- From: "Erik Moeller" Subj: Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:00 pm Size: 3K To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 2008/12/23 effe iets anders : > Up to now, I kinda liked the fundraiser. Although they are very shouty for > what I'm used to (I dislike the red button for instance and the somewhat > agressive tone), I think this last change in message could use a *little* > step back. Please use a slightly smaller font, an slightly less shouty text. > To me it really reads like " wow, now we're really desperate, PLEASE COME > READ THIS ** APPEAL". I would really appreciate it if this last banner would > be done a little less in a way that comes to me (justified or not) as > "typical American"... Within the last 24 hours, we've raised a total of $283,859. That's more than 10 times as much as we made during a typical weekday in the last few days of the fundraiser, and the single highest day on record for community gifts. We don't know yet how steep the inevitable drop-off will be, but it's obvious that the appeal is working beyond everyone's expectations. I think it's worth noting that this tenfold increase has been possible without the use of additional pixel real estate, without scrolling marquees, interstitials, or other serious interruptions of the Wikipedia reader/editor experience. All it took were less than 60 characters of text on each page in a highly visible font, linking to a personal appeal that makes our case in more detail. We should ask ourselves why it is that based on the previous sitenotices, 9 in 10 people who would be clearly willing to give to us, did not do so. There seem to be at least three principal reasons for that: * The previous messages were below the visibility threshold for most people: They considered them to be an unimportant part of the page that should be ignored. * The previous messages did not, clearly enough, make a case for giving. They appealed to people who instantly "get" the non-profit donation model, but not to those for whom Wikipedia is essentially the same as any other website. The appeal directly addresses this distinction, to the satisfaction of a great number of people. * Because it's a personal appeal, rather than an impersonal donation message, the letter seems more likely to resonate with people. Regardless of how the numbers will hold up, it's clear that these are important lessons to take away: The appeal, compared to some of our other site-notices, was trivial to implement. It's more important to communicate clearly and in a personal manner what we're trying to do than to focus on widgets & designs. Yes, more so than before, this appeal communicates a sense of urgency. As it should: We still have a revenue gap of $1.75M to just cover our expenses for the fiscal year (let alone increase our reserve). We're in the middle of the worst financial crisis in our lifetime; companies are failing or laying off staff around us. If people's reaction is "I don't want Wikipedia to go away - I better donate", that's not a bad thing. Obviously we should try to work out any remaining display glitches. And I'm sure over time we'll find a "happy medium" when it comes to aspects like font size, color, etc. But more importantly, we should try to translate this appeal into as many languages as possible, as it's currently just running in the English language wikis. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l --- message truncated --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2008/12/23 effe iets anders : >> Up to now, I kinda liked the fundraiser. Although they are very shouty for >> what I'm used to (I dislike the red button for instance and the somewhat >> agressive tone), I think this last change in message could use a *little* >> step back. Please use a slightly smaller font, an slightly less shouty text. >> To me it really reads like " wow, now we're really desperate, PLEASE COME >> READ THIS ** APPEAL". I would really appreciate it if this last banner would >> be done a little less in a way that comes to me (justified or not) as >> "typical American"... > > Within the last 24 hours, we've raised a total of $283,859. That's > more than 10 times as much as we made during a typical weekday in the > last few days of the fundraiser, and the single highest day on record > for community gifts. We don't know yet how steep the inevitable > drop-off will be, but it's obvious that the appeal is working beyond > everyone's expectations. > > I think it's worth noting that this tenfold increase has been possible > without the use of additional pixel real estate, without scrolling > marquees, interstitials, or other serious interruptions of the > Wikipedia reader/editor experience. All it took were less than 60 > characters of text on each page in a highly visible font, linking to a > personal appeal that makes our case in more detail. > > We should ask ourselves why it is that based on the previous > sitenotices, 9 in 10 people who would be clearly willing to give to > us, did not do so. There seem to be at least three principal reasons > for that: > > * The previous messages were below the visibility threshold for most > people: They considered them to be an unimportant part of the page > that should be ignored. > > * The previous messages did not, clearly enough, make a case for > giving. They appealed to people who instantly "get" the non-profit > donation model, but not to those for whom Wikipedia is essentially the > same as any other website. The appeal directly addresses this > distinction, to the satisfaction of a great number of people. > > * Because it's a personal appeal, rather than an impersonal donation > message, the letter seems more likely to resonate with people. This is really important. Even the fact there was a picture is helpful. It humanizes the process, and makes it much less anonymous. When this letter has reached its audience and we need a new donation banner, I would strongly suggest another personal appeal of this type, from a new person (maybe an educator). Thanks, Pharos > Regardless of how the numbers will hold up, it's clear that these are > important lessons to take away: The appeal, compared to some of our > other site-notices, was trivial to implement. It's more important to > communicate clearly and in a personal manner what we're trying to do > than to focus on widgets & designs. > > Yes, more so than before, this appeal communicates a sense of urgency. > As it should: We still have a revenue gap of $1.75M to just cover our > expenses for the fiscal year (let alone increase our reserve). We're > in the middle of the worst financial crisis in our lifetime; companies > are failing or laying off staff around us. If people's reaction is "I > don't want Wikipedia to go away - I better donate", that's not a bad > thing. > > Obviously we should try to work out any remaining display glitches. > And I'm sure over time we'll find a "happy medium" when it comes to > aspects like font size, color, etc. But more importantly, we should > try to translate this appeal into as many languages as possible, as > it's currently just running in the English language wikis. > -- > Erik Möller > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
2008/12/23 effe iets anders : > Up to now, I kinda liked the fundraiser. Although they are very shouty for > what I'm used to (I dislike the red button for instance and the somewhat > agressive tone), I think this last change in message could use a *little* > step back. Please use a slightly smaller font, an slightly less shouty text. > To me it really reads like " wow, now we're really desperate, PLEASE COME > READ THIS ** APPEAL". I would really appreciate it if this last banner would > be done a little less in a way that comes to me (justified or not) as > "typical American"... Within the last 24 hours, we've raised a total of $283,859. That's more than 10 times as much as we made during a typical weekday in the last few days of the fundraiser, and the single highest day on record for community gifts. We don't know yet how steep the inevitable drop-off will be, but it's obvious that the appeal is working beyond everyone's expectations. I think it's worth noting that this tenfold increase has been possible without the use of additional pixel real estate, without scrolling marquees, interstitials, or other serious interruptions of the Wikipedia reader/editor experience. All it took were less than 60 characters of text on each page in a highly visible font, linking to a personal appeal that makes our case in more detail. We should ask ourselves why it is that based on the previous sitenotices, 9 in 10 people who would be clearly willing to give to us, did not do so. There seem to be at least three principal reasons for that: * The previous messages were below the visibility threshold for most people: They considered them to be an unimportant part of the page that should be ignored. * The previous messages did not, clearly enough, make a case for giving. They appealed to people who instantly "get" the non-profit donation model, but not to those for whom Wikipedia is essentially the same as any other website. The appeal directly addresses this distinction, to the satisfaction of a great number of people. * Because it's a personal appeal, rather than an impersonal donation message, the letter seems more likely to resonate with people. Regardless of how the numbers will hold up, it's clear that these are important lessons to take away: The appeal, compared to some of our other site-notices, was trivial to implement. It's more important to communicate clearly and in a personal manner what we're trying to do than to focus on widgets & designs. Yes, more so than before, this appeal communicates a sense of urgency. As it should: We still have a revenue gap of $1.75M to just cover our expenses for the fiscal year (let alone increase our reserve). We're in the middle of the worst financial crisis in our lifetime; companies are failing or laying off staff around us. If people's reaction is "I don't want Wikipedia to go away - I better donate", that's not a bad thing. Obviously we should try to work out any remaining display glitches. And I'm sure over time we'll find a "happy medium" when it comes to aspects like font size, color, etc. But more importantly, we should try to translate this appeal into as many languages as possible, as it's currently just running in the English language wikis. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Although my own experience is that many Americans are a bit baffled > that we don't run ads. They've often not even heard the multitude of > arguments against pervasive/invasive advertising. I don't believe > it's Wikimedia's place to argue against advertising, but there might > be an opportunity for some of our community members to work with > anti-consumerist groups like Adbusters to make a public argument as to > why our current lack of advertisements is laudable from their > perspective. It's an interesting debate once you've heard both sides of it. The story of Gillette is a good one which shows the positive benefits of advertising. A "Utopian Socialist" who opposed all advertising and "advocated that all industry should be taken over by a single corporation owned by the public, and that everyone in the US should live in a giant city called Metropolis powered by Niagra Falls", Mr. Gillette went on to utilize both capitalism and advertising in his safety razor company, and "estimated that his razor saved mankind one-and-a-half billion dollars a year". Of course, pervasive/invasive advertising is another thing altogether. As are pervasive/invasive donation requests. Whether begging for money and not giving the donors anything in return, or helping businesses inform the public about their inventions for a fee, the banners should be small, tasteful, and easy to "make go away". ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
This is really impressive - such a rise in donations just because of a clear and personal approach! Can't we make more like this, personal testimonials and calls by Wikimedians but also non-Wikimedians sympathizing with us? Ziko 2008/12/23 Robert Rohde > Aside from concerns about loudness and size in the banner, the message > itself has been very successful: > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics > > -Robert Rohde > > PS. At screen widths that are not all that small, it appears the > "collapse" button is forcing the "Please Read:" unit down a line so > the last line is hanging outside the box. > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > > Looks like the new appeal is working well. > > > > We seem to be on pace to have the best single day of this fund drive. > > > > -Robert Rohde > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Delirium wrote: > >> I assume most of you at least occasionally read one of the Wikimedia > >> websites so probably saw this in a sitenotice, but I thought it was a > >> very well done appeal, concisely highlighting exactly what we do, why > >> it's different than what most people do, and why we're worth donating > >> to, so worth pointing out: > >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en > >> > >> Worriers about the perennial suggestions to put advertising somewhere on > >> the site(s) might also like what appears to be the closest to a no-ads > >> pledge I've seen so far: "Like a national park or a school, we don't > >> believe advertising should have a place in Wikipedia". > >> > >> -Mark > >> > >> ___ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Robert Rohde wrote: > PS. At screen widths that are not all that small, it appears the > "collapse" button is forcing the "Please Read:" unit down a line so > the last line is hanging outside the box. I should say, that's on IE. Firefox doesn't seem to have that particular problem. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
Aside from concerns about loudness and size in the banner, the message itself has been very successful: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics -Robert Rohde PS. At screen widths that are not all that small, it appears the "collapse" button is forcing the "Please Read:" unit down a line so the last line is hanging outside the box. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > Looks like the new appeal is working well. > > We seem to be on pace to have the best single day of this fund drive. > > -Robert Rohde > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Delirium wrote: >> I assume most of you at least occasionally read one of the Wikimedia >> websites so probably saw this in a sitenotice, but I thought it was a >> very well done appeal, concisely highlighting exactly what we do, why >> it's different than what most people do, and why we're worth donating >> to, so worth pointing out: >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en >> >> Worriers about the perennial suggestions to put advertising somewhere on >> the site(s) might also like what appears to be the closest to a no-ads >> pledge I've seen so far: "Like a national park or a school, we don't >> believe advertising should have a place in Wikipedia". >> >> -Mark >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
2008/12/23 Petr Kadlec
> 2008/12/23 effe iets anders :
> > As said, a slightly smaller font, and a grey color could do miracles
> here.
>
> Also, note that on IE7 in 1024x768, the banner (on Commons, at least)
> looks terrible -- the last line ("Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales") goes
> under the banner border, so that it is stricken through with that red
> line (while there is a huge empty margin above the "Please Read:").
> Tried Ctrl+F5, no change.
>
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
The same problem happens in a proper browser (FF 3.1b2) on 1280x960. It does
not look good.
--
Jon Harald Søby
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
2008/12/23 effe iets anders :
> As said, a slightly smaller font, and a grey color could do miracles here.
Also, note that on IE7 in 1024x768, the banner (on Commons, at least)
looks terrible -- the last line ("Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales") goes
under the banner border, so that it is stricken through with that red
line (while there is a huge empty margin above the "Please Read:").
Tried Ctrl+F5, no change.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
Up to now, I kinda liked the fundraiser. Although they are very shouty for what I'm used to (I dislike the red button for instance and the somewhat agressive tone), I think this last change in message could use a *little* step back. Please use a slightly smaller font, an slightly less shouty text. To me it really reads like " wow, now we're really desperate, PLEASE COME READ THIS ** APPEAL". I would really appreciate it if this last banner would be done a little less in a way that comes to me (justified or not) as "typical American"... As said, a slightly smaller font, and a grey color could do miracles here. Lodewijk 2008/12/23 Gregory Maxwell > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Casey Brown > wrote: > > Some pretty nice comments mixed in there. ;-) They also do a good job > > explaining why we need money. > > > > [Jay: interesting to look at, might be nice to use some like their > > comments in the future] > > Some of it is just hopeless. > > "Why can't they be self sufficient?" is the sort of question that > reflects a simple lack of consideration on the part of the asker. Had > they considered that question more carefully they would likely have > answered it themselves. > > I.e. that asking for money *is* a form of self-sufficiency no less > than any other method other than "spending no money at all" (which has > obvious problems). So then the question is why ask rather than run ads > or let company X pay for the ability to control the content, etc... > and many counter arguments to these sorts of alternatives are obvious > even to people who know nothing of our internals. > > Although my own experience is that many Americans are a bit baffled > that we don't run ads. They've often not even heard the multitude of > arguments against pervasive/invasive advertising. I don't believe > it's Wikimedia's place to argue against advertising, but there might > be an opportunity for some of our community members to work with > anti-consumerist groups like Adbusters to make a public argument as to > why our current lack of advertisements is laudable from their > perspective. > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Dan Collins wrote: > > Wait. Is donating supposed to make the banner go away? > > Because it didn't... > > Why would it? You can collapse it even without donating. > > (Or log in and make it vanish entirely with the gadget— the reason for > it to not vanish entirely on collapse is that a lot of people will > collapse then decide they want to donate later…) > > Though I suppose that might not be a bad feature, but on the other > hand… we're not trying to hold people for ransom. You shouldn't have > to pay to dispel the notice, requiring that wouldn't reflect > Wikimedia's or our communities values well. > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Casey Brown wrote: > Some pretty nice comments mixed in there. ;-) They also do a good job > explaining why we need money. > > [Jay: interesting to look at, might be nice to use some like their > comments in the future] Some of it is just hopeless. "Why can't they be self sufficient?" is the sort of question that reflects a simple lack of consideration on the part of the asker. Had they considered that question more carefully they would likely have answered it themselves. I.e. that asking for money *is* a form of self-sufficiency no less than any other method other than "spending no money at all" (which has obvious problems). So then the question is why ask rather than run ads or let company X pay for the ability to control the content, etc... and many counter arguments to these sorts of alternatives are obvious even to people who know nothing of our internals. Although my own experience is that many Americans are a bit baffled that we don't run ads. They've often not even heard the multitude of arguments against pervasive/invasive advertising. I don't believe it's Wikimedia's place to argue against advertising, but there might be an opportunity for some of our community members to work with anti-consumerist groups like Adbusters to make a public argument as to why our current lack of advertisements is laudable from their perspective. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Dan Collins wrote: > Wait. Is donating supposed to make the banner go away? > Because it didn't... Why would it? You can collapse it even without donating. (Or log in and make it vanish entirely with the gadget— the reason for it to not vanish entirely on collapse is that a lot of people will collapse then decide they want to donate later…) Though I suppose that might not be a bad feature, but on the other hand… we're not trying to hold people for ransom. You shouldn't have to pay to dispel the notice, requiring that wouldn't reflect Wikimedia's or our communities values well. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Dan Collins wrote: > Wait. Is donating supposed to make the banner go away? > > Because it didn't... No, there's a gadget and a "collapse" (only makes it smaller) button for that. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Casey Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Chad wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM, geni wrote: > >> 2008/12/23 Robert Rohde : > >> > Looks like the new appeal is working well. > >> > > >> > We seem to be on pace to have the best single day of this fund drive. > >> > > >> > -Robert Rohde > >> > > >> > >> Not sure. Still getting complaints among others that donating doesn't > >> make the banner go away: > >> > >> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1017711&highlight=wikipedia > >> > >> > >> -- > >> geni > >> > > > > Seems to be more a debating of "Why do they always ask for donations" > > along with a bit of good old wiki-scandal-accusations thrown in for good > > measure. > > > > Some pretty nice comments mixed in there. ;-) They also do a good job > explaining why we need money. > > [Jay: interesting to look at, might be nice to use some like their > comments in the future] > > -- > Casey Brown > Cbrown1023 > > --- > Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent > to > this address will probably get lost. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Wait. Is donating supposed to make the banner go away? Because it didn't... -- DCollins/ST47 Administrator, en.wikipedia.org Channel Operator, irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia Maintainer, Perlwikipedia module ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Chad wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM, geni wrote: >> 2008/12/23 Robert Rohde : >> > Looks like the new appeal is working well. >> > >> > We seem to be on pace to have the best single day of this fund drive. >> > >> > -Robert Rohde >> > >> >> Not sure. Still getting complaints among others that donating doesn't >> make the banner go away: >> >> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1017711&highlight=wikipedia >> >> >> -- >> geni >> > > Seems to be more a debating of "Why do they always ask for donations" > along with a bit of good old wiki-scandal-accusations thrown in for good > measure. > Some pretty nice comments mixed in there. ;-) They also do a good job explaining why we need money. [Jay: interesting to look at, might be nice to use some like their comments in the future] -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM, geni wrote: > 2008/12/23 Robert Rohde : > > Looks like the new appeal is working well. > > > > We seem to be on pace to have the best single day of this fund drive. > > > > -Robert Rohde > > > > Not sure. Still getting complaints among others that donating doesn't > make the banner go away: > > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1017711&highlight=wikipedia > > > -- > geni > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Seems to be more a debating of "Why do they always ask for donations" along with a bit of good old wiki-scandal-accusations thrown in for good measure. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
2008/12/23 Robert Rohde : > Looks like the new appeal is working well. > > We seem to be on pace to have the best single day of this fund drive. > > -Robert Rohde > Not sure. Still getting complaints among others that donating doesn't make the banner go away: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1017711&highlight=wikipedia -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
Looks like the new appeal is working well. We seem to be on pace to have the best single day of this fund drive. -Robert Rohde On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Delirium wrote: > I assume most of you at least occasionally read one of the Wikimedia > websites so probably saw this in a sitenotice, but I thought it was a > very well done appeal, concisely highlighting exactly what we do, why > it's different than what most people do, and why we're worth donating > to, so worth pointing out: > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en > > Worriers about the perennial suggestions to put advertising somewhere on > the site(s) might also like what appears to be the closest to a no-ads > pledge I've seen so far: "Like a national park or a school, we don't > believe advertising should have a place in Wikipedia". > > -Mark > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
2008/12/23 Delirium : > Worriers about the perennial suggestions to put advertising somewhere on > the site(s) might also like what appears to be the closest to a no-ads > pledge I've seen so far: "Like a national park or a school, we don't > believe advertising should have a place in Wikipedia". With the amount of advertising in schools an unfortunate example I feel. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal
I assume most of you at least occasionally read one of the Wikimedia websites so probably saw this in a sitenotice, but I thought it was a very well done appeal, concisely highlighting exactly what we do, why it's different than what most people do, and why we're worth donating to, so worth pointing out: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en Worriers about the perennial suggestions to put advertising somewhere on the site(s) might also like what appears to be the closest to a no-ads pledge I've seen so far: "Like a national park or a school, we don't believe advertising should have a place in Wikipedia". -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
