[WikiEN-l] Reminder: IRC office hours with Zack Exley
Greetings everyone, Just a reminder that Zack Exley, Chief Community Officer at the Wikimedia Foundation, will be holding IRC office hours today (October 5) at 21:00 UTC (14:00 PT, 17:00 ET, 23:00 CEST) in #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net. Instructions for accessing the discussion for those without an IRC client can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours. Please feel free to forward and translate this message to any relevant list, and we look forward to chatting with you! -- Steven Walling Community Fellow Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
Hi everyone, I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in the process. Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 ) will give you an overview as well. There's a lot of information here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser. There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong message. We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its performance last year and the year before. But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up for two months! So we're issuing a challenge: Find the banner that will beat Jimmy. Data informed conclusions Here's the trick: We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct. Please read the summaries below for really important details from our focus group and survey of past donors. Focus Group Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City area in September 2010. It's important to note that this was a single focus group, and in a single city. We'll need to do more to make sure that results correlate universally. But we came out of it with a few important take-away points. It's important to realize that these points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible. ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product. For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a user and a donor. ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator. Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be approaching them for money more often. Accepting paid ads could corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information. ** Independence is critically important. These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high premium on the free flow of information. They have little patience for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives. The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates that. ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool. This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an important nuance. These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270 languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so successfully built. And that makes it a cause too. ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors. Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook. It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy. Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same concerns. ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia, even when that agenda would extend the current offerings. An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would disrupt that. Community support is one of the key values, and not everyone in the community would support new initiatives. ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively. Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much more space available than we are taking. ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks. Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a simple plea for support delivered authentically. As
Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
Is it me, or when I saw the word focus group, I started to develop some bad feelings about this? -MuZemike On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: Hi everyone, I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in the process. Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 ) will give you an overview as well. There's a lot of information here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser. There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong message. We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its performance last year and the year before. But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up for two months! So we're issuing a challenge: Find the banner that will beat Jimmy. Data informed conclusions Here's the trick: We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct. Please read the summaries below for really important details from our focus group and survey of past donors. Focus Group Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City area in September 2010. It's important to note that this was a single focus group, and in a single city. We'll need to do more to make sure that results correlate universally. But we came out of it with a few important take-away points. It's important to realize that these points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible. ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product. For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a user and a donor. ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator. Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be approaching them for money more often. Accepting paid ads could corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information. ** Independence is critically important. These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high premium on the free flow of information. They have little patience for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives. The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates that. ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool. This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an important nuance. These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270 languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so successfully built. And that makes it a cause too. ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors. Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook. It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy. Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same concerns. ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia, even when that agenda would extend the current offerings. An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would disrupt that. Community support is one of the key values, and not everyone in the community would support new initiatives. ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively. Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much more space available than we are taking. ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks. Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s
Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
MuZemike, Bad feelings? We're learning more about our donors to maximize the fundraising potential of our messages during the two month campaign. We have a lofty goal - and a short time period to accomplish it in. -Deniz On 10/6/10 1:03 PM, MuZemike wrote: Is it me, or when I saw the word focus group, I started to develop some bad feelings about this? -MuZemike On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: Hi everyone, I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in the process. Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 ) will give you an overview as well. There's a lot of information here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser. There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong message. We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its performance last year and the year before. But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up for two months! So we're issuing a challenge: Find the banner that will beat Jimmy. Data informed conclusions Here's the trick: We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct. Please read the summaries below for really important details from our focus group and survey of past donors. Focus Group Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City area in September 2010. It's important to note that this was a single focus group, and in a single city. We'll need to do more to make sure that results correlate universally. But we came out of it with a few important take-away points. It's important to realize that these points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible. ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product. For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a user and a donor. ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator. Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be approaching them for money more often. Accepting paid ads could corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information. ** Independence is critically important. These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high premium on the free flow of information. They have little patience for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives. The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates that. ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool. This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an important nuance. These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270 languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so successfully built. And that makes it a cause too. ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors. Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook. It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy. Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same concerns. ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia, even when that agenda would extend the current offerings. An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would disrupt that. Community support is one of the key values, and not everyone in the community would support new initiatives. ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively. Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a balance and a PBS-style solicitation
Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
On 10/6/2010 4:03 PM, MuZemike wrote: Is it me, or when I saw the word focus group, I started to develop some bad feelings about this? -MuZemike How so? We aren't basing the decisions on which banners to run on the focus group (or survey for that matter). We're doing that on actual click and donation data which is why we want to run so many tests. But i think outside studies can be a great option to see how people are thinking. It is a lot easier to get an idea of what our editors are thinking by asking on wiki but asking what our readers or small donors in general think can be much harder. James -- James Alexander Associate Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation jalexan...@wikimedia.org +1-415-839-6885 x6716 On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: Hi everyone, I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in the process. Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 ) will give you an overview as well. There's a lot of information here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser. There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong message. We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its performance last year and the year before. But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up for two months! So we're issuing a challenge: Find the banner that will beat Jimmy. Data informed conclusions Here's the trick: We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct. Please read the summaries below for really important details from our focus group and survey of past donors. Focus Group Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City area in September 2010. It's important to note that this was a single focus group, and in a single city. We'll need to do more to make sure that results correlate universally. But we came out of it with a few important take-away points. It's important to realize that these points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible. ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product. For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a user and a donor. ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator. Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be approaching them for money more often. Accepting paid ads could corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information. ** Independence is critically important. These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high premium on the free flow of information. They have little patience for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives. The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates that. ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool. This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an important nuance. These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270 languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so successfully built. And that makes it a cause too. ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors. Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook. It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy. Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same concerns. ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia, even when that agenda would extend the current offerings. An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it
Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Maybe a video clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a very short time? Haha, like http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/ ? ;-) -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Pending Changes development update: October 6
Hi everyone, Pending Changes work continues apace. The big thing we'd like to call everyone's attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Call_for_specific_feedback_on_UI_elements We'd really like to get your input on specific suggestions that we can implement quickly. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Well, maybe not forever, but until after November. At least, if you want to implement your idea by November. Here are the main development tasks that are active right now: Bug 25294 - Reject button confirmation screen in Pending Changes https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25294 Bug 25289 - Make review load faster by speeding up display of old revisions https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289 We'll be deploying the updates to these just as soon as they get checked in. Here's the location of the wiki we're using for testing development versions: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs ...and finally, here's the full list of issues: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25293 For those of you who might have missed it, Pending Changes was the primary topic for Sue Gardner's office hour last week. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_Sue_2010-09-30 Please provide your input in Bugzilla if you're comfortable with that; otherwise, please remark on the feedback page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback Thanks! Rob ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Maybe a video clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a very short time? Haha, like http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/ ? ;-) Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects! :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
Wikipedians and Jedi-themed special effects?! *gets popcorn* But yes, I agree, it'd be fantastic to have even more high quality videos of editors *and* readers, with or without lightsabers. On 10/6/10 6:05 PM, Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Casey Brownli...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Maybe a video clip montage of lots of different Wikipedia contributors talking for a very short time? Haha, likehttp://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/24/four-videos-of-wikipedias-volunteers/ ? ;-) Something like that yes, but even better, and with Jedi special effects! :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Deniz Gültekin Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge http://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
I'm just saying that I know instances in which focus groups sometimes don't accomplish what they're set to do. Apparently, Apple has gone against this concept of doing focus groups to make decisions so they can keep moving forward with various products (citation needed). Coca-Cola did the same thing when they rolled out New Coke in 1985 to disastrous results. Time Warner/JVC professed their usage of focus groups in their trailer of the video game Rise of the Robots as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zafl_68PfOo . That game is one of the worst fighting games of all time, failing on many levels. That is why I am very wary and cautious about focus groups, as they tend to blindly serve their clientele instead of giving actual feedback on whatever their assessing. -MuZemike On 10/6/2010 3:24 PM, James Alexander wrote: On 10/6/2010 4:03 PM, MuZemike wrote: Is it me, or when I saw the word focus group, I started to develop some bad feelings about this? -MuZemike How so? We aren't basing the decisions on which banners to run on the focus group (or survey for that matter). We're doing that on actual click and donation data which is why we want to run so many tests. But i think outside studies can be a great option to see how people are thinking. It is a lot easier to get an idea of what our editors are thinking by asking on wiki but asking what our readers or small donors in general think can be much harder. James -- James Alexander Associate Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation jalexan...@wikimedia.org +1-415-839-6885 x6716 On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: Hi everyone, I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in the process. Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 ) will give you an overview as well. There's a lot of information here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser. There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong message. We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its performance last year and the year before. But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up for two months! So we're issuing a challenge: Find the banner that will beat Jimmy. Data informed conclusions Here's the trick: We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct. Please read the summaries below for really important details from our focus group and survey of past donors. Focus Group Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City area in September 2010. It's important to note that this was a single focus group, and in a single city. We'll need to do more to make sure that results correlate universally. But we came out of it with a few important take-away points. It's important to realize that these points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible. ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product. For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a user and a donor. ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator. Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be approaching them for money more often. Accepting paid ads could corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information. ** Independence is critically important. These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high premium on the free flow of information. They have little patience for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives. The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates that. ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool. This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an important nuance. These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270 languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so successfully built. And
