Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Gnangarra]

Kaya Aron

The software engineers are decent and many of them also have a Wikimedia
contribution background giving them the knowledge to benefit all the
projects, they are also spread across the globe making sure there is
someone available at all times to keep on top of any system issue should
they arise.

The WMF has hired people for movement strategy implementation, there have
been significant discussions on implementation over the last few months.
Both the key points you raised are being addressed and funded.

As a community we invested a lot of time and resources to be taken
seriously, we continue to do so. I agree with Vermont here that without the
emojis the banner looks more professional, whether emojis return or not the
must also remember that the projects are neutral, that they dont exclude
people nor drive them away.

Boodarwun

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 06:23, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Seddon,
>
> Thanks for removing the emojis; without them, the banner is infinitely
> more professional.
>
> Regards,
> Vermont
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:09 Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>> we've rolled back this change.
>>
>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>> campaigns.
>>
>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>
>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>
>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>> ).
>>
>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>>> seem childish
>>>
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

 Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
 the first):

 “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
 really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
 our readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75
  and then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please
 don't scroll away 🙏🙏.“

 It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and
 fundraising-focused teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s
 reputation. I, and I’m sure most editors, don’t care that praying and
 crying emojis illicit more money. There are social and reputation costs to
 portraying Wikipedia like a crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And
 though I understand the employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in
 front of every reader evidently do not care about the costs of their
 actions, and only whatever money they can get from it, it remains wholly
 unacceptable.

 Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
 regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
 seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
 Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
 Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
 the impression of a functional and reliable source of infor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi Seddon,

Thanks for removing the emojis; without them, the banner is infinitely more
professional.

Regards,
Vermont

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:09 Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
> we've rolled back this change.
>
> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
> campaigns.
>
> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>
> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>
> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
> ).
>
> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>> seem childish
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>>
>>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>>> the first):
>>>
>>> “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>>> our readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75 and
>>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>>> scroll away 🙏🙏.“
>>>
>>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>>> some ad campaign?
>>>
>>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>>> of getting more donations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vermont
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>>
 Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.

 This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
 how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
 with a *2 page* advert.
 * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
 title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
 fundraising notices.
 * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
 unencyclopaedic like "People t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads [and a Privacy Policy question]

[Yury Bulka]

Dear all,

In the context of this discussion, I think it might be appropriate to
share the following. A few days ago I had a brief conversation with a
(non-Wikipedian) user on social media regarding a fundraising banner
they were seeing. In their case they had an additional concern with the
banners (apart from "making Wikipedia unusable"). They wrote:

"<...> I find it more than a little creepy that wikipedia is tracking
how often I visit."

Curious, I asked if the popup said anything about their browsing
behavior, and it did (citing a snippet they have shared with me):

"Hi, reader in Canada, it seems you use Wikipedia a lot; that's great!
It's awkward, but this Tuesday we need your help. This is the 10th
appeal we've shown you. We don't have salespeople. Thanks to the
donations of 2% of our readers, Wikipedia remains open to all. If you
donate just $2.75, or whatever you can this Tuesday, Wikipedia could
keep thriving. Thank you."

I have decided to look this up in the Privacy Policy, and indeed:

  We want to make the Wikimedia Sites better for you by learning more
  about how you use them. Examples of this might include how often you
  visit the Wikimedia Sites, what you like, what you find helpful, how you
  get to the Wikimedia Sites, and whether you would use a helpful feature
  more if we explained it differently.

  
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Information_Related_to_Your_Use_of_the_Wikimedia_Sites

This contradicted my intition about the privacy of anonymous Wikipedia
readers. It seems like some behavioral data is collected and then used
to target readers for fundraising in some ways.

Is it specified in more detail anywhere what kind of behavioral data is
collected, for how long it is stored, how it is associated with a
reader's device(s), and what behavioral data is used in the context of
fundraising specifically?

Best,
--
Yury Bulka
https://mamot.fr/@setthemfree
#NotOnFacebook


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Demian]

Hey Seddon,

Thank you for reading and considering the feedback provided. I'd like to
add one more perspective to the picture:

IIRC in recent years the amount of donations was constantly increasing
year-by-year and it's now far more than what's necessary to cover
operational expenses of the WMF.
I believe one of the concerns with the fundraiser is that the size and
pushiness of the ad keeps growing while the WMF becomes less in need of
those donations. While it seems that the ad's size is proportional to the
funds raised, making this a successful strategy in the short term, it does
not come free as Wikipedia's reputation is traded in the long term.

A major concern is the sentences that manipulate readers' emotions to feel
bad if they don't donate. I think we have seen that approach for
fundraising many times in our lives from different sources, past and
present and it never raised trust.

Another non-obvious reason in my opinion why a big part of the community
can't condone these fundraisers is that we see the donations being
channeled to causes that don't benefit the communities proportionally to
the costs.
At the same time directly beneficial areas such as the developer team lacks
the funds to hire decently productive engineers with current knowledge -
leaving the software that makes Wikipedia possible always a decade behind
current software development and UX design practices.
The WMF's current goals with the Movement Strategy would also benefit from
hiring professional mediators and code of conduct educators to give a
chance for the UCoC to be implemented true to its purpose instead of a
dangerous tool in the hands of presumably untrained personnel.

These investments would make me suggest people to donate to the WMF, as it
goes to a clearly beneficial causes, but currently the way I see it the WMF
has more donations than it can invest beneficially. I find only a message
that's *humble in its length* - instead of just claiming to be humble -
would be appropriate.


Thank you for reading.

Aron


On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 18:04, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey Michel,
>
> There are some other points that Fae raised particularly around user
> experience and technical implementation that are distinctly more complex
> tasks and we are going to need to discuss and plan our testing to work on
> them, and the team is at very limited capacity on a Saturday. (I myself had
> been out enjoying the rather brisk winter air that's visiting the UK). Due
> to their very nature, rolling back the emoji's in the messaging could be
> done immediately.
>
> I've already brought the feedback back to the team, and I'll be reviewing
> with the team on Monday and hopefully work on them this week.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 4:36 PM Michel Vuijlsteke 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated
>> about this.
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>>> we've rolled back this change.
>>>
>>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>>> campaigns.
>>>
>>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>>
>>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>>
>>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>>> ).
>>>
>>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>>
 tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
 should be visible at the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Subhashish]

Apart from the usual suspects [ a. I think whether a certain emoji is
religious is not a grave problem; b. civil society orgs survive on
donations and fundraising is important; c. as a movement we can't probably
ever have everyone agreeing on everything but pushing fundraising messages
that brings some decent buck cannot be stopped -- after all, the same buck
is used for maintaining servers or fighting oppressive regimes that pose a
threat to open knowledge ] a few things really need to be thought through
while designing fundraising messages:

-  How does the message look on a low-end smartphone used by someone who
lives in a place where data is expensive (say Vanuatu or a small island
economy)? Can the real goal of the movement -- furthering open knowledge --
be seriously hampered by displaying too much text/image in the fundraiser?

- Can the opt out message be displayed more clearly so that a user can
clearly see it and turn off. It has often been a real pain for me to turn
off the ads while trying to check something on Wikipedia when I am not
logged in and I'm on a private tab/using VPN.

- From an accessibility PoV a user should be able to identify that the ad
is different from the content. It's otherwise a pesky way to fool a user
who might at times confuse a fundraising ad as Wikipedia content. Probably
a different background color or a distinguishable border or a clear sign
would help.

Subhashish

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 10:34 PM Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey Michel,
>
> There are some other points that Fae raised particularly around user
> experience and technical implementation that are distinctly more complex
> tasks and we are going to need to discuss and plan our testing to work on
> them, and the team is at very limited capacity on a Saturday. (I myself had
> been out enjoying the rather brisk winter air that's visiting the UK). Due
> to their very nature, rolling back the emoji's in the messaging could be
> done immediately.
>
> I've already brought the feedback back to the team, and I'll be reviewing
> with the team on Monday and hopefully work on them this week.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 4:36 PM Michel Vuijlsteke 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated
>> about this.
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>>> we've rolled back this change.
>>>
>>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>>> campaigns.
>>>
>>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>>
>>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>>
>>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>>> ).
>>>
>>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>>
 tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
 should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
 should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
 seem childish

 On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
 wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>
> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after
> closing the first):
>
> “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98%
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey Michel,

There are some other points that Fae raised particularly around user
experience and technical implementation that are distinctly more complex
tasks and we are going to need to discuss and plan our testing to work on
them, and the team is at very limited capacity on a Saturday. (I myself had
been out enjoying the rather brisk winter air that's visiting the UK). Due
to their very nature, rolling back the emoji's in the messaging could be
done immediately.

I've already brought the feedback back to the team, and I'll be reviewing
with the team on Monday and hopefully work on them this week.

Seddon

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 4:36 PM Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:

> I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated about this.
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
>> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
>> we've rolled back this change.
>>
>> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
>> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
>> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
>> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
>> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
>> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
>> campaigns.
>>
>> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
>> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
>> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
>> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
>> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
>> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>>
>> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
>> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
>> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
>> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
>> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>>
>> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
>> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
>> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
>> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
>> ).
>>
>> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>>> seem childish
>>>
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

 Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
 the first):

 “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
 really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
 our readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75
  and then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please
 don't scroll away 🙏🙏.“

 It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and
 fundraising-focused teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s
 reputation. I, and I’m sure most editors, don’t care that praying and
 crying emojis illicit more money. There are social and reputation costs to
 portraying Wikipedia like a crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And
 though I understand the employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in
 front of every reader evidently do not care about the costs of their
 actions, and only whatever money they can get from it, it remains wholly
 unacceptable.

 Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
 regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
 seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
 Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
 Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
 the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
 that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
 some ad campaign?

 And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
 happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
 go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignoran

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated about this.

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
> we've rolled back this change.
>
> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
> campaigns.
>
> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>
> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>
> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
> ).
>
> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>> seem childish
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>>
>>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>>> the first):
>>>
>>> “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>>> our readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75 and
>>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>>> scroll away 🙏🙏.“
>>>
>>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>>> some ad campaign?
>>>
>>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>>> of getting more donations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vermont
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>>
 Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.

 This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
 how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
 with a *2 page* advert.
 * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
 title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
 fundraising notices.
 * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
 unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
 no

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey all,

To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
we've rolled back this change.

For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
campaigns.

I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.

At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself. I've
been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
highlighted and gotten more input on this.

I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org ).

My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.

Seddon

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
> seem childish
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>
>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>> the first):
>>
>> “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>> our readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75 and
>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>> scroll away 🙏🙏.“
>>
>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>
>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>> some ad campaign?
>>
>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>> of getting more donations.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vermont
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>
>>> Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>>>
>>> This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
>>> how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
>>> with a *2 page* advert.
>>> * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
>>> title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
>>> fundraising notices.
>>> * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
>>> unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
>>> non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
>>> ever I saw one.
>>> * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
>>> followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
>>> forever please' link, a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Gnangarra]

tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article should
be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely should not
have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do seem
childish

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>
> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
> the first):
>
> “Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
> our readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75 and
> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
> scroll away 🙏🙏.“
>
> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>
> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
> some ad campaign?
>
> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
> of getting more donations.
>
> Regards,
> Vermont
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>>
>> This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
>> how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
>> with a *2 page* advert.
>> * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
>> title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
>> fundraising notices.
>> * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
>> unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
>> non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
>> ever I saw one.
>> * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
>> followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
>> forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).
>>
>> I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
>> further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
>> thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
>> text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
>> has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
>> other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
>> heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
>> humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
>> It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
>> emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
>> prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
>> thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.
>>
>> Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
>> to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
>> for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
>> there's no other honest way to describe it.
>>
>> Stay safe, wear a mask,
>> Fae
>>
>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
>> > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
>> WMF
>> > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a
>> few
>> > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
>> >
>> > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
>> But
>> > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
>> > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have
>> kept
>> > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing the
first):

“Hi reader 🙂. Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of our
readers don't give; they look the other way 😢. All we ask is $2.75 and
then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
scroll away 🙏🙏.“

It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.

Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
some ad campaign?

And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
of getting more donations.

Regards,
Vermont

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:

> Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>
> This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
> how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
> with a *2 page* advert.
> * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
> title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
> fundraising notices.
> * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
> unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
> non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
> ever I saw one.
> * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
> followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
> forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).
>
> I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
> further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
> thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
> text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
> has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
> other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
> heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
> humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
> It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
> emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
> prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
> thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.
>
> Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
> to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
> for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
> there's no other honest way to describe it.
>
> Stay safe, wear a mask,
> Fae
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
> >
> > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
> WMF
> > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
> > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
> >
> > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
> But
> > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
> > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> > Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
> > position to donate.
> >
> > WSC
> >
> > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body '

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Fæ]

Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.

This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
with a *2 page* advert.
* The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
fundraising notices.
* There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
ever I saw one.
* The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).

I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.

Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
there's no other honest way to describe it.

Stay safe, wear a mask,
Fae

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
 wrote:
>
> Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the WMF
> was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
> months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
>
> In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess. But
> the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
> their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
> position to donate.
>
> WSC
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, 
> wrote:
>
> > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Annoying ads (John Erling Blad)
> >2. Re: Annoying ads (Benjamin Ikuta)
> >3. Re: Annoying ads (Robert Fernandez)
> >4. Re: Annoying ads (Pierre-Yves Beaudouin)
> >5. Re: Annoying ads (Nick Wilson (Quiddity))
> >6. Re: Annoying ads (Samuel Klein)
> >7. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >8. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >
> >
> > --
> >Cheers
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:55:50 +0200
> > From: John Erling Blad 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
> > Message-ID:
> >  > 5ggwunkrfg6ejjsn6sb1rbf1h_fnyphpd_wjr5ot...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> > the top.
> >
> > /jeblad
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guideli