+1
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Pine W wrote:
> I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia
> thriving." (:
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guid
I like the new mini banner: "Find what you're looking for? Keep Wikipedia
thriving." (:
Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists
(resending to thread with subject line, apologies if this comes through
twice!)
Hi all, just wanted to weigh in on a few things brought up in this and the
other threads.
* The coffee cup stock image was a mistake and miscommunication with a
contractor. IANAL but my understanding is that they had
One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the
person donated.
On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt" wrote:
> TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
> model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
> to be part of a broade
TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
about fullscreen adver
Article in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_l
Lisa, I was just about to say that I like the new banner. It's a pleasant
surprise. Who designed the lightbulb? I like how it's cohesive with the
theme of "Keep Wikipedia Growing", and the lightbulb works well with the
"light of knowledge" concept of an encyclopedia.
Pine
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at
Hi Pine-
We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as
possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a
balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner
some. Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations,
mor
I would assume you are also going to provide some input some comment into
the discussion other than just dumping a pile of quotes in here?
On 3 December 2015 at 07:06, Lisa Gruwell wrote:
> I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of
> the comments we have received
No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current
one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying
that the Foundation is in grave financial danger. Obviously the use of
what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives
available
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Craig Franklin
wrote:
> Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the size)
> of the ads so far this year.
>
Yes, a significant improvement over past years. Thank you.
Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l ma
On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
> > has not yet sunk to that yet.
> >
>
> [[W
On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
> has not yet sunk to that yet.
>
[[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyon
"Community" is a loaded term, because it is typically self-praisingly used by a
relatively small number of administratively-oriented Wikipedians to describe
themselves. It's basically WP:AN/ANI, Arbcom & associated access level seekers,
and those who use Wikipedia as a social or socializing netw
Thanks Lisa.
More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the
wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns.
I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be
nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so
I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of
the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I
think they really appreciate all of your work:
Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus
of "why? why? why?" that ha
Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost all
of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational matters.
Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the
kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the
encycloped
Hoi,
It is because of the readers that the work the volunteers do has a purpose.
Volunteers are typically intrinsically motivated but their motivation is
not necessarily focused on others. Some people are more focussed on
themselves. That is ok as it takes all sorts.
The question who is more impor
Ah yes, I see - my fault for skim-reading the summary rather than paying
attention to the tables. Thanks for pointing that out.
Chris
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote:
> Hi Chris-
>
> A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned. These results
> are on slide 27.
Hi Chris-
A quick clarification on the invert numbers you mentioned. These results
are on slide 27. Here they are:
"I don't mind when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia."
67% agree, 20% disagree, 12% had no opinion
"I am not annoyed when I see fundraising messages on Wikipedia."
55% agree
Yes, I also thought that was interesting. To invert the presentation of the
statistics, 33% of users did mind the banners and 45% were irritated by
them. These are actually quite high numbers in my view.
(Not to say that the decision to proceed with these banners is wrong, which
is a much more com
In light of this recent conversation I found this quote to be of interest.
"Wikipedia readers tend not to be bothered by the fundraising messages they
see on Wikipedia. Two-thirds (67%) say they don’t mind them, and a majority
(55%) say they are not annoyed by these messages. Roughly equal shares
That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more
important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or
dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the
reason there are readers at all.
On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote:
> On W
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's
> really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
> which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, or
> otherwise interfe
Buying a photo, when we have ready access to massive amounts of freely
usable content, would be quite unacceptable and a misuse of funds, no
matter the amount of the funds. I hope someone can actually clarify what
happened here.
Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. Th
+1
A missed opportunity to celebrate one of our volunteer photographers,
especially considering the competitions that have included photographs
of food in the last year. Shame to fall back on stock photos and
commercial pro-photographers when we have our own massive project to
provide this as a fr
I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I
doubt it will be a click through to the file page.
Which style guide was used for the creation of this ad?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.or
Bohdan Melnychuk wrote:
>Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we
>are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads
>but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I
>really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows me
] Fundraising banner (again)
Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we are
showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads but looks
exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I really have a
difficulty recalling a site which shows me
The reply every year is that the banners are keyed for maximum
effectiveness, even if they are intrusive, in order to make the overall
fundraising drive as short as possible. Fundraising has made small tweaks
to various banners, but generally have not been willing to significantly
reduce the effect
the plea you can't ignore.
Erik Zachte
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
wctaiwan
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)
44
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)
http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png
I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.
(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)
wctaiwan
http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png
I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.
(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)
wctaiwan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelin
33 matches
Mail list logo