On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ryan Lane <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes: > >> >> With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising >> team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and >> running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being >> concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and >> financial health and future. >> > > The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs. They raise money incredibly > efficiently. So indeed, thank you fundraising team for your work. It's a > high pressure job, which I can empathize with. > > As one of the people concerned about the projects' public image, I read your > words of thanks, but don't feel thanked by the content of your post, since > it doesn't address the raised concerns. > > Have you seen the data that suggests the public image isn't being damaged? > The board members have signed NDAs, so they are allowed access to the raw > data. I also have a signed NDA, so technically I should be allowed to see it > as well.
You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data that shows that "well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they have a good donation rate." And if there was, why in the world would anyone who cares about the projects make that choice? We are all on the same side here regarding wanting to preserve the love that people have for our projects. So no, I don't have data for you about the no doubt diverse set of reactions that exist in the world to the banners. (Beyond anecdotal info that we all have access to: twitter, this mailing list, etc.) What I do have is information about whether the banners are compelling enough to donate -- that's where the a/b testing etc. comes in -- and that is info that Megan et al shares with everyone. > Can you answer some direct questions? Do you feel the size of the banners is > appropriate to the mission, given that it obscures the content significantly > (and in many cases completely)? Do you feel the messaging is accurate to the > financial situation of the Foundation? Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text I'm seeing in the U.S. at the moment: "This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you." And all of that is certainly true. We do have the costs of a top website, we are a small nonprofit (bigger than many, but smaller than most brand-name NGOs), and we do survive on donations averaging $15 (something like 85% of our revenue comes from these donations, IIRC). Additionally, I think we're all in agreement that we never will and should never run ads. I am not just saying this because I am a trustee -- I've seen every fundraising campaign that the WMF has ever run, and participated in discussions about most of them, and I genuinely do like this year's. Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away (forever, I think). Obviously, opinions on the banner aesthetics can and will vary. But discussions on how much money we should raise (which, of course, is not an either/or choice) -- that's a different conversation. -- Phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
