I think the PR people really need to be more reflective in the reasons and uses of the donations in their messages because its rather easy to show the inconsistancy between the message and the use of donated funds... IMHO some of the drop off in donations is due to this lack reflectivity in the messages being sent .
even the simplest throw away tag in almost every banner of "lets us get to back to improving wikipedia" doesnt hold as everyone knows WMF doesnt have any control over content and therefore cant improve it, very little of the fu nds ever trickles down to coal face where the contributors are. On 4 November 2015 at 10:04, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Sorry, something went awry with my mail client. Let's try this again to > keep the thread intact). > > Besides what readers think when they're fully informed, I'm also concerned > about the legal issues surrounding the fundraising. IANAL, but I have a > feeling that consumer protection attorneys may take an interest if they > feel that there is a meaningful disconnect between what messages FR conveys > and (1) how the funds are actually spent and/or (2) the overall financial > health of WMF. Let's avoid inflicting legal costs and PR damage on > ourselves, please. (: > > Pine > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Lisa Gruwell <lgruw...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > > > > So, we have drilled down on this more in our research to better > > > understand what our readers think on this topic. We should have more > to > > > share on that in a week or two. > > > > > > > > > What readers think about this topic will very much depend on what > > information they have been given. > > > > You need to find out what readers think who know > > > > 1. the cost of Internet hosting relative to the total budget (about 3 > > percent); > > 2. that you took five times as much money last year as you took five > years > > ago; > > 3. how much money the Foundation has in cash and investments; > > 4. that the number of paid staff has increased more than twentyfold since > > 2007; > > 5. how the vastly increased spending is affecting reader experience. > > > > Do you know what readers who know all of this think about the banners? > Have > > there been focus groups with donors who were given all of this > information? > > > > This is necessary to make sure that when (not if) readers do find all of > > this information out, there won't be a storm of protest from people who > > feel they were misled as to the Foundation's financial situation. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> > -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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>
