(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 a license from the stock photo company, so the use was legal, but not free use as we would like. Once we became aware there was a problem, we stopped using the image and switched to the current lightbulb graphics. We'll certainly be more careful about this in future. * A number of people have suggested using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg, which is a very nice image but unfortunately seems to be lacking permission and is pending deletion from Commons. We've found some other alternative freely licensed coffee cup images, but for now the lightbulb graphics are doing very well so we're concentrating on them. * In the past we have tested a few banners which focused on highlighting great images from Commons (with attribution of course). [1] Unfortunately these didn't perform as well as our other banners, but it's something we would like to revisit in future. We have also been testing using Commons images in some of our emails to past donors, which has seen more success. * Uploading fundraising banner images to donate.wikimedia.org was simply a pragmatic decision. Because these images are so widely seen, they could be a tempting target for vandalism. Uploading to Commons would require protecting them, which is an extra step that's easy to forget, and would also require granting Commons administrator or staff rights to multiple people. We could have used wikimediafoundation.org, but it was thought better to keep all the fundraising images together, and avoid overloading that project with something it wasn't really intended for. When we produce artwork or an image that is Commons worthy, we share it there. * Not showing the banner again if someone donated is a great suggestion, and in fact it's something we already do by setting cookies when people reach the Thank You page. Thanks, Peter [1] You can see some examples here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#2015-2016_Q1_Update -- Peter Coombe Fundraising Production Manager Wikimedia Foundation On 3 December 2015 at 17:54, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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" <liamwy...@gmail.com> 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 broader process that involves strategic planning > > transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just > > about fullscreen advertising. > > > > I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the > > stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the > > actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably > > collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and > > acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been > > placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more > > money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then, > > there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum > > effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward > > mistakes happen.[2] > > > > At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner". > > > > Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a > > long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady > > flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it > > will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the > > fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts > > are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested > > reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include > > "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried > > wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder. > > > > An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime > > mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an > > excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many > > important questions that would need to be answered as part of that > > strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts > > on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this > > would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in > > creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other > > related concerns: > > > > - Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions > > are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4]) > > - Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have > > local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process - > > rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as > > the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers. > > - culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email > > saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the > > *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death") > > - Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement" > > rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF > > donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would > > be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a > > [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their > > local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic > > challenge of "editor recruitment and retention". > > - Addressing some of the inequities of how money is > > raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules > > "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa > > letter". > > - movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising > > clash with WikiLovesMonuments) > > > > Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we > > also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do > > a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the > > efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent! > > However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased > > expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes > > from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I > > felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea > > described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated > > support despite years of that community begging for it. > > > > I've probably written too much now... sorry! > > > > -Liam > > > > [1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably > > the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF > > Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role: > > https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l > > [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online > > and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214 > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor > > isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are > > potentially renewable. > > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay > > [4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html > > [5] > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080150.html > > wittylama.com > > Peace, love & metadata > > > > > > On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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_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> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
