It's 0415 IST on the West Coast of India, and am just writing to say that I always read the hands-folded symbol as a "namaste": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste It's a kind of a respectful, non-contact greeting, and here we wouldn't take it as religious, more cultural if anything. For other non-contact forms of greetings during Covid times, depending on one's traditions, one could also choose *salaam* or *aadaab *too. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious region (like South Asia), the more the merrier. There are more too: https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/not-just-namaste-here-are-some-other-greetings-from-around-the-world-that-are-coronavirus-proof-2535697.html
But I don't think computer programmers worldwide are so clued in to subtle nuances on culture and society. In any case, as George Bernard Shaw says: The will to believe creates its own evidence. --Fredericknoronha On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 04:11, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hey WSC! > > We have used variations on this line for at the last 7 years and the > counter-intuitive approach approach has been debated by marketing > professionals for much of the last decade. > > What you describe is known as social proof and despite it being considered > a core tenet in marketing it doesn't work for our fundraising. We have > tested and tested and tested every year. > > Chris Keating has written his thoughts [1] about why he thinks it doesn't > work; was recently explored as part of academic study done in partnership > with WMDE; [2] and I have some of noted some of my thoughts on twitter > which I'll include here: > > The altruistic motives of any donor would often be based on a person's > personal experience with a cause or services of a non-profit. The > relationship between benefactor and beneficiary is intertwined. > > For Wikipedia, those two groups are one and the same. Every donor is a > direct benefactor. Degree of separation between benefactor and beneficiary > is zero. Their personal experience is that of being a beneficiary, > receiving direct and instant benefit. > > Personal benefit outweighs the social guilt felt for not supporting > something that is conceptually more distant from them. Social guilt is no > longer the driver. It's not that social proof doesn't work, its just that > for Wikipedia personal context works better. > > [1] > https://medium.com/@chriskfundraising/why-doesnt-social-proof-work-for-wikipedia-fundraising-65d55a047911 > [2] > https://hertieschool-f4e6.kxcdn.com/fileadmin/5_WhoWeAre/1_People_directory/Faculty_downloads/Traxler/Publications/LT-Wiki-CondCoop.pdf > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 10:21 PM WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree that praying emojis look like a certain type of religious >> practice, a hand gesture that implies certain religions and not others. >> >> I assume the fundraising team would have the good sense not to describe >> their campaign as a crusade or a jihad. Even if they had carefully targeted >> that emoji to cultures where it was close to common currency, I think it >> was inappropriate. >> >> But I'm also concerned at the 98% look away bit. Presumably this was >> tested and at least in the short term it raised more funds. The problem may >> be longer term, it looked to me the sort of counterproductive message that >> normalises not giving rather than normalising giving. >> >> We need to remember the long term impact of our messaging on the people >> who are less inclined to give as well as the short term impact on >> donations. To me that 98% pitch looked like as much of a mistake as the £5 >> coffee ad that fed the overpaid and wasteful meme. >> >> I've seen some marketing from other organisations in the last few months >> that has been more along the lines of "We know that money is tighter than >> usual for a lot of the people who usually support us, and if you are one of >> them we get that you can't give us money this year. But if you find >> ******** useful, and you are one of those people who is financially OK in >> these troubled times, then please make a donation". Most people can >> identify with one or other of those groups, and I suspect neither would >> think the worse of us for pitching to them in those terms. >> >> Regards >> >> WSC >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 14:24, <wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> 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. Re: Annoying ads (Chris Gates) >>> 2. Re: Annoying ads (Gnangarra) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:57:48 -0500 >>> From: Chris Gates <verm...@vtwp.org> >>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads >>> Message-ID: >>> <CAFOQ7-zYFXcw9f34r+499Ef2Nkf6R= >>> c4hm3dvi7+duitoof...@mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> 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 <fae...@gmail.com> 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 >>> > <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> 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, < >>> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > > -- > Seddon > > > *Senior Community Relations Specialist* > *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* > _______________________________________________ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >
_______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
