[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
96 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

MZMcBride-2
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png

Gah.

Yes, I understand that more obnoxious banners means more money faster and
presumably a shorter overall campaign. I also understand that we're only
punishing certain large wikis with these banners and that these banners
typically set a cookie so that they'll only appear once for most users.

Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be
incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not
cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Risker
These banners are problematic in that they are likely to trigger automatic
filtering of Wikimedia sites by certain types/brands of net
nanny/anti-spam/security software - including software used by many
employers, schools and libraries.  And once the sites are filtered/blocked,
it will be difficult if not impossible for many users (particularly if they
don't have administrator permissions for the site) to lift the
filter/block.  Getting donations is not more important than keeping the
sites accessible.

Please reconsider.

Risker/Anne



On 26 November 2014 at 15:33, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png
>
> Gah.
>
> Yes, I understand that more obnoxious banners means more money faster and
> presumably a shorter overall campaign. I also understand that we're only
> punishing certain large wikis with these banners and that these banners
> typically set a cookie so that they'll only appear once for most users.
>
> Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be
> incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not
> cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@...>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Rjd0060 -
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:33 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be
> incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not
> cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool.
>
> MZMcBride
>


I couldn't see the banner in your screenshot link -  it appears that
Wikipedia has sent your computer has a virus or something ... a big pop-up
asking for money!!!

(Some people actually write to us @OTRS saying similar things - an
indicator that it may not be the best way.)


--

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 26 November 2014 at 20:33, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png
> Gah.


Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

MZMcBride-2
David Gerard wrote:
>Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?

Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say "(again)"
in the subject line. ;-)

There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these
banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused logged-in
users to be hit with them as well. Talk about eating your own dog food.

The French Wikipedia held what appears to be a straw poll with
overwhelming denouncement of the banner. It's also been repeatedly
described as a phishing attempt. Complaints and confusion aren't uncommon
during any annual fundraiser, but I think we can and should hold ourselves
to a higher standard when begging people for money.

As pointed out on Meta-Wiki's "Wikimedia Forum" by Jules78120,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines is pretty
clear that the (primary) goal is that banners "be as unobtrusive as
possible." I wrote this in May 2011, I believe deliberately outside of the
annual fundraising that takes place in December so that we could have a
calm and reasonable discussion about appropriate CentralNotice usage. Sigh.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Delphine Ménard
You know, I think I'll pass on the actual content of the message that talks
about "Commercial" not being a "Monster" and "The Bad". (and yes I know,
these are in a negative sentence but... seriously?).

This banner looks like an obituary I find. Where are the cool banners on
green leafy foresty background? Those were the days ;)

I know that a lot of thought goes into crafting the best messages for
fundraising banners, I also know that the testing is thorough, and
decisions are made with real data. But sometimes I find we might be
forgetting the number of people we actually scare *away* with things like
this. Not sure that's data we can acquire, but looking at this banner I am
losing faith in my fellow French if they really respond to something like
this more than they do to positive and cheerful looking messages).

*sigh*

Delphine

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:44 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> >Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?
>
> Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say "(again)"
> in the subject line. ;-)
>
> There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these
> banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused logged-in
> users to be hit with them as well. Talk about eating your own dog food.
>
> The French Wikipedia held what appears to be a straw poll with
> overwhelming denouncement of the banner. It's also been repeatedly
> described as a phishing attempt. Complaints and confusion aren't uncommon
> during any annual fundraiser, but I think we can and should hold ourselves
> to a higher standard when begging people for money.
>
> As pointed out on Meta-Wiki's "Wikimedia Forum" by Jules78120,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines is pretty
> clear that the (primary) goal is that banners "be as unobtrusive as
> possible." I wrote this in May 2011, I believe deliberately outside of the
> annual fundraising that takes place in December so that we could have a
> calm and reasonable discussion about appropriate CentralNotice usage. Sigh.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Liam Wyatt
*TL;DR - If you're going to change something, inform the people who will be
affected before you change it!*

Interestingly, I have a different understanding of the text when I read it
- I find it to be a positive message and those words that you singled out
have different tones depending on their contextualisation. So, I for one am
not left with a feeling that it is like an obituary, rather that it is
optimistic, but I do agree that it is aggressively worded. But... like you
say, that's the power of the 'banner testing' process, different people
respond well to different things! :-)

I am however negatively-struck by the finishing statement, a return to the
old motto of "keep us online without advertising for one more year". I
thought that we had collectively agreed that banners that directly threaten
advertising next year were not going to happen any more. Remember when we
used to get lots of mainstream media reports saying "Wikipedia will soon
have ads!" as a result of those campaigns in the past? [This is different
from simply saying "we don't have ads and we're proud of it", etc.]

I also reiterate the concern raised by others - that it obscures the *whole
*page. A popular request to return to the usual 'banner' style was run on
the French WP:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/25_novembre_2014#Mettre_en_place_une_banni.C3.A8re_classique

To its credit, the WMF fundraising team has responded on that page:
Indicating that the full-screen-blocking banner should only be visible the
first time a non-logged in user sees it, and that this particular
fundraising campaign will conclude on Friday:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/25_novembre_2014#R.C3.A9ponse_de_la_WMF
While I personally disagree with their decision to obscure the whole page
in black, I would like to specifically thank the WMF fundraising team for
responding to the affected community on the same wiki-page and on the same
day that the question was first raised there (the 25th).

This notwithstanding, I think the issue *yet again*, is a lack of
communication with the relevant community members when a decision is taken
that affects them. In this case, at minimum, the French OTRS team - who are
apparently receiving complaints that Wikipedia is affected by a virus!

So can I reiterate my reqeust from the other day:
If you're going to change something, tell the affected people before you
change it (or as soon as possible afterwards). Please don't wait for the
public to raise concerns with volunteers, who then complain to the WMF,
before offering an explanation.

And on that note, regarding the fundraising concerns from last week, have
the Dutch or Russian communities received responses to their questions yet?


-Liam


On 27 November 2014 at 11:35, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You know, I think I'll pass on the actual content of the message that talks
> about "Commercial" not being a "Monster" and "The Bad". (and yes I know,
> these are in a negative sentence but... seriously?).
>
> This banner looks like an obituary I find. Where are the cool banners on
> green leafy foresty background? Those were the days ;)
>
> I know that a lot of thought goes into crafting the best messages for
> fundraising banners, I also know that the testing is thorough, and
> decisions are made with real data. But sometimes I find we might be
> forgetting the number of people we actually scare *away* with things like
> this. Not sure that's data we can acquire, but looking at this banner I am
> losing faith in my fellow French if they really respond to something like
> this more than they do to positive and cheerful looking messages).
>
> *sigh*
>
> Delphine
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:44 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > >Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?
> >
> > Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say
> "(again)"
> > in the subject line. ;-)
> >
> > There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these
> > banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused logged-in
> > users to be hit with them as well. Talk about eating your own dog food.
> >
> > The French Wikipedia held what appears to be a straw poll with
> > overwhelming denouncement of the banner. It's also been repeatedly
> > described as a phishing attempt. Complaints and confusion aren't uncommon
> > during any annual fundraiser, but I think we can and should hold
> ourselves
> > to a higher standard when begging people for money.
> >
> > As pointed out on Meta-Wiki's "Wikimedia Forum" by Jules78120,
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines is pretty
> > clear that the (primary) goal is that banners "be as unobtrusive as
> > possible." I wrote this in May 2011, I believe deliberately outside of
> the
> > annual fundraising that takes place in December so that we could have a
> > calm and reasonable discussion about appropriate CentralNotice usage.
> Sigh.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> @notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> http://blog.notanendive.org
> Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am however negatively-struck by the finishing statement, a return to the
> old motto of "keep us online without advertising for one more year". I
> thought that we had collectively agreed that banners that directly threaten
> advertising next year were not going to happen any more.



The Foundation just reported in its latest financial statements[1] assets
including –

· Cash and cash equivalents of $28 million (up 5.7 million),
· Investments of $23 million (also up 5.7 million).

Claiming in the fundraising banner that money is needed to "keep Wikipedia
online and ad-free" verges on dishonesty, in my opinion.

See also the graphs in the Wikipedia article[2] on the Wikimedia Foundation
(this latest financial report is not yet included).

I remember Jimmy Wales proudly telling the public[3] in 2005 how little it
cost to run Wikipedia:

*“So, we’re doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it’s really
gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers and
the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars, and that’s
essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee … We
actually hired Brion [Vibber] because he was working part-time for two
years and full-time at Wikipedia so we actually hired him so he could get a
life and go to the movies sometimes.”*


While today, the Wikimedia Foundation attracts rather more page views – 21
billion a month, i.e. 15 times as much – even 15 times the $5,000 a month
Wales mentioned would only be $75,000 a month, or $900,000 a year; and that
is without allowing for economies of scale, and the fact that bandwidth
costs have decreased since 2005. I am sure this is balanced by various
server-side improvements, but still. The Foundation is now regularly
taking, and asking for, more than $50 million a year.


I am sure these banners, which have been in testing for months now, "work"
in terms of bringing money in. But wouldn't it be nice if the public were
told what the money is really for, instead of being left with the
impression that lack of money is jeopardising the continued existence of
Wikipedia?


[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG.pdf
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Lila Tretikov
Hi All --

A quick note to all of you. Please keep in mind this is one of the A/B
test, the design changes daily based on data/performance results. The team
will let you know which variations will be available next week, although
even those will change daily.

This is not to stifle this discussion (I personally read the comments to
see how we can make this better for next year), this is just to give you
some insights on the workings of this.

Happy Thanksgiving if you are celebrating!

~~~~Lila

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I am however negatively-struck by the finishing statement, a return to the
> > old motto of "keep us online without advertising for one more year". I
> > thought that we had collectively agreed that banners that directly
> threaten
> > advertising next year were not going to happen any more.
>
>
>
> The Foundation just reported in its latest financial statements[1] assets
> including –
>
> · Cash and cash equivalents of $28 million (up 5.7 million),
> · Investments of $23 million (also up 5.7 million).
>
> Claiming in the fundraising banner that money is needed to "keep Wikipedia
> online and ad-free" verges on dishonesty, in my opinion.
>
> See also the graphs in the Wikipedia article[2] on the Wikimedia Foundation
> (this latest financial report is not yet included).
>
> I remember Jimmy Wales proudly telling the public[3] in 2005 how little it
> cost to run Wikipedia:
>
> *“So, we’re doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it’s really
> gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers and
> the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars, and that’s
> essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee … We
> actually hired Brion [Vibber] because he was working part-time for two
> years and full-time at Wikipedia so we actually hired him so he could get a
> life and go to the movies sometimes.”*
>
>
> While today, the Wikimedia Foundation attracts rather more page views – 21
> billion a month, i.e. 15 times as much – even 15 times the $5,000 a month
> Wales mentioned would only be $75,000 a month, or $900,000 a year; and that
> is without allowing for economies of scale, and the fact that bandwidth
> costs have decreased since 2005. I am sure this is balanced by various
> server-side improvements, but still. The Foundation is now regularly
> taking, and asking for, more than $50 million a year.
>
>
> I am sure these banners, which have been in testing for months now, "work"
> in terms of bringing money in. But wouldn't it be nice if the public were
> told what the money is really for, instead of being left with the
> impression that lack of money is jeopardising the continued existence of
> Wikipedia?
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG.pdf
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances
> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Lila Tretikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi All --
>
> A quick note to all of you. Please keep in mind this is one of the A/B
> test, the design changes daily based on data/performance results. The team
> will let you know which variations will be available next week, although
> even those will change daily.
>
> This is not to stifle this discussion (I personally read the comments to
> see how we can make this better for next year), this is just to give you
> some insights on the workings of this.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving if you are celebrating!
>
> ~~~~Lila
>
>

I understand the principle of A/B testing, but if the only assessment
criterion is which banner brings in the most money in a given time-frame,
we will end up biasing ourselves towards the wordings that are most
effective at emotional manipulation, rather than wordings that tell
prospective donors openly and honestly about the programs the donated funds
will be used for, and the tangible benefits the public can expect to
receive from those programs.

Andreas





> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am however negatively-struck by the finishing statement, a return to
> the
> > > old motto of "keep us online without advertising for one more year". I
> > > thought that we had collectively agreed that banners that directly
> > threaten
> > > advertising next year were not going to happen any more.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Foundation just reported in its latest financial statements[1] assets
> > including –
> >
> > · Cash and cash equivalents of $28 million (up 5.7 million),
> > · Investments of $23 million (also up 5.7 million).
> >
> > Claiming in the fundraising banner that money is needed to "keep
> Wikipedia
> > online and ad-free" verges on dishonesty, in my opinion.
> >
> > See also the graphs in the Wikipedia article[2] on the Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > (this latest financial report is not yet included).
> >
> > I remember Jimmy Wales proudly telling the public[3] in 2005 how little
> it
> > cost to run Wikipedia:
> >
> > *“So, we’re doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it’s really
> > gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers
> and
> > the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars, and
> that’s
> > essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee … We
> > actually hired Brion [Vibber] because he was working part-time for two
> > years and full-time at Wikipedia so we actually hired him so he could
> get a
> > life and go to the movies sometimes.”*
> >
> >
> > While today, the Wikimedia Foundation attracts rather more page views –
> 21
> > billion a month, i.e. 15 times as much – even 15 times the $5,000 a month
> > Wales mentioned would only be $75,000 a month, or $900,000 a year; and
> that
> > is without allowing for economies of scale, and the fact that bandwidth
> > costs have decreased since 2005. I am sure this is balanced by various
> > server-side improvements, but still. The Foundation is now regularly
> > taking, and asking for, more than $50 million a year.
> >
> >
> > I am sure these banners, which have been in testing for months now,
> "work"
> > in terms of bringing money in. But wouldn't it be nice if the public were
> > told what the money is really for, instead of being left with the
> > impression that lack of money is jeopardising the continued existence of
> > Wikipedia?
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG.pdf
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances
> > [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
I'm going to second Liam's comment here, it is disappointing that we're
discussing this here but the Foundation is not coming to the party and
explaining why they are doing these things.  They're creating an
information void, and a void *will* be filled somehow; if the WMF is not
proactive in filling it with the real story, it'll be filled with rumours
and misinformation, the sort of stuff that inhibits the movement from
achieving its goals.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a
reasonably prompt answer to the sort of questions being posed here in a
respectful fashion.

I've copied in Megan Hernandez, the Director of Online Fundraising in the
hope of getting a comment, just in case she's not aware of this discussion.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin

On 27 November 2014 at 21:44, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> This notwithstanding, I think the issue *yet again*, is a lack of
> communication with the relevant community members when a decision is taken
> that affects them. In this case, at minimum, the French OTRS team - who are
> apparently receiving complaints that Wikipedia is affected by a virus!
>
> So can I reiterate my reqeust from the other day:
> If you're going to change something, tell the affected people before you
> change it (or as soon as possible afterwards). Please don't wait for the
> public to raise concerns with volunteers, who then complain to the WMF,
> before offering an explanation.
>
> And on that note, regarding the fundraising concerns from last week, have
> the Dutch or Russian communities received responses to their questions yet?
>
>
> -Liam
>
>
> On 27 November 2014 at 11:35, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > You know, I think I'll pass on the actual content of the message that
> talks
> > about "Commercial" not being a "Monster" and "The Bad". (and yes I know,
> > these are in a negative sentence but... seriously?).
> >
> > This banner looks like an obituary I find. Where are the cool banners on
> > green leafy foresty background? Those were the days ;)
> >
> > I know that a lot of thought goes into crafting the best messages for
> > fundraising banners, I also know that the testing is thorough, and
> > decisions are made with real data. But sometimes I find we might be
> > forgetting the number of people we actually scare *away* with things like
> > this. Not sure that's data we can acquire, but looking at this banner I
> am
> > losing faith in my fellow French if they really respond to something like
> > this more than they do to positive and cheerful looking messages).
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > Delphine
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:44 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > David Gerard wrote:
> > > >Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?
> > >
> > > Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say
> > "(again)"
> > > in the subject line. ;-)
> > >
> > > There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these
> > > banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused logged-in
> > > users to be hit with them as well. Talk about eating your own dog food.
> > >
> > > The French Wikipedia held what appears to be a straw poll with
> > > overwhelming denouncement of the banner. It's also been repeatedly
> > > described as a phishing attempt. Complaints and confusion aren't
> uncommon
> > > during any annual fundraiser, but I think we can and should hold
> > ourselves
> > > to a higher standard when begging people for money.
> > >
> > > As pointed out on Meta-Wiki's "Wikimedia Forum" by Jules78120,
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines is
> pretty
> > > clear that the (primary) goal is that banners "be as unobtrusive as
> > > possible." I wrote this in May 2011, I believe deliberately outside of
> > the
> > > annual fundraising that takes place in December so that we could have a
> > > calm and reasonable discussion about appropriate CentralNotice usage.
> > Sigh.
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > @notafish
> >
> > NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
> get
> > lost.
> > Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> > http://blog.notanendive.org
> > Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Megan Hernandez
Hi everyone,

Sending an update to let you know that we've heard your concerns and to
thank you for your feedback.  We're working on some new banners including a
version without the overlay to try out based on feedback you've shared.
Our banners are always a work in progress, they will continue to evolve and
improve.

We'll send an email update on Monday.

Have a good weekend,

Megan

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm going to second Liam's comment here, it is disappointing that we're
> discussing this here but the Foundation is not coming to the party and
> explaining why they are doing these things.  They're creating an
> information void, and a void *will* be filled somehow; if the WMF is not
> proactive in filling it with the real story, it'll be filled with rumours
> and misinformation, the sort of stuff that inhibits the movement from
> achieving its goals.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a
> reasonably prompt answer to the sort of questions being posed here in a
> respectful fashion.
>
> I've copied in Megan Hernandez, the Director of Online Fundraising in the
> hope of getting a comment, just in case she's not aware of this discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
> On 27 November 2014 at 21:44, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > This notwithstanding, I think the issue *yet again*, is a lack of
> > communication with the relevant community members when a decision is
> taken
> > that affects them. In this case, at minimum, the French OTRS team - who
> are
> > apparently receiving complaints that Wikipedia is affected by a virus!
> >
> > So can I reiterate my reqeust from the other day:
> > If you're going to change something, tell the affected people before you
> > change it (or as soon as possible afterwards). Please don't wait for the
> > public to raise concerns with volunteers, who then complain to the WMF,
> > before offering an explanation.
> >
> > And on that note, regarding the fundraising concerns from last week, have
> > the Dutch or Russian communities received responses to their questions
> yet?
> >
> >
> > -Liam
> >
> >
> > On 27 November 2014 at 11:35, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > You know, I think I'll pass on the actual content of the message that
> > talks
> > > about "Commercial" not being a "Monster" and "The Bad". (and yes I
> know,
> > > these are in a negative sentence but... seriously?).
> > >
> > > This banner looks like an obituary I find. Where are the cool banners
> on
> > > green leafy foresty background? Those were the days ;)
> > >
> > > I know that a lot of thought goes into crafting the best messages for
> > > fundraising banners, I also know that the testing is thorough, and
> > > decisions are made with real data. But sometimes I find we might be
> > > forgetting the number of people we actually scare *away* with things
> like
> > > this. Not sure that's data we can acquire, but looking at this banner I
> > am
> > > losing faith in my fellow French if they really respond to something
> like
> > > this more than they do to positive and cheerful looking messages).
> > >
> > > *sigh*
> > >
> > > Delphine
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:44 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > David Gerard wrote:
> > > > >Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year?
> > > >
> > > > Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say
> > > "(again)"
> > > > in the subject line. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these
> > > > banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused logged-in
> > > > users to be hit with them as well. Talk about eating your own dog
> food.
> > > >
> > > > The French Wikipedia held what appears to be a straw poll with
> > > > overwhelming denouncement of the banner. It's also been repeatedly
> > > > described as a phishing attempt. Complaints and confusion aren't
> > uncommon
> > > > during any annual fundraiser, but I think we can and should hold
> > > ourselves
> > > > to a higher standard when begging people for money.
> > > >
> > > > As pointed out on Meta-Wiki's "Wikimedia Forum" by Jules78120,
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines is
> > pretty
> > > > clear that the (primary) goal is that banners "be as unobtrusive as
> > > > possible." I wrote this in May 2011, I believe deliberately outside
> of
> > > the
> > > > annual fundraising that takes place in December so that we could
> have a
> > > > calm and reasonable discussion about appropriate CentralNotice usage.
> > > Sigh.
> > > >
> > > > MZMcBride
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > @notafish
> > >
> > > NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
> > get
> > > lost.
> > > Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> > > http://blog.notanendive.org
> > > Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--

Megan Hernandez

Director of Online Fundraising
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

MZMcBride-2
Megan Hernandez wrote:
>Sending an update to let you know that we've heard your concerns and to
>thank you for your feedback.  We're working on some new banners including
>a version without the overlay to try out based on feedback you've shared.
>Our banners are always a work in progress, they will continue to evolve
>and improve.
>
>We'll send an email update on Monday.
>
>Have a good weekend,

Thank you for this note.

Just for general information, Thursday through Sunday is a holiday in a
lot of the United States (Thursday for Thanksgiving, Friday to recover
from Thanksgiving). This time of year (after Thanksgiving and until
Christmas) is usually the busiest time of year for the Wikimedia
Foundation fundraising team. This is to say, it's completely expected that
responses will be slower around this time of year. :-)

This is also why we try to have conversations about fundraising banner
principles in the off season. One principle I'd really like to see set in
stone is "don't obscure the page content." If someone reaches our sites
to learn about apples or bears or the Spanish Armada, surely our highest
obligation is sharing free content. We can simultaneously ask for
donations, but we need to do so in a polite and respectful way.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=10657614#Fundraising_banner
shows some of the banners that have been recently tested, for the curious.

Many of us lived through "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" and many other banner horror
shows. But collectively Wikimedia is recognizing that these new
fundraising banner overlays are a step in the wrong direction. The banners
may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's values.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Ori Livneh
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's
> values.


I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
the underlying sentiment.

I agree that the urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my
(admittedly limited) understanding of our financial situation. Could we run
a survey that places the banner copy alongside a concise statement of the
Foundation's financials, and which asks the respondent to indicate whether
they regard the copy as misleading.

Quantitative assessments of fundraising strategy ought to consider impact
on all assets, tangible or not. This includes the Foundation's goodwill and
reputation, which are (by common wisdom) easy to squander and hard to
repair. It is critical that we be maximally deliberate on this matter.

In addition to the survey suggested above, I want to also propose that we:

(a) solicit input from a neutral reputation management consultancy, and
(b) create a forum for staffers to talk openly about this matter, without
fear of reprisal

All that being said, since this is a tough thread, and since it is
Thanksgiving weekend here in the US, it is a good opportunity to express
how much I appreciate the work of the fundraising team. Banners are never
going to be popular and it must be tough as hell to do this work while
fielding rants and grumbles from everybody and their cousin. I consider it
a stroke of cosmic luck that I get paid to work on Wikipedia and its sister
projects, and I am grateful to you for making that possible.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
"Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. "Advertising isn't evil"
they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down."

https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481

Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*.

What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect on the
brand, they'll be motivating damaging behaviour.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

MZMcBride-2
Ori Livneh wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's
>>values.
>
>I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
>the underlying sentiment.

What happened to "we make the Internet not suck"? What happened to the
near-universal agreement that pop-ups are bad?

>(a) solicit input from a neutral reputation management consultancy, and

Consultants are the reason the fundraising campaigns and associated
banners are so awful. To the idea that we continue paying people
needlessly for bad advice, I'm going to say no thank you. I'd rather not.

>(b) create a forum for staffers to talk openly about this matter, without
>fear of reprisal

What's wrong with wikimedia-l? I can assure you that this mailing list has
grade-A reprisal, far better than what you'll receive from work. :-)

David Gerard wrote:
>"Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. "Advertising isn't evil"
>they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down."
>
>https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481

Indeed. It might help if we started referring to the fundraising banners
as full-page advertising. Calling a spade a spade, and all that.

It also occurred to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable for Adblock (Plus)
to reconsider its classification of the fundraising notices (even
"banners" is generous). Historically banners on Wikimedia wikis have not
been considered ads by Adblock and friends, but this assumed decency and
common sense on Wikimedia's part. These full-page gremlins lack both.

>Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*.
>
>What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect on the
>brand, they'll be motivating damaging behaviour.

We used to have live-updating statistics about the annual fundraiser at
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics>. That
error message is probably highly misleading and we really ought to have
better reporting about donations. As far as I know, we've taken several
steps backward in recent years in terms of donation transparency and this
should be addressed in 2015. (I'm somewhat hoping someone will quickly
prove me wrong with a link to up-to-date donor stats... go on!)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Lila Tretikov
All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.

I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of those
in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a
quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
fundraising.

Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly
changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in
emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the
knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where free
speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep
supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see Wikipedia
becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web
searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great too:
people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however can
make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so we
have to make sure we adapt.

We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified
fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site banners.
Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high with
readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of
impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns however. The
Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While our
launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a pop-up,
overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will iterate
daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given time.

Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the process
to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the coming
month.

And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising team
for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have helped
with the campaigns.

~~~~ Lila




On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:39 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ori Livneh wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's
> >>values.
> >
> >I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
> >the underlying sentiment.
>
> What happened to "we make the Internet not suck"? What happened to the
> near-universal agreement that pop-ups are bad?
>
> >(a) solicit input from a neutral reputation management consultancy, and
>
> Consultants are the reason the fundraising campaigns and associated
> banners are so awful. To the idea that we continue paying people
> needlessly for bad advice, I'm going to say no thank you. I'd rather not.
>
> >(b) create a forum for staffers to talk openly about this matter, without
> >fear of reprisal
>
> What's wrong with wikimedia-l? I can assure you that this mailing list has
> grade-A reprisal, far better than what you'll receive from work. :-)
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> >"Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. "Advertising isn't evil"
> >they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down."
> >
> >https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481
>
> Indeed. It might help if we started referring to the fundraising banners
> as full-page advertising. Calling a spade a spade, and all that.
>
> It also occurred to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable for Adblock (Plus)
> to reconsider its classification of the fundraising notices (even
> "banners" is generous). Historically banners on Wikimedia wikis have not
> been considered ads by Adblock and friends, but this assumed decency and
> common sense on Wikimedia's part. These full-page gremlins lack both.
>
> >Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*.
> >
> >What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect on the
> >brand, they'll be motivating damaging behaviour.
>
> We used to have live-updating statistics about the annual fundraiser at
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics>. That
> error message is probably highly misleading and we really ought to have
> better reporting about donations. As far as I know, we've taken several
> steps backward in recent years in terms of donation transparency and this
> should be addressed in 2015. (I'm somewhat hoping someone will quickly
> prove me wrong with a link to up-to-date donor stats... go on!)
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Anders Wennersten-2
Thanks Lila, most enlightening.

And as always when it comes to WMFs fundraising efforts, most impressive
work being done! And  metrics in the "new" quarterly report will be much
appreciated.

Anders


Lila Tretikov skrev den 2014-12-02 07:53:

> All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
>
> I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of those
> in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a
> quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
> fundraising.
>
> Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly
> changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in
> emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the
> knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where free
> speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep
> supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see Wikipedia
> becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web
> searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great too:
> people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however can
> make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so we
> have to make sure we adapt.
>
> We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified
> fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site banners.
> Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high with
> readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of
> impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns however. The
> Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While our
> launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a pop-up,
> overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will iterate
> daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given time.
>
> Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the process
> to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the coming
> month.
>
> And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising team
> for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have helped
> with the campaigns.
>
> ~~~~ Lila
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:39 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Ori Livneh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's
>>>> values.
>>> I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
>>> the underlying sentiment.
>> What happened to "we make the Internet not suck"? What happened to the
>> near-universal agreement that pop-ups are bad?
>>
>>> (a) solicit input from a neutral reputation management consultancy, and
>> Consultants are the reason the fundraising campaigns and associated
>> banners are so awful. To the idea that we continue paying people
>> needlessly for bad advice, I'm going to say no thank you. I'd rather not.
>>
>>> (b) create a forum for staffers to talk openly about this matter, without
>>> fear of reprisal
>> What's wrong with wikimedia-l? I can assure you that this mailing list has
>> grade-A reprisal, far better than what you'll receive from work. :-)
>>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> "Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. "Advertising isn't evil"
>>> they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down."
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481
>> Indeed. It might help if we started referring to the fundraising banners
>> as full-page advertising. Calling a spade a spade, and all that.
>>
>> It also occurred to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable for Adblock (Plus)
>> to reconsider its classification of the fundraising notices (even
>> "banners" is generous). Historically banners on Wikimedia wikis have not
>> been considered ads by Adblock and friends, but this assumed decency and
>> common sense on Wikimedia's part. These full-page gremlins lack both.
>>
>>> Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*.
>>>
>>> What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect on the
>>> brand, they'll be motivating damaging behaviour.
>> We used to have live-updating statistics about the annual fundraiser at
>> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics>. That
>> error message is probably highly misleading and we really ought to have
>> better reporting about donations. As far as I know, we've taken several
>> steps backward in recent years in terms of donation transparency and this
>> should be addressed in 2015. (I'm somewhat hoping someone will quickly
>> prove me wrong with a link to up-to-date donor stats... go on!)
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

Charles Gregory-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Just as an aside - tweets about the fundraiser don't appear to be the best
source for informed commentary:

https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=wikipedia%20donations&src=typd

Examples:
"Wikipedia is begging for $3 donations? That screams 'Hey, we're in a
little trouble over here'."
"Silly Wikipedia. A service is no longer free once donations are needed to
keep it free."

Perhaps it would be a good idea to reply to some of the comments via
official accounts?

Regards,

Charles (User:Chuq)



On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. "Advertising isn't evil"
> they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down."
>
> https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481
>
> Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*.
>
> What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect on the
> brand, they'll be motivating damaging behaviour.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

metasj
In reply to this post by Lila Tretikov
Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update.  Fundraising trends and data
are always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and
test local messages.

I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team, who
have made great progress over the last few years – in storytelling &
translation, mobile giving, testing & data analysis. I look forward to
seeing what we learn this year.

Sam

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Lila Tretikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
>
> I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of those
> in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a
> quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
> fundraising.
>
> Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly
> changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in
> emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the
> knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where free
> speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep
> supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see Wikipedia
> becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web
> searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great too:
> people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however can
> make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so we
> have to make sure we adapt.
>
> We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified
> fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site banners.
> Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high with
> readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of
> impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns however. The
> Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While our
> launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a pop-up,
> overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will iterate
> daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given time.
>
> Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the process
> to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the coming
> month.
>
> And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising team
> for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have helped
> with the campaigns.
>
> ~~~~ Lila
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:39 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Ori Livneh wrote:
> > >On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's
> > >>values.
> > >
> > >I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
> > >the underlying sentiment.
> >
> > What happened to "we make the Internet not suck"? What happened to the
> > near-universal agreement that pop-ups are bad?
> >
> > >(a) solicit input from a neutral reputation management consultancy, and
> >
> > Consultants are the reason the fundraising campaigns and associated
> > banners are so awful. To the idea that we continue paying people
> > needlessly for bad advice, I'm going to say no thank you. I'd rather not.
> >
> > >(b) create a forum for staffers to talk openly about this matter,
> without
> > >fear of reprisal
> >
> > What's wrong with wikimedia-l? I can assure you that this mailing list
> has
> > grade-A reprisal, far better than what you'll receive from work. :-)
> >
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > >"Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. "Advertising isn't evil"
> > >they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down."
> > >
> > >https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481
> >
> > Indeed. It might help if we started referring to the fundraising banners
> > as full-page advertising. Calling a spade a spade, and all that.
> >
> > It also occurred to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable for Adblock
> (Plus)
> > to reconsider its classification of the fundraising notices (even
> > "banners" is generous). Historically banners on Wikimedia wikis have not
> > been considered ads by Adblock and friends, but this assumed decency and
> > common sense on Wikimedia's part. These full-page gremlins lack both.
> >
> > >Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*.
> > >
> > >What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect on the
> > >brand, they'll be motivating damaging behaviour.
> >
> > We used to have live-updating statistics about the annual fundraiser at
> > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics>.
> That
> > error message is probably highly misleading and we really ought to have
> > better reporting about donations. As far as I know, we've taken several
> > steps backward in recent years in terms of donation transparency and this
> > should be addressed in 2015. (I'm somewhat hoping someone will quickly
> > prove me wrong with a link to up-to-date donor stats... go on!)
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12345