[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email

svetlana
Hi,

David Gerard wrote:
> Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English.

Peter Southwood wrote:
> I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t get it.

This line is a parody. Similarly to "Everything that is eatable is an apple, particularly oranges". ("The English" = "people from the UK" = "not American").

--
svetlana

_______________________________________________
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] Fwd: Our final email

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> OK, I was just wondering if acceptance of this form of marketing was an
> American thing or  more generally an English language thing. Obviously not
> universally acceptable to English speakers, even in USA and England, but
> possibly more offensive to people with other cultural backgrounds.
> Cheers,
> Peter.
>

Ah, I wondered if that might have been your underlying point!

I'm pretty sure the differences of views on this list on this subject
reflect different individual perspectives, not a bigger point about
cultural norms. This email could have originated from a British, Australian
or Dutch non-profit just as easily - and probably would still be effective
for the same reasons in a much wider range of cultures - I highlight those
3 because approaches to fundraising and philanthropy are pretty similar in
them.

There is a bigger difference in expected/preferred payment methods (which,
obviously, is also a subject of debate here, and one I have quite strong
views on) but that is a different question.

Chris
_______________________________________________
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] Fwd: Our final email

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
I support the idea that "translation" also needs to happen between cultures
within the same language.
I made the example of the Italian because it is my own, but of course there
are other English-speaking cultures other the American one, and they would
deserve the same attention.
Of course it is difficult, and of course it would be a burden for the
Fundraising team to have different messages for different nations [1], but
I think it's worth a real effort.
The Wikimedia movement is multicultural and multilanguage. We need to keep
it that way, also in delicate but fundamental aspects as the fundraising.
As the WMF feels entitled to fundraise for the whole movement, she would
feel the responsibility of speaking the movement language (meaning, all of
them :-D).

I really don't want to give the impression of  *trashing* everything the
WMF does: I already said it, but I 'll repeat here that the Edit 2014 video
is passionate, clear, moving, inspiring and *honest*. I made me feel proud
of being part of the movement, and I think it is a great result for a 2
minutes video :-) [2]

Aubrey


[1] I'm still assuming a centralised, WMF-driven fundraising, please don't
we start with chapters fundraising in this very moment, although it could
be part of the solution).

[2] On a totally unrelated matter, I thought the same for the other
Victor's video about the kids from South Africa. (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j-ktiYTTds)
He also set a crowdfunding for actually buying the laptops (
http://www.gofundme.com/74kx3g).
It's maybe me, but I don't really understand why we don't use the
sitenotice to spread these messages.


On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Not even slightly, even though I speak English.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Keating
> Sent: 19 December 2014 02:41 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
>
> Are you American?
> On 19 Dec 2014 12:35, "Peter Southwood" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t
> > get it.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gerard
> > Sent: 19 December 2014 02:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
> >
> > Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English.
> >
> > On 19 December 2014 at 12:21, Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Are you by any chance American?
> > > Cheers,
> > > peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris
> > > Keating
> > > Sent: 19 December 2014 01:47 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
> > >
> > > I have to say, I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that
> email.
> > > Bold italicised text on a yellow background might not win any design
> > > awards but effective fundraising often doesn't win design awards.*
> > >
> > > I am not 100% sure how much donors care how soon our fundraiser ends
> > (these days at least, a few years ago they did get fed up with the
> > perpetual Jimmy banners). However talking about that does give a sense
> > of urgency to the copy, which again is a key part of fundraising that
> > actually raises money.
> > >
> > > It is of course a reasonable point of view that the WMF and
> > > Wikimedia
> > movement have too much money and shouldn't really try to raise any
> > more. If you hold that view then I suppose it's reasonable to ask the
> > fundraising team to make their emails more inept. However, I don't
> > think that is a sensible view to take at the moment (or, probably, ever).
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > *(Actually, the only fundraising industry award I've ever been
> > > involved in winning were for things that looked very nice, but that
> > > doesn't disprove the general principle)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This email was sent by WMF fundraising today.
> > >> I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below.
> > >>
> > >> *Da:* "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia" <[hidden email]>
> > >> *Data:* 17 December 2014 10:15:56 pm GMT+1
> > >> *A: [email address removed]*
> > >> *Oggetto:* *Our final email*
> > >> *Rispondi a:* [hidden email]
> > >>
> > >> *If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn't have
> > >> to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year.*
> > >>
> > >> Dear [name removed],
> > >>
> > >> This is the last email reminder you'll receive. We hope the
> > >> response to today's email will let us end the fundraiser. Please
> > >> take one minute to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year <
> > >> http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r
> > >> =N
> > >> z
> > >> U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0
> > >> >
> > >> .
> > >>
> > >> To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no
> > >> government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all
> > >> our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser.
> > >> Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia.
> > >>
> > >> We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please
> > >> consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia <
> > >> http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r
> > >> =N
> > >> z
> > >> U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0
> > >> >
> > >> .
> > >>
> > >> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > >> <
> > >> http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r
> > >> =N
> > >> z
> > >> U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Thank you,
> > >> Jimmy Wales
> > >> Wikipedia Founder
> > >>
> > >> PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia
> running.
> > >> Your contribution counts!
> > >> *DONATE NOW »*
> > >> <
> > >> http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r
> > >> =N
> > >> z
> > >> U3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0
> > >> >
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "our final email"?
> > >> This is the last email reminder you'll receive"?
> > >> Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."??
> > >> If that weren't embarrassing, what about...
> > >>
> > >>    - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all
> > >> at
> > the
> > >>    same time in the heading.
> > >>    - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past
> > >>    donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't
> > >> need to do
> > >>    any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!!
> > >>    - On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence
> > >>    immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another
> year".
> > >>    - Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to
> keep
> > >>    Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate,
> > which is
> > >>    enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers
> > >> who
> > have
> > >>    donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the
> > >> other 99% of
> > >>    donors didn't donate enough)?
> > >>    - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you
> receive a
> > >>    "thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I
> > >> should
> > note
> > >>    that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and
> > >>    mission-oriented].
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *Effectiveness != Efficiency*
> > >> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles
> > >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is
> > >> "*minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors
> > >> *effectively*" [emphasis is original].
> > >> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising
> > >> team to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible".
> > >> However, I contest that "less disruption" and "more effective" is
> > >> not the same as "shorter fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness !=
> Efficiency.
> > >>
> > >> I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are
> > >> *efficient *at getting the most amount of money as fast as possible
> > >> (they have been honed with excellent A/B testing), but, they
> > >> achieve this by sacrificing the core WMF fundraising principle of
> > >> being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they actually appear to be
> > >> following a principle of being "as *maximally *disruptive as they
> > >> can get away with, for as short a time as required".
> > >>
> > >> Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective
> > >> fundraising" is defined in practice, and how they are measured?
> > >>
> > >> *Shareable vs Desperate*
> > >> On the same day that the WMF communications team release this
> > >> inspiring and positive "year in review" video <
> > >> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-
> > >> vi d eo-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/
> > >> >,
> > >> this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all
> > >> about not advertising and staying online for another year.
> > >>
> > >> Couldn't the "year in review" video have been used in the
> > >> fundraising email to tell a positive story about all we have achieved
> this year?
> > >> That's the kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel
> > >> proud about, not something that almost bullies you to donate out of
> > >> a sense of moral-obligation.
> > >>
> > >> *Fundraising "operating principles"* I would like to reiterate my
> > >> call to see us develop some practical "operating principles" for
> > >> fundraising that would give some real-world guidelines for
> > >> website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe has
> > >> done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations
> > >> on this list from the last few weeks here:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles
> > >> I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this
> > >> fundraiser is
> > >> finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative
> > >> process with interested community members. This is in the hope that
> > >> in the future, the community can help spread the word and feel
> > >> empowered to join the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather
> > >> than simply hoping it will go away as quickly as possible.
> > >>
> > >> After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is:
> > >> "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of
> > >> empowerment underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower
> > >> individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to
> > >> direct messaging, public outreach, and other activities that drive
> > >> the success of Wikimedia’s fundraising efforts"
> > >>
> > >> -Liam
> > >> p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian
> > >> community yet about why they aren't allowed to donate?
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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>
> > >
> > > -----
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8764 - Release Date:
> > > 12/19/14
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8764 - Release Date:
> > 12/19/14
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8764 - Release Date: 12/19/14
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fwd: Our final email

Bjoern Hoehrmann
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
* Peter Southwood wrote:
>OK, I was just wondering if acceptance of this form of marketing was an
>American thing or  more generally an English language thing. Obviously
>not universally acceptable to English speakers, even in USA and England,
>but possibly more offensive to people with other cultural backgrounds.

I have found http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13545386 useful on
this point, comparing the German and British as an example.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

_______________________________________________
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] Fwd: Our final email

Liam Wyatt
There are some valid differences of opinion being expressed about the
cultural-linguistic appropriateness of the language used in the fundraising
email.

But these are tangential to the substantive issue I was attempting to raise.

Ideally, Wikimedians should feeling empowered and excited to share the
message that we need to fundraise to continue our movement's important work
with my friends and family.
Instead, I feel embarrassed (and consequently demotivated and unempowered)
by the fundraising campaign - and I believe a lot of others in the
community are too.

Let me reiterate the final, official WMF fundraising principle
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles>:

> "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment
> underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and groups
> world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public
> outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s
> fundraising efforts."


Now, we can debate the minutiae of the fundraising banners/emails - and I
am certainly guilty of raising a series of very specific
linguistic/stylistic critiques - but the more strategic issue is that I
believe that this "maximal participation" principle has been completely
left behind. Furthermore, that the principle of "minimal disruption" has
become to be defined as "get the money as fast as possible".
To reiterate: efficiency != effectiveness.

The feeling being generated is that fundraising is a "necessary evil" that
we all have to suffer through. But the "maximal participation" principle
implies that fundraising should be an opportunity for us all as a community
to FEEL PROUD to tell our friends that what we do is important and that if
they can't provide time or expertise, then at least provide some money to
show their support.  I USED to do that. I want to again.

So, How can we move from a position where I (and presumably many others) in
the community are merely "enduring" the fundraising season, to a position
where we can be proud ambassadors of our movement? We should get back to
using this time as an opportunity to share our movement's value - We should
celebrate collectively when we reach the fundraising goal because we know
that means we can achieve the awesome things planned to do with that money.
This requires seeking "buy in" from the community at all stages - from the
annual budget to the banner translation to email responders. Not simply
"tolerating" fundraising season....

Less "efficient" fundraising, more "effective" fundraising.
WMF Board of Trustees, I'm looking at you to set a direction
-Liam

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
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] [Spam] Re: Fwd: Our final email

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers-2
It's now "If everyone reading this right now gives £3, our fundraiser
will be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of
coffee is all we need."

So I suppose the take-home message is that WMF fundraising has high
estimates of what a coffee costs, rather than their programmers having
expensive tastes ;-)

(In all seriousness: I generally agree with Liam's concerns, but I'd
also like to note that the banners running on mobile are much more
discreet, though are just as eye-catching. Well done to whoever
thought of those.)

Andrew.

On 19 December 2014 at 08:44, WereSpielChequers
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Two weeks ago I emailed the fundraising team with the following note, quietly and discretely pointing out an error in their messaging. Sadly I haven't had a reply and I think that in the UK they are still using the £3 buys a coffee for a programmer line:
>
>> Aside from the incidental nature of the appeal, £3 and $3 are very different sums of money. When I saw $3 I thought that was an expensive way to buy coffees and that the WMF should invest in a kettle and some mugs. But £3 for a coffee, now that just looks wasteful, even to someone living in an expensive part of London. I dread to think what it looks like to someone living in other parts of England, let alone cheaper parts of the world. "£3 gets coffee and biscuits for a potential wikipedian coming to a training session", that I could defend.
>>
>> There's also the honesty/credibility factor. I doubt I am the only person seeing different versions of these ads including different currencies, if the sums are this far apart the suspicion has to be that none of the figures are to be trusted. Not a great help to our program of improving Wikipedia quality and getting such details right in our articles.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
>
>>
>>   3.
>>>
>>>
>>> To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government
>>> funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors
>>> simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget
>>> fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider
>>> making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia
>>> <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0>
>>> .
>>>
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>>> <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Jimmy Wales
>>> Wikipedia Founder
>>>
>>> PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running.
>>> Your contribution counts!
>>> *DONATE NOW »*
>>> <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> "our final email"?
>>> This is the last email reminder you'll receive"?
>>> Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."??
>>> If that weren't embarrassing, what about...
>>>
>>>   - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the
>>>   same time in the heading.
>>>   - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past
>>>   donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do
>>>   any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!!
>>>   - On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence
>>>   immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another year".
>>>   - Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep
>>>   Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is
>>>   enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have
>>>   donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of
>>>   donors didn't donate enough)?
>>>   - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a
>>>   "thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note
>>>   that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and
>>>   mission-oriented].
>>>
>>>
>>> *Effectiveness != Efficiency*
>>> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal
>>> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis is
>>> original].
>>> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to
>>> mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest that
>>> "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter
>>> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
>>>
>>> I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient *at
>>> getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been honed
>>> with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the core
>>> WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they
>>> actually appear to be following a principle of being "as *maximally *disruptive
>>> as they can get away with, for as short a time as required".
>>>
>>> Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective fundraising" is
>>> defined in practice, and how they are measured?
>>>
>>> *Shareable vs Desperate*
>>> On the same day that the WMF communications team release this inspiring and
>>> positive "year in review" video
>>> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/>,
>>> this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about not
>>> advertising and staying online for another year.
>>>
>>> Couldn't the "year in review" video have been used in the fundraising email
>>> to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's the
>>> kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not
>>> something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of
>>> moral-obligation.
>>>
>>> *Fundraising "operating principles"*
>>> I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical
>>> "operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world
>>> guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe
>>> has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on
>>> this list from the last few weeks here:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles
>>> I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this fundraiser is
>>> finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative process
>>> with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the future,
>>> the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join
>>> the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it
>>> will go away as quickly as possible.
>>>
>>> After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is:
>>> "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment
>>> underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and groups
>>> world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public
>>> outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s
>>> fundraising efforts"
>>>
>>> -Liam
>>> p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community yet
>>> about why they aren't allowed to donate?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:12:41 -0500
>> From: MZMcBride <[hidden email]>
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
>> Message-ID: <D0B8D003.463EC%[hidden email]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="UTF-8"
>>
>> Liam Wyatt wrote:
>>> *Effectiveness != Efficiency*
>>> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal
>>> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis is
>>> original].
>>> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team
>>> to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest
>>> that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter
>>> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
>>
>> Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation solicitation
>> e-mails are terrible and unbecoming.
>>
>> In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem
>> to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding
>> principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much
>> stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board
>> of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on
>> the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines
>> aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how
>> big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums.
>>
>> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
>> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
>> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
>> The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in
>> an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling
>> Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a
>> "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading
>> suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous
>> $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_
>> that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money
>> again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that
>> suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:21:31 +0000
>> From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
>> Message-ID:
>>    <[hidden email]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>>> On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
>>> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
>>> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant falsehoods.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:59:50 +1000
>> From: Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
>> Message-ID:
>>    <[hidden email]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>>> On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
>>> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
>>> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
>>> The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in
>>> an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling
>>> Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a
>>> "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading
>>> suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
>>>
>>> The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous
>>> $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_
>>> that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money
>>> again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that
>>> suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
>> Please add my name to the list of people who are troubled by what's been
>> said and done in the latest round of fundraising.
>>
>> I think that most of us, even if we feel some distaste for begging for
>> money, realise the importance and necessity of engaging in fundraising.
>> The fact that we're asking for money is not the problem.  The problem is
>> that in order to maximise the amount of revenue gained, the Fundraising
>> team has engaged in a misleading scare campaign.  In the short term, that
>> means that a few more dollars will flow into the Foundation's coffers, but
>> in the long term it just damages the brand and the entire movement.
>>
>> It is very disappointing that the responses from the WMF to these entirely
>> reasonable concerns so far have been either:
>>
>> a) Silence
>> b) Completely ignoring the point ("The fundraiser has been very successful
>> because we've received more money, and those who are not aware that they've
>> been mislead are not upset!")
>> c) Semantic word games ("Well, in a technical sense what we've said is not
>> a lie, depending on how you look at it")
>>
>> The solution that I'd like to see for next time is less focus on A/B
>> testing that has its sole purpose of maximising the amount of revenue
>> raised, and more of a view to alternative ways to raise money.  Imagine a
>> world in which we gave our readers a positive message that we already had
>> enough money to keep the lights on thanks very much, but needed more to
>> build cool new tools, improve the quality of the project content, and
>> implement more innovative projects to meet our movement's goals.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Craig Franklin
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>>
>> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 129, Issue 85
>> ********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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>



--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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] [Spam] Re: Fwd: Our final email

Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Andrew Gray wrote:
>(In all seriousness: I generally agree with Liam's concerns, but I'd
>also like to note that the banners running on mobile are much more
>discreet, though are just as eye-catching. Well done to whoever
>thought of those.)

When I encountered one of those I had to scroll four screens down to
notice that it's actually an overlay and obscuring the content below it,
and so I had to scroll back up and find a tiny hard-to-tap "x" to close
it. You must be seeing very different ones.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

_______________________________________________
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] Fwd: Our final email

Mathias Damour
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
Le 19/12/2014 00:08, Liam Wyatt a écrit :
> This email was sent by WMF fundraising today.
> I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below.

Then what ?
I suggest the reasons why the WMF and Sue Gardner did struggle for years
against the ability of the chapters to fundraise were bad, or at least
not good enough.
They were complaint about the fundraising banners and messages, I guess
one of the reason to centralize fundraising was to have full control on
it and be able to switch it on and off at any time in any country (such
as Russia), yet I don't think that it's even desirable.
Furthermore the WMF shouldn't process the "Project and Event Grants" and
"Individual Engagement Grants" in the countries were there is an active
chapter.

--
Mathias Damour
User:Astirmay

_______________________________________________
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] Fwd: Our final email

Andreas Kolbe-2
An e-mail comment from Jimmy Wales, quoted just now in a Digital Spy
article[1]:

"I'm happy to inform you that our current fundraiser is the most successful
in our entire history."

The bottom line is that the present banners are evidently more effective at
monetising the brand than those used in previous years, and an extra 10, 20
or 30 million dollars in revenue speaks a lot louder than the qualms voiced
by a few easily expendable volunteers here.


[1]
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a617618/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-replies-to-gamergate-criticism.html
_______________________________________________
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] Our final email

Josh Lim
In reply to this post by Mathias Damour
We should remember here that different chapters have different capacities when it comes to fundraising.  Now I won’t question Mathias’ point on the ability of addiliates to fundraise vis-à-vis the WMF’s desire to centralize fundraising, but there is one part of the e-mail that I *will* question.

> Wiadomość napisana przez Mathias Damour <[hidden email]> w dniu 20 gru 2014, o godz. 04:52:
>
> Le 19/12/2014 00:08, Liam Wyatt a écrit :
>> This email was sent by WMF fundraising today.
>> I'm embarrassed. Read the email first, then I'll tell you why, below.
>
> Then what ?
> I suggest the reasons why the WMF and Sue Gardner did struggle for years against the ability of the chapters to fundraise were bad, or at least not good enough.
> They were complaint about the fundraising banners and messages, I guess one of the reason to centralize fundraising was to have full control on it and be able to switch it on and off at any time in any country (such as Russia), yet I don't think that it's even desirable.
> Furthermore the WMF shouldn't process the "Project and Event Grants" and "Individual Engagement Grants" in the countries were there is an active chapter.

And why not?

I’m sorry, but not all of us are Wikimedia Deutschland or Wikimedia France or Wikimedia UK, let alone affiliates in the developed world, where you have fundraising tools at your disposal and generous government support (e.g. gift aid, 1% programs, etc.) to match that, plus large numbers of readers who would want to donate banners or not.  Whether you like it or not, many affiliates—especially in the developing world and including mine (Wikimedia Philippines)—are completely dependent on the Wikimedia Foundation for their funding, and to think that the above is a solution to our problems simply because there’s money to *supposedly* go around is ludicrous.

We can build fundraising capacity, but it takes time.  In many cases, a *lot* of time.  Don’t think that turning off the tap now and forcing affiliates in the developing world to fundraise otherwise without adequate preparation will magically make things better; I’d like to contend that they may make things much worse, and this solution is nothing short of suicide.  I’m a supporter of being financially self-sustaining (and WMPH has made steps towards that, as we’ve intended to be financially self-sustaining from the get-go), but this is the wrong way to go about doing it.

Thanks,

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim <http://about.me/josh.lim>
_______________________________________________
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] Our final email

Mathias Damour
Le 20/12/2014 18:09, Josh Lim a écrit :

> We should remember here that different chapters have different capacities when it comes to fundraising.  Now I won’t question Mathias’ point on the ability of addiliates to fundraise vis-à-vis the WMF’s desire to centralize fundraising, but there is one part of the e-mail that I *will* question.
>
>> Wiadomość napisana przez Mathias Damour <[hidden email]> w dniu 20 gru 2014, o godz. 04:52:
>>
>> I suggest the reasons why the WMF and Sue Gardner did struggle for years against the ability of the chapters to fundraise were bad, or at least not good enough.
>> They were complaint about the fundraising banners and messages, I guess one of the reason to centralize fundraising was to have full control on it and be able to switch it on and off at any time in any country (such as Russia), yet I don't think that it's even desirable.
>> Furthermore the WMF shouldn't process the "Project and Event Grants" and "Individual Engagement Grants" in the countries were there is an active chapter.
> And why not?
>
> I’m sorry, but not all of us are Wikimedia Deutschland or Wikimedia France or Wikimedia UK, let alone affiliates in the developed world, where you have fundraising tools at your disposal and generous government support (e.g. gift aid, 1% programs, etc.) to match that, plus large numbers of readers who would want to donate banners or not.  Whether you like it or not, many affiliates—especially in the developing world and including mine (Wikimedia Philippines)—are completely dependent on the Wikimedia Foundation for their funding, and to think that the above is a solution to our problems simply because there’s money to *supposedly* go around is ludicrous.
>
> We can build fundraising capacity, but it takes time.  In many cases, a *lot* of time.  Don’t think that turning off the tap now and forcing affiliates in the developing world to fundraise otherwise without adequate preparation will magically make things better; I’d like to contend that they may make things much worse, and this solution is nothing short of suicide.

My sentence was probably too simple, I didn't mean to cut off any WMF
Individual and project grant funding when there is not yet the chapter
hasn't yet the ability to deal with it or doesn't want to do it. "it
takes time to build fundraising capacity" fore sure, but the fact is it
was dismantled, brought down for several chapters that had this
capacity, the last one being Wikimedia UK. Actually processing the
fundraising never meant keeping all the funds raised. It can perfectly
fit for a global dissemination to chapter such as yours.

--
Mathias Damour
User:Astirmays

_______________________________________________
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] [Spam] Re: Fwd: Our final email

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray-3
I don't know, in Australia you can get a cup of International Roast for $3,
but I don't know that that would motivate a programmer, other than perhaps
as a threat.

Cheers,
Craig

On 20 December 2014 at 05:00, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's now "If everyone reading this right now gives £3, our fundraiser
> will be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of
> coffee is all we need."
>
> So I suppose the take-home message is that WMF fundraising has high
> estimates of what a coffee costs, rather than their programmers having
> expensive tastes ;-)
>
> (In all seriousness: I generally agree with Liam's concerns, but I'd
> also like to note that the banners running on mobile are much more
> discreet, though are just as eye-catching. Well done to whoever
> thought of those.)
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 19 December 2014 at 08:44, WereSpielChequers
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Two weeks ago I emailed the fundraising team with the following note,
> quietly and discretely pointing out an error in their messaging. Sadly I
> haven't had a reply and I think that in the UK they are still using the £3
> buys a coffee for a programmer line:
> >
> >> Aside from the incidental nature of the appeal, £3 and $3 are very
> different sums of money. When I saw $3 I thought that was an expensive way
> to buy coffees and that the WMF should invest in a kettle and some mugs.
> But £3 for a coffee, now that just looks wasteful, even to someone living
> in an expensive part of London. I dread to think what it looks like to
> someone living in other parts of England, let alone cheaper parts of the
> world. "£3 gets coffee and biscuits for a potential wikipedian coming to a
> training session", that I could defend.
> >>
> >> There's also the honesty/credibility factor. I doubt I am the only
> person seeing different versions of these ads including different
> currencies, if the sums are this far apart the suspicion has to be that
> none of the figures are to be trusted. Not a great help to our program of
> improving Wikipedia quality and getting such details right in our articles.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan Cardy
> >
> >
> >>
> >>   3.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no
> government
> >>> funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors
> >>> simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us
> forget
> >>> fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia.
> >>>
> >>> We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please
> consider
> >>> making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia
> >>> <
> http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0
> >
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> >>> <
> http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0
> >
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> Jimmy Wales
> >>> Wikipedia Founder
> >>>
> >>> PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia
> running.
> >>> Your contribution counts!
> >>> *DONATE NOW »*
> >>> <
> http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0
> >
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "our final email"?
> >>> This is the last email reminder you'll receive"?
> >>> Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."??
> >>> If that weren't embarrassing, what about...
> >>>
> >>>   - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at
> the
> >>>   same time in the heading.
> >>>   - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past
> >>>   donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need
> to do
> >>>   any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!!
> >>>   - On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence
> >>>   immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another year".
> >>>   - Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep
> >>>   Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate,
> which is
> >>>   enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who
> have
> >>>   donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other
> 99% of
> >>>   donors didn't donate enough)?
> >>>   - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a
> >>>   "thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should
> note
> >>>   that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and
> >>>   mission-oriented].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Effectiveness != Efficiency*
> >>> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles
> >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal
> >>> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis
> is
> >>> original].
> >>> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising
> team to
> >>> mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest
> that
> >>> "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter
> >>> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
> >>>
> >>> I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are
> *efficient *at
> >>> getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been
> honed
> >>> with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the
> core
> >>> WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact,
> they
> >>> actually appear to be following a principle of being "as *maximally
> *disruptive
> >>> as they can get away with, for as short a time as required".
> >>>
> >>> Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective
> fundraising" is
> >>> defined in practice, and how they are measured?
> >>>
> >>> *Shareable vs Desperate*
> >>> On the same day that the WMF communications team release this
> inspiring and
> >>> positive "year in review" video
> >>> <
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/
> >,
> >>> this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about
> not
> >>> advertising and staying online for another year.
> >>>
> >>> Couldn't the "year in review" video have been used in the fundraising
> email
> >>> to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's
> the
> >>> kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not
> >>> something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of
> >>> moral-obligation.
> >>>
> >>> *Fundraising "operating principles"*
> >>> I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical
> >>> "operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world
> >>> guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member
> Phoebe
> >>> has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations
> on
> >>> this list from the last few weeks here:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles
> >>> I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this
> fundraiser is
> >>> finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative
> process
> >>> with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the
> future,
> >>> the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join
> >>> the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it
> >>> will go away as quickly as possible.
> >>>
> >>> After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is:
> >>> "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment
> >>> underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and
> groups
> >>> world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public
> >>> outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s
> >>> fundraising efforts"
> >>>
> >>> -Liam
> >>> p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community
> yet
> >>> about why they aren't allowed to donate?
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 4
> >> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:12:41 -0500
> >> From: MZMcBride <[hidden email]>
> >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
> >> Message-ID: <D0B8D003.463EC%[hidden email]>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="UTF-8"
> >>
> >> Liam Wyatt wrote:
> >>> *Effectiveness != Efficiency*
> >>> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles
> >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal
> >>> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis
> is
> >>> original].
> >>> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising
> team
> >>> to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I
> contest
> >>> that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter
> >>> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
> >>
> >> Thanks for this e-mail. I agree with you that these donation
> solicitation
> >> e-mails are terrible and unbecoming.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem
> >> to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding
> >> principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much
> >> stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> >> of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior
> on
> >> the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines
> >> aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how
> >> big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard
> maximums.
> >>
> >> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
> >> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
> >> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
> >> The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in
> >> an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include
> calling
> >> Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a
> >> "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and
> misleading
> >> suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
> >>
> >> The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a
> generous
> >> $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_
> >> that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for
> money
> >> again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that
> >> suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
> >>
> >> MZMcBride
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 5
> >> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:21:31 +0000
> >> From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
> >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
> >> Message-ID:
> >>    <[hidden email]>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >>
> >>> On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
> >>> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
> >>> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant
> falsehoods.
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 6
> >> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:59:50 +1000
> >> From: Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
> >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
> >> Message-ID:
> >>    <[hidden email]>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >>
> >>> On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
> >>> unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
> >>> solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
> >>> The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers
> in
> >>> an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include
> calling
> >>> Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris
> a
> >>> "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and
> misleading
> >>> suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
> >>>
> >>> The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a
> generous
> >>> $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six
> _years_
> >>> that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for
> money
> >>> again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that
> >>> suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
> >> Please add my name to the list of people who are troubled by what's been
> >> said and done in the latest round of fundraising.
> >>
> >> I think that most of us, even if we feel some distaste for begging for
> >> money, realise the importance and necessity of engaging in fundraising.
> >> The fact that we're asking for money is not the problem.  The problem is
> >> that in order to maximise the amount of revenue gained, the Fundraising
> >> team has engaged in a misleading scare campaign.  In the short term,
> that
> >> means that a few more dollars will flow into the Foundation's coffers,
> but
> >> in the long term it just damages the brand and the entire movement.
> >>
> >> It is very disappointing that the responses from the WMF to these
> entirely
> >> reasonable concerns so far have been either:
> >>
> >> a) Silence
> >> b) Completely ignoring the point ("The fundraiser has been very
> successful
> >> because we've received more money, and those who are not aware that
> they've
> >> been mislead are not upset!")
> >> c) Semantic word games ("Well, in a technical sense what we've said is
> not
> >> a lie, depending on how you look at it")
> >>
> >> The solution that I'd like to see for next time is less focus on A/B
> >> testing that has its sole purpose of maximising the amount of revenue
> >> raised, and more of a view to alternative ways to raise money.  Imagine
> a
> >> world in which we gave our readers a positive message that we already
> had
> >> enough money to keep the lights on thanks very much, but needed more to
> >> build cool new tools, improve the quality of the project content, and
> >> implement more innovative projects to meet our movement's goals.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> >>
> >> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 129, Issue 85
> >> ********************************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Our final email

Golf Today
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
Attention : LILA TETRIKOV

MY EMAIL ON PENDING SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT AT LEGAL + ARBCOM, and
further to some emails from WMF Gender Gap mailing list

Please reply as follows

1) What action WMF has taking on penalizing on-wiki sexual harassment
by WMF's user SITUSH based on my complaints to a) WMF LEGAL b)
EN:ARBCOM.

2) NB: WMF's user SITUSH is now a NOTABLE online sexual harasser from
news reports published as far afield as Australia and discussed on
Gender Gap as a "rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic
mess. "

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005181.html

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/14/comment-will-editing-disputes-mean-end-wikipedia

3) What action WMF has taking to ban User SITUSH who is part of a
notorious MEATFARM known as "Manchester Mafia" which is nothing but a
pack of extortionist sexist, rancorous  and racist blackmailers who
extort money for correcting defamatory Wikipedia articles on
non-Wikipedians.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manchester_Wikimeet_Feb_2012-5.jpg

4) Further to my public correspondence with WMF Community Advocate
Patrick Early, by when is WMF prepared to either disclose real world
identity of User Sitush, or else confirm that s/he is impersonating as
Simon Tushingham of AON Insurance from Manchester UK  as disclosed
on-wiki from this account so that I may sue the user properly.

5) In the meantime by when will my Wikipedia USER account be restored
by WMF as an OFFICE ACTION so that I can create and develop an English
Wikipedia article on the notable newsworthy Simon Tushingham
"@Si.tush" impersonator and his unchecked harassment of declared
female editors by using culturally abusive terms like "piss off",
"fuck off", "cunt" etc. with them on-wiki

6) Why a MEATFARM like the extortionist manchester mafia is tolerated
by WMF, and its male sexist accounts with privacy violating CHECKUSER
privileges not terminated, whereas female users are banned  ?

7) Is WMF prepared to identify the MEATFARM male persons in the
photographic image at point 3 ?

Linda

_______________________________________________
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] Our final email

Fæ
On 23 December 2014 at 08:43, Golf Today <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Attention : LILA TETRIKOV
<trolling crap removed>

Thread hijacking is plain rude. As for Joe Jobbing Wikimedians, it is
a despicable and malicious form of cyberbullying.

Can't someone come up with a way of slapping these prawns down for good?

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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] Our final email

Austin Hair
I have, reluctantly, turned on moderation for new subscriptions, and
told mailman to e-mail the admins whenever anyone subscribes.
(Subscription will still be open.) It's my intention to unmoderate—as
quickly as possible—anyone who's posted a few times and established
that they're doing so in good faith.

I hope this will blow over soon, and everything can go back to
"normal." Meanwhile, I don't think the new subscriber workload is more
than we (the admins) can handle.

Austin

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23 December 2014 at 08:43, Golf Today <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Attention : LILA TETRIKOV
> <trolling crap removed>
>
> Thread hijacking is plain rude. As for Joe Jobbing Wikimedians, it is
> a despicable and malicious form of cyberbullying.
>
> Can't someone come up with a way of slapping these prawns down for good?
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Our final email

Austin Hair
(Just to be clear, everyone already subscribed is still free to post.
Only new signups going forward will be moderated by default, and only
until they've demonstrated that they're not sockpuppets.)

A

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have, reluctantly, turned on moderation for new subscriptions, and
> told mailman to e-mail the admins whenever anyone subscribes.
> (Subscription will still be open.) It's my intention to unmoderate—as
> quickly as possible—anyone who's posted a few times and established
> that they're doing so in good faith.
>
> I hope this will blow over soon, and everything can go back to
> "normal." Meanwhile, I don't think the new subscriber workload is more
> than we (the admins) can handle.
>
> Austin
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 23 December 2014 at 08:43, Golf Today <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Attention : LILA TETRIKOV
>> <trolling crap removed>
>>
>> Thread hijacking is plain rude. As for Joe Jobbing Wikimedians, it is
>> a despicable and malicious form of cyberbullying.
>>
>> Can't someone come up with a way of slapping these prawns down for good?
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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] Our final email

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Fæ
May someone give a digest report on this issue. They are odd and
persistent. Eternal September has come into India or something else?
On Dec 23, 2014 9:56 AM, "Fæ" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23 December 2014 at 08:43, Golf Today <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Attention : LILA TETRIKOV
> <trolling crap removed>
>
> Thread hijacking is plain rude. As for Joe Jobbing Wikimedians, it is
> a despicable and malicious form of cyberbullying.
>
> Can't someone come up with a way of slapping these prawns down for good?
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Our final email

Balázs Viczián
In reply to this post by Fæ
I think Fae, that this was plain rude either.

Where can I read more about this case?

Vince

2014-12-23 8:56 GMT+00:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:

> On 23 December 2014 at 08:43, Golf Today <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Attention : LILA TETRIKOV
> <trolling crap removed>
>
> Thread hijacking is plain rude. As for Joe Jobbing Wikimedians, it is
> a despicable and malicious form of cyberbullying.
>
> Can't someone come up with a way of slapping these prawns down for good?
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Our final email

Fæ
Hi Vince,

You can read more at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm
- note the sentience:
Tactic as of 2014 has been to launch various claims of copyright
violation, impersonation, defamation, sexual harassment, paid editing,
racism, pornography, forgery, and "violations of terms of use"

I recommend taking care to avoid being misled by accounts pretending
to be established Wikimedians.

Fae


On 29 December 2014 at 11:28, Balázs Viczián
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think Fae, that this was plain rude either.
>
> Where can I read more about this case?
>
> Vince
>
> 2014-12-23 8:56 GMT+00:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On 23 December 2014 at 08:43, Golf Today <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Attention : LILA TETRIKOV
>> <trolling crap removed>
>>
>> Thread hijacking is plain rude. As for Joe Jobbing Wikimedians, it is
>> a despicable and malicious form of cyberbullying.
>>
>> Can't someone come up with a way of slapping these prawns down for good?
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>



--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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] Our final email

Balázs Viczián
Hi,

Ok and thanks for the links!

these "cabal cases" are pretty interesting usually.

Balazs

2014-12-29 11:41 GMT+00:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Vince,
>
> You can read more at
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm
> - note the sentience:
> Tactic as of 2014 has been to launch various claims of copyright
> violation, impersonation, defamation, sexual harassment, paid editing,
> racism, pornography, forgery, and "violations of terms of use"
>
> I recommend taking care to avoid being misled by accounts pretending
> to be established Wikimedians.
>
> Fae
>
>
> On 29 December 2014 at 11:28, Balázs Viczián
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I think Fae, that this was plain rude either.
> >
> > Where can I read more about this case?
> >
> > Vince
> >
> > 2014-12-23 8:56 GMT+00:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> On 23 December 2014 at 08:43, Golf Today <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Attention : LILA TETRIKOV
> >> <trolling crap removed>
> >>
> >> Thread hijacking is plain rude. As for Joe Jobbing Wikimedians, it is
> >> a despicable and malicious form of cyberbullying.
> >>
> >> Can't someone come up with a way of slapping these prawns down for good?
> >>
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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>
>
>
>
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
12