On 30 November 2014 at 07:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Do not be daft. The Wikimedia Foundation centralised its fundraising. It
> said that it would do a better job. Seen from a central periphery model, it
> probably does, However seen from the Netherlands it is rather silly.,
...
I believe that the current process of centralizing funds in the USA
that are actually taken in Europe and then paid out outside of the USA
is *highly* inefficient. By the time the WMF and local organization
(i.e. chapter, thorg, user group or project) costs of fundraising,
grant applications, administration and reporting, payment costs and
significant tax burden are considered, this (avoidable system) throws
away at least 40c out of each donated $1 before we can even start
calculating the extra administration costs/wastage from that point on,
which as a past Chapter chair, I know can easily be a further 50%
compounded on the cost.
Despite this being raised several times over the last few years, no
chapter or the WMF has unambiguously or straight-forwardly calculated
the true end-to-end processing costs. As a consequence, this can only
be a guesstimate based on experience.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
A while back now, the chapters were no longer allowed to fundraise, because
the Wikimedia Foundation argued they would be better able to do this. At
the time, this sounded somewhat reasonable. However, since then, there have
been some disturbing developments - at least for Dutch donors.
No longer it is possible to pay electronically (iDEAL, one of the most
common methods is no longer supported - 'electronic banking' simply refers
you back to the credit card page) or even via regular bank transfer (using
an IBAN) in the Netherlands. The donation page
<https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPag…>
only
allows credit card and paypal, and the 'other ways to give' simply sends
you to the helpdesk if you want to make a bank transfer payment.
What is the reasoning behind this? Have bank transfers become a legal
swamp? Are there statistics suggesting that this method was no longer
required by donors? Did the European bank account somehow get temporarily
suspended?
If it has become so hard to donate, maybe it makes more sense to send the
donors to the local chapter pages where they can actually donate in the
local suitable methods (in this case, Wikimedia Netherlands offers both
iDEAL and IBAN
<http://www.wikimedia.nl/pagina/doneren-aan-wikimedia-nederland>).
One of the Dutch OTRS team members asked for elaboration, but didn't quite
get a satisfying answer. I hope this is a temporary situation, and that
this threshold will be removed again. It would be sad if we go through all
kind of trouble to enable long tail methods like bitcoin, but skip bank
transfer...
Best,
Lodewijk
*tl;dr: *You can find the results of the Wikimania 2014 Evaluation Survey
on Wikimedia Commons *[1]*
Greetings,
Today we posted a slide deck summarizing data from the Wikimania evaluation
survey from this year’s event in London. The survey was a collaborative
effort of the Wikimania Conference and Hackathon organizers and the WMF
Learning and Evaluation team. Conferences and hackathons had been
identified as key programs to develop evaluation insight. Given the
opportunity to collaborate on an evaluation survey, WMF team members
partnered with conference and hackathon organizers to provide the technical
support to complete the survey project.
This first survey offers a look into the processes and outcomes of the
conference. It is intended as a means for participants to share what they
got out of the conference and a platform to collect information on how we
can improve future conferences and their evaluation. We have released a
basic data summary and meta page with brief highlights of the survey and
link to a pdf slide deck published to Commons *[1]*.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/Wikimania_Lo…
== Methodology ==
* Online survey via Qualtrics *[2]*
* Data collection:
** August 10th – September 15th, 2014
** Conference participants: 1520
** Survey Respondents: n=792 (52% of conference participants)
=== The Conference Overall ===
* Participants were highly satisfied with the conference overall.
* 91% of respondents rated the conference as "Good" (48%) or "Excellent"
(43%)
* 87% indicated their expectations had been "met" (48%) or "exceeded" (39%)
* The most named benefits of attending Wikimania were meeting people and
finding out about projects.
Favorite talks:
1.
Creative Ways to Alienate Women Online: A How To Guide for Wikipedians
(by Steven Walling and Maryana Pinchuk)
2.
Which Law Applies to Wikipedia (by Tobias Lutzi)
3.
Raph Koster: A Theory of Fun
4.
Jack Andraka
5.
Education (by members of the Wiki Ed Foundation and Education
Collaborative)
Please visit the page *[3]* for basic details or follow the links to the
slide deck *[1]*. The complete survey data are available upon request and
will be used by both the conference and the hackathon planning groups for
their use in planning for future events and their evaluation. In addition,
the Learning and Evaluation team will also work to review and incorporate
these results, along with evaluation data from other conferences, in the
second round of Program Evaluation reports currently in progress. The
conference financial report is also underway, however, it will also be
available sometime in the new year. Keep an eye out for these additional
points of reporting to become available in early 2015!
On behalf of all who have collaborated in this evaluation survey, those
who helped with its development, the 792 participants who completed it, and
those involved in the its analysis, and now, interpretation: thank you for
your time, attention, and support! We are happy to be part in this
collective learning about Wikimedia conferences and hackathons. Your
questions are welcome, and encouraged, on the talk page.
*María Cruz * \\ Community Coordinator, PE&D Team \\ Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc.
mcruz(a)wikimedia.org | : @marianarra_ <https://twitter.com/marianarra_>
*[1] Summary Slide Deck*
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2014_Participant_Survey_-…
*[2] Survey Items*
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheets/d/1b3Qp-l8HU4WYFX2lyAC…
*[3] Overview Page*
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/Wikimania_Lo…
An interesting piece of corporate communication on the topic was
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/we-experiment-on-human-beings/
I've expanded the Meta-Wiki page a bit, including the following additions:
* They number in the dozens and are usually documented in the Meta-Wiki
[[Research]] namespace.
* Their outcome is often not used for any concrete deliverable, such as
a merged change to MediaWiki core PHP code or a peer reviewed paper.
* Sometimes changes which are known to be potentially harmful, and would
never (or hardly) pass standard code review, are deployed as
"experiments" to bypass tougher public scrutiny. (This is also valid of
fundraising banners, whose poor translations since 2011 are often
actively damaging to the public opinion and understanding of Wikimedia
projects.)
Nemo
P.s.:
MZMcBride, 31/10/2014 04:13:
> Of course the stark reality is that A/B testing on users (typically
> readers, not editors) during the annual Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser
> has been a major component of the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.
In part that's a myth. The income has been increased simply by making
the banners larger, brighter, naughtier and alarming (we're in danger,
bla bla). Sometimes they take more space than is left to the article;
sometimes they can't be dismissed.
Greetings, friends,
As you all know, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year
to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We
recently met in San Francisco to deliberate on the 11 annual plan grant
proposals submitted for this round of review. [2] We thank these
organizations for their hard work on their annual plans and proposals.
The FDC has now posted our Round 1 2014-2015 recommendations on the annual
plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees:
http://goo.gl/Ea7d4I . [3]
With the support of the FDC’s two Board Representatives (Bishakha Datta and
Frieda Brioschi), the WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
make their decision on them by 1 January 2015.
This round, proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic organization,
totaling requests of roughly $4.7 million USD. Before our face-to-face
deliberations, which were held from 15-18 November, the FDC reviewed the
proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals. Our conversations were intense and the decisions were not easy;
each proposal was carefully considered both in its own context and
environment, and strengths and concerned were discussed. We are
recommending grants totaling roughly $3.8 million USD.
Now that the recommendations have been published, there is a formal process
to submit complaints or appeals to the Board. Here are the steps for both:
Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 1
recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the
FDC by 23:59
UTC on 8 December 2014 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in
the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation
should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two
non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Frieda Brioschi and
Bishakha Datta). The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be
submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will
publish its decision on this and all recommendations by 1 Jan 2015.
Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by anyone
with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint should be
submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the
complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please have a look at the calendar [6] to see other upcoming milestones in
the annual plan grants / FDC process.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organizations who submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC.
On behalf of the FDC,
Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit", FDC Chair)
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2…
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_reco…
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Hi everyone,
many Wikimedia organizations have their own programs or initiatives
dedicated to volunteer/community support as well as their respective people
in charge of this key activity. We have people who are primarily active
themselves but who primarily support and help others, the volunteers in the
Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement, being active.
Whereas other fields of action such as Education and GLAM have a longer
tradition of systematic international exchange, the project of a global
volunteer supporters network got going at the Volunteer Support
pre-conference at Wikimania 2014 in London. This pre-conference brought a
first focused discussion between volunteer supporters worldwide and the
people there decided to maintain a steady discussion to learn and share,
inspire and help each other.
We’re glad to announce the news:
We have finally set up a page on Meta about “Volunteer Support” in order to
create the basis for the future collaboration in our field of activity.
Please have a look at it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Supporters_Network
Furthermore we’re announcing the launch of the volunteer-supporters
mailing-list. For the moment it’s a private safe space mailing-list,
corresponding to what we collectively decided in August during the
discussion at the end of the pre-conference. This is for people whose main
aim is not doing stuff but supporting and helping others, volunteers, to do
it.
Make sure to subscribe here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/volunteer-supporters
This network and mailing list is meant to:
-
Learn from each other, share experiences, problems and lessons learned
-
Learn how to avoid redundancies and be efficient
-
Share best practices
-
Establish a forum where volunteer supporters can speak open in an
international environment
-
Create a safe space for people involved
-
Learn from each other on how to achieve the most impact
-
Inspire each other with new ideas
-
Bring perspectives from a broad range of volunteer supporters from all
over the world working with communities in very different ways
We’re very much looking forward to exchange ideas, experiences, failures
and best-practices and can’t wait to establish our network within the
Wikimedia Movement.
Raimund Liebert (WMAT)
Muriel Staub (WMCH)
Dirk Franke (WMDE)
--
Dirk Franke
Team Communitys
Volunteer Support Dept.
Fon +49 30 219158260
E-Mail: dirk.franke(a)wikimedia.de
--
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Mem…
Vince
2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>:
> we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years
> of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is
> true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board,
> or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
>
> If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds)
> does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
>
> Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need
> people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people
> with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
>>
>> If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about
>> writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had
>> any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
>>
>> To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between
>> writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
>>
>> Vince
>>
>> 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>:
>>
>>> yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that
>>> members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for
>>> bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> dj
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián
>>> <balazs.viczian(a)gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its
>>>> preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
>>>>
>>>> Vince
>>>>
>>>> 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>:
>>>>
>>>>> I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the
>>>>> level
>>>>> of
>>>>> really small chapters in our movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you
>>>>> assuming
>>>>> that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent,
>>>>> community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
>>>>> Foundation).
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your
>>>>> further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it
>>>>> whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't
>>>>> just
>>>>> as well as (b) failed attempts.
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>>
>>>>> dj "pundit"
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget
>>>>> means
>>>>> > to justify that to the stakeholders.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than
>>>>> > previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a
>>>>> > lot).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
>>>>> > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization,
>>>>> service or
>>>>> > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities,
>>>>> > resources, targets or deliverables".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > WMF is one stakeholders.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the
>>>>> > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are
>>>>> > stakeholders and so on.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter
>>>>> because WMF
>>>>> > is *one of the stakeholders*.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a
>>>>> decision
>>>>> > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy
>>>>> in
>>>>> > order to attract stakeholders.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the
>>>>> > risk,
>>>>> the
>>>>> > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder
>>>>> with
>>>>> > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > chapter.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of
>>>>> biggest
>>>>> > budget.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > regards
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
>>>>> darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Hi Balazs,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion
>>>>> > > of
>>>>> the
>>>>> > FDC
>>>>> > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but
>>>>> I was
>>>>> > an
>>>>> > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and
>>>>> ran a
>>>>> > > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination
>>>>> > > board
>>>>> for
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > best,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > dariusz "pundit"
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián <
>>>>> > > balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is
>>>>> more
>>>>> > > > or less on its maximum I think.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the
>>>>> closest
>>>>> > > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review -
>>>>> it is
>>>>> > > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a
>>>>> > > > full "business plan" - review)
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
>>>>> > > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global
>>>>> goals,
>>>>> > > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you
>>>>> > > > say
>>>>> it
>>>>> > > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and
>>>>> > > > inexperienced
>>>>> > > > group of people are handling
>>>>> > > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it
>>>>> works
>>>>> > > > pretty well.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from
>>>>> > > > such
>>>>> a
>>>>> > > setup.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes
>>>>> that
>>>>> > > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated
>>>>> > > > ombudsperson for the case(s).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are
>>>>> visibly
>>>>> > > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a
>>>>> > > > real
>>>>> > > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the
>>>>> > > > "incoherentness" of reviews.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical
>>>>> changes to
>>>>> > > > the system imo.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Balazs
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com>:
>>>>> > > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare
>>>>> three
>>>>> > > > years,
>>>>> > > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider
>>>>> that
>>>>> > > > Amical
>>>>> > > > > is the best example to follow.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than
>>>>> other
>>>>> > > > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is
>>>>> > > > surrealistic.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Ok, nothing to say but:
>>>>> > > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a
>>>>> strong
>>>>> > > glue
>>>>> > > > > within the community
>>>>> > > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects =
>>>>> > organization
>>>>> > > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external
>>>>> > > > > or
>>>>> > > internal
>>>>> > > > > questions (may be the opposite)
>>>>> > > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest
>>>>> to look
>>>>> > > in
>>>>> > > > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter
>>>>> and to
>>>>> > > check
>>>>> > > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German
>>>>> > community
>>>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been
>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>> good
>>>>> > > > > solution to improve the community participation to the
>>>>> > > > > projects.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot
>>>>> in the
>>>>> > > > > biggest projects.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the
>>>>> > diversity
>>>>> > > > and
>>>>> > > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the
>>>>> historical
>>>>> > > > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but
>>>>> there
>>>>> > are
>>>>> > > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential"
>>>>> editors
>>>>> > > and
>>>>> > > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the
>>>>> > > > > decreasing
>>>>> is
>>>>> > not
>>>>> > > > > beneficial.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > regards
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > ha
>>>>> > > scritto:
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >> Hi Patrik,
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the
>>>>> majority
>>>>> > of
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests
>>>>> to the
>>>>> > > FDC
>>>>> > > > >> for
>>>>> > > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around
>>>>> strategic
>>>>> > > > >> planning,
>>>>> > > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount
>>>>> of
>>>>> > room
>>>>> > > > for
>>>>> > > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement
>>>>> > > > >> (including
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > WMF.)
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the
>>>>> largest
>>>>> > > > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to
>>>>> > > > >> deliver
>>>>> > impact
>>>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In
>>>>> many
>>>>> > > > instances
>>>>> > > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to
>>>>> develop
>>>>> > > and
>>>>> > > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making
>>>>> recommendations
>>>>> > > > about
>>>>> > > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific
>>>>> > > > >> project
>>>>> or
>>>>> > > > program,
>>>>> > > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an
>>>>> > > > organizations
>>>>> > > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more
>>>>> > complicated
>>>>> > > > >> projects.)
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> Warm regards,
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> Sydney Poore
>>>>> > > > >> User:FloNight
>>>>> > > > >> Member FDC
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>> > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > > > > Unsubscribe:
>>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>> > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > --
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > __________________________
>>>>> > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>>> > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>>> > > i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>>> > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>>> > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>>>>> > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
>>>>> An
>>>>> > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
>>>>> > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Recenzje
>>>>> > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>>>> > > Pacific Standard:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>>>>> > > Motherboard:
>>>>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>>>>> > > The Wikipedian:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>> > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > > Unsubscribe:
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Ilario Valdelli
>>>>> > Wikimedia CH
>>>>> > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>>>>> > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
>>>>> > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
>>>>> > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
>>>>> > Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
>>>>> > Skype: valdelli
>>>>> > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
>>>>> > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
>>>>> > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > Tel: +41764821371
>>>>> > http://www.wikimedia.ch
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > Unsubscribe:
>>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>>> ,
>>>>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________
>>>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>>>
>>>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>>>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>>>
>>>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
>>>>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
>>>>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>>>
>>>>> Recenzje
>>>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>>>> Pacific Standard:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>>>>> Motherboard:
>>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>>>>> The Wikipedian:
>>>>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…>
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> __________________________
>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>
>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>
>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
>>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
>>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>
>>> Recenzje
>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>> Pacific Standard:
>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>>> Motherboard:
>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>>> The Wikipedian:
>>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>
> Recenzje
> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:33 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> 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
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 <z(a)mzmcbride.com> 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
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
