On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Al Tally <majorly.wiki(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote: Should have said "shouldn't" -- Alex (User:Majorly)

Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: | [...] | Breakdown of contributions by value for the fiscal year of 2008 | Amount (USD) Contributions Percentage (YTD) Average (USD) | Exactly 30.00 2106 15.36% - | Exactly 75.00 149 1.09% - | Exactly 100.00 542 3.95% - | Under 99.00 110043 802.41% 21.29 ^^^^^^^ | From 100.00 - 999.99 3276 23.89% 219.23 | Over 1000.00 124 0.9% 30792.08 I demand a recount! :-) Tim

Regarding the statistics page: The "minimum" columns isn't that useful. I'd propose using its space for a "median" column. Regards, Peter

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote: If I recall last year's discussions, most donations under a dollar actually cost more to the WMF than they bring in (due to PayPal transaction fees). Also, I saw somewhere in the plans a Javascript solution to set the minimum donation so that every donation brings in money (~1$ mimimum donation). Regards, Bence Damokos

Robert Rohde schreef: It could be useful to include on the donation page something like; "Every donation, how small it may be is welcome ... but know that by donation only $1 means we get only X% of your money after transactions fees. If you donate $5 then we receive X% of your donation." I do not know the current fees but it think for $1 is must be around $0,60 to the WMF and $0,40 paypal. So 40% lost, 60% of your donation received. For $5 that is that a smaller part that goes to paypal. That could motivated people for not donating a very small amount but give a bit more. Btw; http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionHistory these numbers are those not the source amounts before the transactions fees? -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:54, Gregory Maxwell wrote: [citation needed] If you explain paypal fees clearly as they'll apply to that transaction (i.e. taking into account the currency), then I'm sure 99% of people will be able to understand them just fine. However, the ideal would be to use lower overhead options, as you say - is there nothing around that has a low to zero overhead fee for non-profits/ charities? Mike

It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/ W

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Ian A. Holton <poeloq(a)gmail.com> wrote: En.wp user Rlevse tells me that this block has been on the king's article for a few weeks now. -- John V

2008/11/10 Waerth <waerth(a)asianet.co.th>th>: That you can't access it doesn't necessarily mean the government has blocked it (although that would seem the most likely explanation). Confirmation that it has been intentionally blocked by the government would be good, although I'm not sure you'll find any - it's not the kind of thing governments make official statements about.

Ian A. Holton wrote: I did some research to see if anyone else is reporting this, and it seems that others are experiencing the same problem, but it has not yet made the news (in reference to Wikipedia's block explicitly).The Freedom Against Censorship Thailand blog reports that it has been blocked since at least October 1, and though I can't read the Thai sites they cite, it seems pretty well independently verified. <http://facthai.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/wikipedia-blocked-by-some-thai-isps-fact-exclusive/> Thailand enforces a lese majeste law, which means people may be prosecuted for "insulting" the king (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9#Thailand). As a result, Thailand has a rather active internet censorship program that has become more active during the recent political crisis <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7696101.stm>. (Incidentally, the author of that article, BBC's Thailand correspondent, was himself under investigation earlier this year, accused of insulting the king: <http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/08/asia/AS-GEN-Thailand-BBC.php>.) It seems that several media agencies, like BBC, reported the recent surge in censorship, but none of them mention Wikipedia explicitly, while it is likely that it was one of the sites targeted in the October crackdown. Incidentally, last year's brief blocking of YouTube by Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Thailand#YouTube_controversy) led to much greater international media scrutiny, and it seems likely that if it continues, Wikipedia's block may yet be newsworthy, especially since unlike the inflammatory YouTube videos, the Wikipedia article seems relatively neutral. Dominic

2008/11/10 Waerth &lt;waerth(a)asianet.co.th&gt;th>: I was wondering when that would happen. Does it also block https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej ? -- geni

2008/11/10 Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Slight problem with the being a government line. With the current issues there is an open question what body is actually functioning as the government at the moment. -- geni

2008/11/10 Florence Devouard &lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt;om>: the least negative reaction... have there been any positive so far? I've seen none on de. greetings, elian

Hoi, If you are looking for positive reactions, on my blog, http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com I have endorsed the fund raiser. I have even included the banner twice in a blog entry. As has been also said by others, fund raising is an activity that enables other activities, and there is more good that can be expected of the WMF when it has the money that makes things possible. It will be interesting to notice how the balance between expenditure and income will be. So far the WMF organisation has done wonders with relatively little money. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM, elisabeth bauer &lt;eflebeth(a)googlemail.com&gt;wrote;wrote:

elisabeth bauer wrote: If we can identify some donations coming from community members, I guess that can count as a positive reaction ;-) cheers Ant

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Bryan Tong Minh &lt;bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I can only assume you weren't around at the start of last year's fundraiser when the scrolling marquee of death made people want to storm the WMF with pitchforks and torches. By comparison, the complaints this year seems tame. That's not an excuse not to listen to editor complaints though. As discussed at Meta, collapsing the thing should do more to surpress it [1], and banner is somewhat bigger and more obnoxious than it needs to be. Fact remains though that it does seem to be generating substantially more income than the early phase of last year's drive. -Robert Rohde [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2008/design_drafts#Collapse…

Robert Rohde wrote: Indeed. Every fundraiser brings out a few pitchforks, sometimes because of things we've done badly, but other times based on general principles. At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort. --Jimbo

Al Tally wrote: Can it be done with javascript and a cookie? --Jimbo

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Anons may be the ones donating. And as someone said earlier, if they want to donate, they'll click donate, and if they don't, they should have an option of removing it so it's not interfering. -- Alex (User:Majorly)

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I dunno, with dismissible watchlist notices I often dismiss them then wish I could get them back later. Perhaps I'm weird (though I also know enough to flush the cookie). I thought part of the point of the big persistent banner was that after someone has seen it a few dozen times they'll eventually click through to see what it's about. ::shrugs::

Hoi, If they decide not to, and they can dismiss it only to a smaller banner, there is guilt that may drive them to donate at a later moment. When they are not reminded at all we have lost that opportunity. Thanks, GerardM On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Al Tally wrote: It's already collapsable for anonymous users. The current collapsed view is however still a bit large, which is why we've been discussing slimming it down. - -- brion

Ah - I was told that ru.wikibooks did not have the banner because all banners there were disabled. Thank you to everyone else who commented. I suppose I wasn't "plugged-in" enough last time around to get a full sense of the reaction to the banner - I remember some negative reactions, but not on the level I've seen so far. Given your answers, and particularly the statistics on donations so far, it does seem like the positive reaction outweighs any potential negative. I hope that the folks who are vocal about not donating to the WMF and why are met, as often as possible, with counter-arguments about why they should and why others should as well. I'm concerned that when that doesn't happen, it makes other current Wikimedians have less confidence in the Foundation and also makes them less likely to personally donate. Nathan On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Casey Brown &lt;cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate