On 2 January 2015 at 18:14, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com> wrote:

>... This is not a discussion for research-l

On the contrary, please see e.g.
http://www.wikisym.org/os2014-files/proceedings/p609.pdf
this Foundation-sponsored IEG effort can serve as a confirmatory
replication of that prior work.

Let me rephrase, because I evidently wasn't clear: fanciful and unrealistic discussions of what we'd do with a pot of money that wouldn't be available for a decade and only exists in the first place if you assume exponential growth....are not for research-l

>... time is better spent doing research with the resources
> we have now....

I wish someone would please replicate my measurement of the variance
in the distribution of fundraising results using the editor-submitted
banners from 2008-9, and explain to the fundraising team that
distribution implies they can do a whole lot better than sticking with
the spiel which degrades Foundation employees by implying they
typically spend $3 or £3 on coffee. (Although I wouldn't discount the
possibility that some donors feel good about sending Foundation
employers to boutique coffee shops.)

We know donor message- and banner-fatigue exists as a strong effect
which limits the useful life of fundraising approaches in some cases,
so they have to keep trying to keep up. When are they going to test
the remainder of the editors' submissions?

Given that you've been asking for that analysis for four years, and it's never been done, and you've been repeatedly told that it's not going to happen, could you....take those hints? And by hints, I mean explicit statements.

I appreciate that you're operating in good faith, but there comes a point when http://wondermark.com/1k62/ starts proving that life imitates art. Repeatedly having this same conversation is a colossal, ever-draining waste of everyone's time. Please stop bringing it up.

Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation