I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I would call upon the Wikipedians responsible for the banner to give it a deep thought about what message they want to convey to the millions of visitors to the site. Thank you.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexandrov@gmail.com wrote:
I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I would call upon the Wikipedians responsible for the banner to give it a deep thought about what message they want to convey to the millions of visitors to the site. Thank you.
Is there an actual place to discuss the wording of such banners?
Carcharoth
2009/11/12 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexandrov@gmail.com wrote:
I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I would call upon the Wikipedians responsible for the banner to give it a deep thought about what message they want to convey to the millions of visitors to the site. Thank you.
Is there an actual place to discuss the wording of such banners?
Carcharoth
It's ended up a bit spread out but:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Launch_Feedback
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners
geni wrote:
Is there an actual place to discuss the wording of such banners?
It's ended up a bit spread out but:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Launch_Feedback
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners
That's quite some feedback.
Has there been any data published? I'd be interested in click-through rates and donation rates, especially as compared with the first days of previous campaigns. Data on Twitter and/or blog reaction would be interesting, too.
I'm personally not a big fan of the ads either, but if they were substantially more effective, then I'd have to think about whether this is one of those many occasions where my personal tastes diverge from what makes a good ad campaign.
William
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I'm personally not a big fan of the ads either, but if they were substantially more effective, then I'd have to think about whether this is one of those many occasions where my personal tastes diverge from what makes a good ad campaign.
I found the ad which said "Ad-Free Forever" to be humorous.
Oleg Alexandrov wrote:
I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I would call upon the Wikipedians responsible for the banner to give it a deep thought about what message they want to convey to the millions of visitors to the site. Thank you.
I understand your sentiments perfectly, I have been at it for nearly eight years. Those of us who have been doing this a long time are more committed to the idea than to the organization. It's the difference between amateur and professional sports. In amateur sports the important thing is participation and having fun at it without worrying too much about making mistakes. In professional sports image and conformity become more important, and the kind of boosterism that you criticize becomes the norm. When we start to believe that something is "forever" we lose our ability to renew.
Ec
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexandrov@gmail.com wrote:
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I agree, it seemed rather odd to me. The wrong tone.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexandrov@gmail.com wrote:
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I agree, it seemed rather odd to me. The wrong tone.
The ads are rather horrendous. It didn't even register with me that it might be a donation solicitation until I clicked on the banner to figure out what the heck it was.
- causa sui
Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say, "it could always be worse."
IT'S A CONSPIRACY! :D
-X!
Soxred93 wrote:
Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say, "it could always be worse."
It is pretty much traditional for the fundraiser to cause controversy, in fact. I know how Oleg feels. These days I ignore the ads, since I don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously involved with the site by a factor of 10,000 or more by now. I don't see the banner any more: I don't remember dismissing it.
Charles
These days I ignore the ads, since I don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously involved with the site by a factor of 10,000 or more by now.
I share the same feeling. As an editor, I think I contribute to Wikipedia sufficiently so as not to feel bad for not donating. The thing is that I would love to donate, but the endless heckling from deletionists have left a bad enough aftertaste that I won't donate anything more than my edits.
2009/11/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Soxred93 wrote:
Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say, "it could always be worse."
It is pretty much traditional for the fundraiser to cause controversy, in fact. I know how Oleg feels. These days I ignore the ads, since I don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously involved with the site by a factor of 10,000 or more by now. I don't see the banner any more: I don't remember dismissing it.
The banner mechanism was actually broken in IE6, so it was switched off for a day or two while that gets fixed.
I understand the banners have been redone in Initial Capitals, not ALL CAPITALS :-)
- d.
It is pretty much traditional for the fundraiser to cause controversy, in fact. I know how Oleg feels. These days I ignore the ads, since I don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously involved with the site by a factor of 10,000 or more by now. I don't see the banner any more: I don't remember dismissing it.
Yeah, they could have avoided the controversy entirely by not showing them to logged in users.
I also subscribe to the "my tastes are not aligned with the PR company's tastes, but that's to be expected" line of thinking.
I guess the vague, icky feeling I get (and maybe some others feel) is that we, the volunteer editing army do all the work creating the product. But campaigns like this sometimes nudge slightly towards creating the impression that the WMF is sort of co-opting that product and marketing it as their own. (I'm deliberately hedging my words a lot here: "impression", "feel" etc)
Steve
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It is pretty much traditional for the fundraiser to cause controversy, in fact. I know how Oleg feels. These days I ignore the ads, since I don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously involved with the site by a factor of 10,000 or more by now. I don't see the banner any more: I don't remember dismissing it.
Yeah, they could have avoided the controversy entirely by not showing them to logged in users.
I also subscribe to the "my tastes are not aligned with the PR company's tastes, but that's to be expected" line of thinking.
I guess the vague, icky feeling I get (and maybe some others feel) is that we, the volunteer editing army do all the work creating the product. But campaigns like this sometimes nudge slightly towards creating the impression that the WMF is sort of co-opting that product and marketing it as their own. (I'm deliberately hedging my words a lot here: "impression", "feel" etc)
Steve
It's not a strange icky feeling I get, it makes me feel like some angsty teenager is shouting TEH WIKI 4EVA (fr33 stuff rulez!)
Yeah, they could have avoided the controversy entirely by not showing them to logged in users.
The thing is, if it wasn't for the banner, many of the logged in users who donate every years wouldn't even know about it. I sure didn't know that there was a fundraiser until the banner went up...
-X!
Keegan Paul kgnpaul@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8 billion years, which, as anyone knows, < forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still alive in some alternate afterlife reality, I'm sure they really couldn't care less about where it is now.
-Stevertigo
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnpaul@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8 billion years, which, as anyone knows, < forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still alive in some alternate afterlife reality, I'm sure they really couldn't care less about where it is now.
The alternate afterlife reality is contained *within* the Koh-I-Noor.
Carcharoth
Keegan Paul kgnpaul@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8 billion years, which, as anyone knows, < forever. And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still alive in some alternate afterlife reality, I'm sure they really couldn't care less about where it is now.
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The alternate afterlife reality is contained *within* the Koh-I-Noor.
That's absurd. While it is true that studying rocks like the Koh-I-Noor *can* yield insights into the physics of matter ('this rock seems to be really hard'), *can* be useful in very serious applications (~diamond-housed beryllium atoms as qubits), and that other-dimensional "objects" *can* exist within the "objects" we can deal with (stuff passes right through the Earth all the time), it is *not true that regular-dimensional objects like that really small rock actually"contain" transcendental realities.
Please stop deliberately spreading misinformation.
-Stevertigo "and the wind is making speeches..
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnpaul@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8 billion years, which, as anyone knows, < forever. And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still alive in some alternate afterlife reality, I'm sure they really couldn't care less about where it is now.
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The alternate afterlife reality is contained *within* the Koh-I-Noor.
That's absurd. While it is true that studying rocks like the Koh-I-Noor *can* yield insights into the physics of matter ('this rock seems to be really hard'), *can* be useful in very serious applications (~diamond-housed beryllium atoms as qubits), and that other-dimensional "objects" *can* exist within the "objects" we can deal with (stuff passes right through the Earth all the time), it is *not true that regular-dimensional objects like that really small rock actually"contain" transcendental realities.
You've clearly never watched Star Trek. "Ship in a bottle" was the episode, I think.
Please stop deliberately spreading misinformation.
:-)
Carcharoth
I don't understand how this even relates to banner slogans, people!
Emily On Nov 15, 2009, at 12:52 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnpaul@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8 billion years, which, as anyone knows, < forever. And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still alive in some alternate afterlife reality, I'm sure they really couldn't care less about where it is now.
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The alternate afterlife reality is contained *within* the Koh-I-Noor.
That's absurd. While it is true that studying rocks like the Koh-I-Noor *can* yield insights into the physics of matter ('this rock seems to be really hard'), *can* be useful in very serious applications (~diamond-housed beryllium atoms as qubits), and that other-dimensional "objects" *can* exist within the "objects" we can deal with (stuff passes right through the Earth all the time), it is *not true that regular-dimensional objects like that really small rock actually"contain" transcendental realities.
Please stop deliberately spreading misinformation.
-Stevertigo "and the wind is making speeches..
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
I don't understand how this even relates to banner slogans, people!
Emily
It relates because using anything claiming it to be forever is stupid. Short of theological concepts and some metaphysical debate on the origins of the universe, the WIKIPEDIA FOREVER slogan is a cubic zirconia knock-off of De Beers. ~Keegan
Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
I don't understand how this [off topic discussion about big diamonds and physics] even relates to banner slogans, people! Emily
Keegan Paul kgnpaul@gmail.com wrote:
It relates because using anything claiming it to be forever is stupid. Short of theological concepts and some metaphysical debate on the origins of the universe, the WIKIPEDIA FOREVER slogan is a cubic zirconia knock-off of De Beers.
Well that's a bit strongly-worded, even if its mostly accurate. Note that love actually *is forever, regardless of what the diamond cartels may say.
And I've said a hundred times that there's nothing wrong with cubic zirconia.
-Stevertigo "..and we all lose our charms in the end.."
stevertigo wrote:
And I've said a hundred times that there's nothing wrong with cubic zirconia.
Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
Just don't let your girlfriend/wife hear you.
That's not a problem.
-Stevertigo
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 02:38, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexandrov@gmail.com wrote:
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I know exactly what I dislike about it: it feels like the sort of propaganda that totalitarian states produce. Throw in a picture of Jimbo giving the Roman salute and you're done.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexandrov@gmail.comwrote:
I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I would call upon the Wikipedians responsible for the banner to give it a deep thought about what message they want to convey to the millions of visitors to the site. Thank you.
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost universally bad impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many Wikipedians the wrong way. It was created by a PR agency with the express purpose of raking in as much cash as possible. It's supposed to hit all the right chords of the hundreds of millions of visitors that will see it, of whom we long time Wikipedians are a miniscule fraction.
Brian J Mingus wrote:
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost universally bad impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many Wikipedians the wrong way. It was created by a PR agency with the express purpose of raking in as much cash as possible. It's supposed to hit all the right chords of the hundreds of millions of visitors that will see it, of whom we long time Wikipedians are a miniscule fraction.
It takes a bit of mental effort to see the difference of the demographic of Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers as a big plus, but there it is. Wikipedia went mainstream a couple of years ago, and it was part of the mission that this should happen. Clearly a competent PR person tasked with this job is going to take the line you suggest. I'm not aware of fundraising and its methods being a big issue in board elections, but I'm no expert.
Charles
Brian J Mingus Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost universally bad impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many Wikipedians the wrong way. It was created by a PR agency with the express purpose of raking in as much cash as possible. It's supposed to hit all the right chords of the hundreds of millions of visitors that will see it, of whom we long time Wikipedians are a miniscule fraction.
Well its tacky - if for no other reason that it presumes to represent Wikipedia's eternal presence. Which is an interesting thought about futurism, but one that needs an essay to link to. And the slogan is in SHOUTCASE, which everybody knows is the quasi-official font of tacky.
So, not to be too hard on the creative marketing staff who came up with the slogan, or the executive staff who somehow implemented it, it just belies our sense of tradition and community so see things like these (or any things we do for that matter) implemented without open collaboration - the kind that usually mitigates tackiness, or any appearance thereof.
The best (worst) part is the conceptualization of 'protection' - "Our shared knowledge. Our shared treasure. Help us protect it" and "This is where we protect Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by the people" read like they were written from a commodity point of view, by someone who doesn't understand that Wikipedia is actually about destroying traditional knowledge more than it is about preserving it.
Wikimedia's job is in fact just to keep the lights on - not to "protect" Wikipedia (which, ironically, would get along just fine without Wikimedia).
-Stevertigo
2009/11/13 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Well its tacky - if for no other reason that it presumes to represent Wikipedia's eternal presence. Which is an interesting thought about futurism, but one that needs an essay to link to. And the slogan is in SHOUTCASE, which everybody knows is the quasi-official font of tacky.
"At least it wasn't in Comic Sans."
- d.
stevertigo wrote:
<snip> ... Wikipedia is actually about destroying traditional knowledge more than it is about preserving it.
Phew, that would be my mistake down the years then: all this shovelling traditional knowledge into WP gets me nowhere, because you never seem to run out of the stuff. Now if I could really point WP at the remaining pile and whittle it down, I could perhaps break free of encyclopedia work in time, and take up something constructive like golf or even watching boxed sets of Friends.
Charles
WIKIPEDIA FOREVER!
It just sounds like a war cry or triumphal primal scream.
I'd rather the words "help" or "support" were in there.
The cry makes it sound like Wikipedia is not the least fragile. It sounds like it doesn't need support.
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting up that banner despite strong opposition from many people? That banner is totally horrible and I really wonder if it even was a Wikipedia editor who proposed it with all those capital letters.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Oleg Alexandrov oleg.alexandrov@gmail.comwrote:
I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I find the current "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner to be creepy. I don't have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of soliciting donations.
I would call upon the Wikipedians responsible for the banner to give it a deep thought about what message they want to convey to the millions of visitors to the site. Thank you.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Evangeline Han evanbejin@gmail.com wrote:
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting up that banner despite strong opposition from many people?
Because their advice was that it would work. It probably is working.
Steve
Evangeline Han evanbejin@gmail.com wrote:
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting up that banner despite strong opposition from many people?
Giving out explanations would defeat the purpose of having a command entity in the first place. A "command" is exactly that in large part because it is not an "explanation."
-Stevertigo "It's hard to love a man whose legs...