Okay guys.
There is nothing mysterious in this "spam", this is simply the coming fundraiser.
So, to keep you up to date, there were many messages on the wikimedia foundation list on this topic in the past few weeks, but I guess you were too busy to have a look. That's okay.
Announcement for the quick off was here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/034148.html
Whilst you are at it, please have a look here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/034147.html
---------------
I am aware that most of you do not know what is going on behind the doors whilst you are editing. Again, that is fine. Wikimedia projects have become a pretty complex set, with some busy only editing, others taking care of fundraising, others making sure the websites are up and in good order etc...
So, bottom line, we need money to operate the websites and to do more as well. Those of you who were already wikipedians 3 years ago (or worse :-)) will remember a time where the site was slow and sometimes dead. Hopefully, though we grew enormously, your editing experience is now good 99% of the time. This does not come from nowhere. There are people working to make sure that we provide you the best editing and reading environment.
Now, that means that from time to time, we need money. Every year, we try to raise funds by various means.
---------------
HOW CAN YOU HELP ?
First, please look at this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007
Many ways
WAY N°1, MENTION THE FUNDRAISING AROUND YOU There are many buttons to use on your blogs or websites: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/web_buttons
WAY N°2, HELP TRANSLATE THE SITENOTICE http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/Text_for_sitenotice Currently, only two languages have been set up. All will be added. Either the site notice is not translated, and the text will be in english. Or it is translated. Your turn. if you are bi(or more)lingual, just come help provide the translation
WAY N°3: HELP SELECT THE BUGGING QUOTES IN THE SITE NOTICE Where do they come from ? From comments from donators. You may pick some from here: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore_browse Then what ? Well, put them here to make a list per language: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/comments Or BE BOLD and directly add them on the live page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Centralnotice-quotes Just do it
WAY N°4: BRING POSITIVE CRITICISM Here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2007 Remember to stay nice. Thanks
WAY N°5: HELP TRANSLATE TEXT For example, these pages: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/Testimonials Or this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/Fundraising_FAQ
Anthere
On 10/22/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Okay guys.
There is nothing mysterious in this "spam", this is simply the coming fundraiser.
So, to keep you up to date, there were many messages on the wikimedia foundation list on this topic in the past few weeks, but I guess you were too busy to have a look. That's okay.
I follow the Foundation mailing list off and on. I was aware that preparations were being made for the annual fundraising drive.
What I knew: * The fundraising campaign would start "sometime soon" * The fundraising campaign would take the form of an announcement at the top of every Wikipedia page.
What I expected: * The announcement would be static, just like the rest of the Wikipedia interface. * The announcement would be visible only to non-logged-in visitors, like last year.
What I did not expect: * A scrolling abomination from 1995, more suited to being featured on The Daily WTF than on the front page of a top-ten website. * No obvious way to hide the banner.
You can see why I initially thought someone had hacked into the interface -- the original version of the notice bore a strong resemblance to the worst of banner ads.
On 10/22/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/22/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Okay guys.
There is nothing mysterious in this "spam", this is simply the coming fundraiser.
So, to keep you up to date, there were many messages on the wikimedia foundation list on this topic in the past few weeks, but I guess you were too busy to have a look. That's okay.
I follow the Foundation mailing list off and on. I was aware that preparations were being made for the annual fundraising drive.
Most of en: does not, unfortunately (or at least not attentively enough that most people would realize what had happened).
Perhaps this is asking for too much, but would it be possible to set up something like CommonsTicker to push Foundation announcements from a central location out to the individual projects? Some prominent page on en: that people could watchlist would be a lot higher-visibility (as far as the local community is concerned) than the mailing lists or Meta, so we'd have a lot fewer "what's going on?!"-type reactions.
Kirill
On 23/10/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So, bottom line, we need money to operate the websites and to do more as well. Those of you who were already wikipedians 3 years ago (or worse :-)) will remember a time where the site was slow and sometimes dead. Hopefully, though we grew enormously, your editing experience is now good 99% of the time. This does not come from nowhere. There are people working to make sure that we provide you the best editing and reading environment.
Most of the people objecting to the banner are not objecting to a banner in principle (and certainly not objecting to fundraising). The issue is with the way it looks and was carried out. You seem to be presenting this issue as binary: scrolling advert or the death of Wikimedia.
Some people are saying the banner is distracting, ugly and wasn't done with enough communication. Shouldn't the discussion be about those things and whether any of them present problems?
On 10/23/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Some people are saying the banner is distracting, ugly and wasn't done with enough communication. Shouldn't the discussion be about those things and whether any of them present problems?
The fundraiser had to be done under a lot of time pressure, with scheduled interviews & relocation stress, and of course a ridiculously understaffed office. Cut the folks some slack - they're all doing the best they can, and they're here to help & serve _you_, so you'll still have a site to come back to tomorrow. :-)
The marquee was a bad idea & quickly removed as such. The whole thing is still butt-ugly & everyone knows it. Help make it prettier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_redesign
It's a wiki after all. :-) I made a quick mock-up of a new video landing page yesterday, hopefully that or some other variant will go live today.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 23/10/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So, bottom line, we need money to operate the websites and to do more as well. Those of you who were already wikipedians 3 years ago (or worse :-)) will remember a time where the site was slow and sometimes dead. Hopefully, though we grew enormously, your editing experience is now good 99% of the time. This does not come from nowhere. There are people working to make sure that we provide you the best editing and reading environment.
Most of the people objecting to the banner are not objecting to a banner in principle (and certainly not objecting to fundraising). The issue is with the way it looks and was carried out. You seem to be presenting this issue as binary: scrolling advert or the death of Wikimedia.
Indeed, I think the form the banner was in originally was a major problem because it would _reduce_ fundraising. It gave no obvious clues as to its purpose, looking like just another generic to-be-ignored advertisement. That's not going to get many click-throughs.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 23/10/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So, bottom line, we need money to operate the websites and to do more as well. Those of you who were already wikipedians 3 years ago (or worse :-)) will remember a time where the site was slow and sometimes dead. Hopefully, though we grew enormously, your editing experience is now good 99% of the time. This does not come from nowhere. There are people working to make sure that we provide you the best editing and reading environment.
Most of the people objecting to the banner are not objecting to a banner in principle (and certainly not objecting to fundraising). The issue is with the way it looks and was carried out. You seem to be presenting this issue as binary: scrolling advert or the death of Wikimedia.
I am not sure who is "you", but it is definitly not "me" :-) I was not in the team who worked on the fundraiser, except for global messages issues. But no, I would not say it is binary. Proof being that in the next hours following the set up of the sitenotice, several changes were brought. On my computer, the text is no more scrolling, and a dismiss link has been added. I know there was work as well on Jimmy's video (which I first saw 48 hours ago). There might be other changes as well, but I do not immediately see them.
Some people are saying the banner is distracting, ugly and wasn't done with enough communication. Shouldn't the discussion be about those things and whether any of them present problems?
Yeah, no problem. The problem is not really that there was not enough communication (there is never enough communication anyway), but rather that people do not really get involved and comment until the stuff is right up in their nose. But hey, that's a wiki. We can change stuff.
Ant
On 10/23/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
Some people are saying the banner is distracting, ugly and wasn't done with enough communication. Shouldn't the discussion be about those things and whether any of them present problems?
Yeah, no problem. The problem is not really that there was not enough communication (there is never enough communication anyway), but rather that people do not really get involved and comment until the stuff is right up in their nose.
The former is generally what causes the latter.
On 23/10/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 23/10/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So, bottom line, we need money to operate the websites and to do more as well. Those of you who were already wikipedians 3 years ago (or worse :-)) will remember a time where the site was slow and sometimes dead. Hopefully, though we grew enormously, your editing experience is now good 99% of the time. This does not come from nowhere. There are people working to make sure that we provide you the best editing and reading environment.
Most of the people objecting to the banner are not objecting to a banner in principle (and certainly not objecting to fundraising). The issue is with the way it looks and was carried out. You seem to be presenting this issue as binary: scrolling advert or the death of Wikimedia.
I am not sure who is "you", but it is definitly not "me" :-)
By "You seem to be presenting...", I meant that in the post you made which started this threat, you seem to be presenting the issue as binary. I didn't mean that you more generally, or the Foundation, were/are presenting the issue as binary.
I was not in the team who worked on the fundraiser, except for global messages issues. But no, I would not say it is binary. Proof being that in the next hours following the set up of the sitenotice, several changes were brought. On my computer, the text is no more scrolling, and a dismiss link has been added. I know there was work as well on Jimmy's video (which I first saw 48 hours ago). There might be other changes as well, but I do not immediately see them.
And these changes are appreciated.
Some people are saying the banner is distracting, ugly and wasn't done with enough communication. Shouldn't the discussion be about those things and whether any of them present problems?
Yeah, no problem. The problem is not really that there was not enough communication (there is never enough communication anyway), but rather that people do not really get involved and comment until the stuff is right up in their nose. But hey, that's a wiki. We can change stuff.
If people have a natural inclination to not pay attention to these things, we should try to discover why. I don't always keep track until things are in my face because I selectively read postings on Foundation-l based on thread names and discard those I'm not particularly interested in. Perhaps it was wrong of me to assume that no major changes would be made in the Fundraising this year and that I could ignore information relating to it.
What other means could be used to keep Wikimedians updated on issues? Perhaps Wikizine could be better promoted and more widely distributed? Could Wikizine be made more visible on Community portals? I have no idea what the solution is to these problems.
On Oct 23, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
I know there was work as well on Jimmy's video (which I first saw 48 hours ago).
My favorite part of the video, btw, is that French is the first language to come up when he identifies the Wikipedias of the developing world.
-Phil
On 10/23/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
My favorite part of the video, btw, is that French is the first language to come up when he identifies the Wikipedias of the developing world.
Since much of Africa speaks it natively, it seems like a completely appropriate choice, why wouldn't it be French? Saying that developing countries don't speak French is like saying only people from Spain speaks Spanish.
--Oskar
On 23/10/2007, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/23/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
My favorite part of the video, btw, is that French is the first language to come up when he identifies the Wikipedias of the developing world.
Since much of Africa speaks it natively, it seems like a completely appropriate choice, why wouldn't it be French? Saying that developing countries don't speak French is like saying only people from Spain speaks Spanish.
Looking down the list of the least developed countries (there are 55) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countries , of the top 10 countries listed under "Africa", Portuguese, French or Spanish is listed as an official language for 10 of them (French is listed as the official language of 9). This isn't the best way to sample, but I can't find any other figures. I think it shows a trend (albeit a trend with large error).
On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 10/23/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
My favorite part of the video, btw, is that French is the first language to come up when he identifies the Wikipedias of the developing world.
Since much of Africa speaks it natively, it seems like a completely appropriate choice, why wouldn't it be French? Saying that developing countries don't speak French is like saying only people from Spain speaks Spanish.
Yeah, though that's not the direction the "developing world" bit goes. And the next language to appear is German, which is not nearly as widely spoken in the developing world.
It is pretty obvious that the background was just cued as a montage of languages that we have Wikis in, and that it doesn't quite sync with the dialogue at that point. Totally a small issue. Also funny.
-Phil
On 10/23/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, though that's not the direction the "developing world" bit goes. And the next language to appear is German, which is not nearly as widely spoken in the developing world.
It is pretty obvious that the background was just cued as a montage of languages that we have Wikis in, and that it doesn't quite sync with the dialogue at that point. Totally a small issue. Also funny.
I don't get this complaint at all..
ENGLISH is the first, and Jimmy says it's the largest. Then it shows the next largest Wikipedia languages, then tapers off to "the languages of the developing world".
If you want to criticize the video it would probably better to point out that the most widely spoken languages of the "developing world" aren't Swahili (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_African_Union#Languages_of_AU_...) and Hindi. especially when it comes to the languages used for academia...
The languages used for these things in much of the developing world are quite often English, French, Chinese. ;)
Readers in India, for example, send a lot more traffic to enwp than the "local languages".
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Oct 23, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
I know there was work as well on Jimmy's video (which I first saw 48 hours ago).
My favorite part of the video, btw, is that French is the first language to come up when he identifies the Wikipedias of the developing world.
-Phil
That was my very first comment as well when I saw the video the first time. My husband was watching it at the same time, and he went ROFL.
Eh !
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to remind all of you hard-working stiffs who do nothing all day but argue over tiny points of wikipedia policy and generally spends your day fighting other editors to check out the comments left by those who have donated:
http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore_browse
It is one of my favourite distractions during fundraising season. Instead of all that "Wikipedia can't be trusted!" and "Wikipedians are run by an evil cabal that is out to destroy me!" you get to hear what normal people really think about us. Like:
"Thank you Wikipedia! The best web-site and project ever!"
"Thanks for hours of interesting reading. I wish you many more years of enlightening the world."
"Thanks for not censoring important information (e.g. civil rights) like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft have done in China."
"I wish I could give more."
That last one was from someone who gave $100. Some are just plain fun:
"If you think about giving to Wikipedia, ask yourself "What would Jesus do ?""
That's right, anonymous dude from the UK who gave £10, Jesus WOULD donate to Wikipedia!
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to remind all of you hard-working stiffs who do nothing all day but argue over tiny points of wikipedia policy and generally spends your day fighting other editors to check out the comments left by those who have donated:
Some of us are busy, you know, actually writing an encyclopedia. Comparing your edit history to mine, I would say you aren't particularly active in that area, lately, and so aren't in a good position to throw stones.
Does [[WP:NPA]] not apply to the mailing list and these sorts of snide attacks on other editors are now permitted? I'd like to request Oskar be put on moderation, please.
-Mark
On 10/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Some of us are busy, you know, actually writing an encyclopedia. Comparing your edit history to mine, I would say you aren't particularly active in that area, lately, and so aren't in a good position to throw stones.
Does [[WP:NPA]] not apply to the mailing list and these sorts of snide attacks on other editors are now permitted? I'd like to request Oskar be put on moderation, please.
-Mark
I'm sorry, I absolutely didn't mean it as an insult to anyone. The people I was talking about is none of the people on this list, I can assure you. I meant the trolls and the vandals and the people that write attack sites and so on, the bad element that wikipedia attracts. And even with good editors debate sometimes get heated and tiring, we all know that (and it doesn't mean the people we debate with are bad people, just that sometimes we disagree). I just figured it could be good diversion to sometimes look at what the users of wikipedia thought, and to see that wikipedia is a mightily good thing, after all.
I can assure you, my comment was not meant to be derogatory at all, it was written in a pure spirit of WikiLove. It's no secret that for many people wikipedia can really burn you out, since all you get is strife and disagreements, and I Just thought: "Hey look at that, we're doing good after all!". That's all I meant, and I certainly hope that wont make me be put on moderation.
--Oskar
Delirium wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to remind all of you hard-working stiffs who do nothing all day but argue over tiny points of wikipedia policy and generally spends your day fighting other editors to check out the comments left by those who have donated:
Some of us are busy, you know, actually writing an encyclopedia. Comparing your edit history to mine, I would say you aren't particularly active in that area, lately, and so aren't in a good position to throw stones.
Does [[WP:NPA]] not apply to the mailing list and these sorts of snide attacks on other editors are now permitted? I'd like to request Oskar be put on moderation, please.
What personal attack is there in what you quote? No individual is mentioned, and he makes a completely valid criticism that applies to a wide range of individuals. Contrariwise, your response specifically criticizes Oskar. Which is more characteristic of a personal attack? If you really want Oskar to be moderated you should also be asking that the powers that be apply whatever may be the policy in a fair and uniform manner.
The rest of Oskar's message was very positive, and said far more good about the comments that contributors were making.
Ec
On 2007.10.23 15:06:25 +0200, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com scribbled 0 lines:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to remind all of you hard-working stiffs who do nothing all day but argue over tiny points of wikipedia policy and generally spends your day fighting other editors to check out the comments left by those who have donated:
http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore_browse
It is one of my favourite distractions during fundraising season. Instead of all that "Wikipedia can't be trusted!" and "Wikipedians are run by an evil cabal that is out to destroy me!" you get to hear what normal people really think about us. Like:
"Thank you Wikipedia! The best web-site and project ever!"
"Thanks for hours of interesting reading. I wish you many more years of enlightening the world."
"Thanks for not censoring important information (e.g. civil rights) like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft have done in China."
"I wish I could give more."
That last one was from someone who gave $100. Some are just plain fun:
"If you think about giving to Wikipedia, ask yourself "What would Jesus do ?""
That's right, anonymous dude from the UK who gave £10, Jesus WOULD donate to Wikipedia!
--Oskar
Personally, one of the comments in a similar vein that I treasure most comes from http://lispmeister.com/blog/citations/synthesis-massalin.html:
"Later that same day I did a quick check on Wikipedia to read up on the current state of the art. I was surprised to find a link to a paper about self modifying kernel code by Henry Massalin. Reading his PhD thesis about the Synthesis kernel, like learning Lisp, is a mind altering experience. This guy is a genius!"
(I probably don't need to mention that it was I who tracked down that paper and linked to it.)
-- gwern domestic .li zone W50 Tyrell ABC SFPD NSES Halibut Corporate
This is an excellent point and has been the main focus of this year's fundraiser: testimonials. Of the items Anthere asked earlier in this thread to be translated, some of these were testimonials. The quips found in the banner are comments by those who donated, that is what we are trying to collect and what we want to share with our users and readers.
On 10/23/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to remind all of you hard-working stiffs who do nothing all day but argue over tiny points of wikipedia policy and generally spends your day fighting other editors to check out the comments left by those who have donated:
http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore_browse
It is one of my favourite distractions during fundraising season. Instead of all that "Wikipedia can't be trusted!" and "Wikipedians are run by an evil cabal that is out to destroy me!" you get to hear what normal people really think about us. Like:
"Thank you Wikipedia! The best web-site and project ever!"
"Thanks for hours of interesting reading. I wish you many more years of enlightening the world."
"Thanks for not censoring important information (e.g. civil rights) like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft have done in China."
"I wish I could give more."
That last one was from someone who gave $100. Some are just plain fun:
"If you think about giving to Wikipedia, ask yourself "What would Jesus do ?""
That's right, anonymous dude from the UK who gave £10, Jesus WOULD donate to Wikipedia!
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l