Donation banner and strongly negative reactions

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Avoiding the dates...

How to get a static English HTML...

Nathan

7 Nov 2008 7 Nov '08

3:17 p.m.

Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and banner have been discussed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fun… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.22S… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will… It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not available on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the banner now. My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative, and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at all. Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by Danny Wool last spring. I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations? Nathan

Show replies by date

Philip Sandifer

7 Nov 7 Nov

4:01 p.m.

On Nov 7, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Nathan wrote:

...

I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?

That will be tough to measure, given the massive hits on consumer spending that are going on. People are disinclined to spend money - that's going to eat into charitable donations as well. So there's basically no way our fundraising isn't going to go down this time. -Phil

Thomas Dalton

4:49 p.m.

...

My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative

While people's concerns should certainly be given due consideration, it's not surprising that comments are almost universally negative: If you see a banner you don't like, the first thing you do is complain about it. If you see a banner you do like, you just click it, donate, and move on. You don't go around telling people how much you like it.

Andrew Gray

5:46 p.m.

2008/11/7 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

FWIW, every year we appear to have a very vocal negative reaction. It's never clear if this is shared by many people *outside* the project - the only people we really have any way of gauging feedback from are actively involved users, or the very small proportion of uninvolved readers who are both motivated enough to complain and adept enough to figure out a way to do so within our normal framework of talk pages etc. That's not to say people don't dislike it - I hear myself from many who do! - just that we have no way of judging how meaningful or widespread that dislike is compared to the reaction of our however many million readers. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Walter Vermeir

10:17 p.m.

FYI to all; For the convenience of the users the instructions how to hide the banner can also found at http://en.wikizine.org (wikizine 101 tech flash) -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

Nathan

8 Nov 8 Nov

1:44 a.m.

Andrew Cates

8:26 a.m.

Out of curiosity I wonder if it is time to reopen the discussion on no advertising on WMF sites. In a way this banner is a form of advertising (and I don't mind it although on a small screen it pushes too much content down) and a "WMF advertises or other people post a limited number of adverts" question may not have been done recently, I cannot find it. In round numbers the commercial value of putting a narrowed banner where this one is I guess is several hundred thousand USD a day (based on a guess of 12 million impressions and assuming the rate PCM is the same as the Daily Telegraph) so one month a year of selling the banner could pay for WMF entirely? Andrew On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

It was pointed out to me that my bit in this thread was quoted out of context on a website called valleywag. It doesn't seem like that particular publication is likely to have a sterling reputation for accuracy, but my apologies to the folks whose good work was denigrated none the less. Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Thomas Dalton

8:37 p.m.

2008/11/8 Andrew Cates <Andrew(a)soschildren.org>rg>:

...

Out of curiosity I wonder if it is time to reopen the discussion on no advertising on WMF sites.

While I support the general principle of discussing things again from time to time in case consensus has changed, I think it's very unlikely that consensus has changed on that issue.

Charlotte Webb

11 Nov 11 Nov

7:47 p.m.

On 11/7/08, Walter Vermeir <walter(a)wikipedia.be> wrote:

...

For the convenience of the users the instructions how to hide the banner can also found at http://en.wikizine.org (wikizine 101 tech flash)

You should add the most fool-proof method which is to block cross-site scripting from upload.wikimedia.org (and anything other than images for that matter). —C.W.

Jay Litwyn

12 Nov 12 Nov

4:16 a.m.

I won't mind seeing the conclusion of the fundraiser. No such thing as a free lunch is. Administration might abrade me, now, and who's to say that I'm not already having trouble with an anonymous IP. Maybe the banner should change. Someone might want to see details of our bujet. Bottom lines are always scary. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlotte Webb" <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Donation banner and strongly negative reactions On 11/7/08, Walter Vermeir <walter(a)wikipedia.be> wrote:

...

For the convenience of the users the instructions how to hide the banner can also found at http://en.wikizine.org (wikizine 101 tech flash)

You should add the most fool-proof method which is to block cross-site scripting from upload.wikimedia.org (and anything other than images for that matter). —C.W. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ian Woollard

10 Nov 10 Nov

6:23 p.m.

I personally don't like the current banner; the old one was probably the right level. I just think that the wikipedia needs to get itself to the point where the interest on the money it has is enough to run the servers forever, and any excess per year can be given to charity. Right now, of course the traffic is climbing, but probably you could estimate what the maximum traffic it could get would be if everyone used it. Also the cost per click presumably is going down over time, so you would have to allow for that as well. Anyway all that may well mean that they need to put the old banner back and leave it there for a few years; the current one is too intrusive. IMO -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.

geni

6:52 p.m.

2008/11/10 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

At 5% interest you would still be needing $40-80 million +. There is at this time no way to do this.

...

Right now, of course the traffic is climbing, but probably you could estimate what the maximum traffic it could get would be if everyone used it. Also the cost per click presumably is going down over time, so you would have to allow for that as well.

Nope going up wikipedia is getting more media rich. -- geni

Gregory Maxwell

8:50 p.m.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:52 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2008/11/10 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>om>:

At 5% interest you would still be needing $40-80 million +. There is at this time no way to do this.

Is thats accounting for the capital appreciation needed to offset inflation? Desirable, but we're a long way off from that.

...

Nope going up wikipedia is getting more media rich.

…or at least we shouldn't count on cost per click going down, even though it probably is at the moment. On the subject of fundraising: There is currently a lot of discussion about Obama's fundraising in the US that I think we can learn from. According to people involved in the campaign one factor behind their success was the synergy between fundraising and man-power: Many people who donated were drafted into the the Obama grass roots campaign and sent out knocking on doors, registering voters, feet on the street. Given materials on strategy and talking points to convince people to vote for Obama (and convince them to donate). Simultaneously there was this enormous group of time contributors who could be counted on as a continual source of donations. I think we're largely lacking this kind of synergy between labor contributors and financial contributors at Wikipedia: Many content contributors are merely tolerant of the fundraising rather than seeing themselves as components in its success. Potentially a big area for improvement.

David Gerard

8:59 p.m.

2008/11/10 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

There is currently a lot of discussion about Obama's fundraising in the US that I think we can learn from. According to people involved in the campaign one factor behind their success was the synergy between fundraising and man-power: Many people who donated were drafted into the the Obama grass roots campaign and sent out knocking on doors, registering voters, feet on the street. Given materials on strategy and talking points to convince people to vote for Obama (and convince them to donate). Simultaneously there was this enormous group of time contributors who could be counted on as a continual source of donations. I think we're largely lacking this kind of synergy between labor contributors and financial contributors at Wikipedia: Many content contributors are merely tolerant of the fundraising rather than seeing themselves as components in its success. Potentially a big area for improvement.

Interesting and useful idea. I don't have money to spare. (Arkady's teenage daughters moved in with us last week. Yay, Brady Bunch!) So I contribute my time - probably an hour or two a day on nuts and bolts stuff for Wikimedia, since I do pitiably little editing these days (and should really do more). I think in terms of my time and chunks of my soul being my contribution. Of course, I get back those chunks of soul with interest, so that's just fine. Now you need to work out how to convince me to donate acutal cash and get others to donate actual cash ;-) - d.

Carcharoth

11:25 p.m.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip>

...

Now you need to work out how to convince me to donate acutal cash and get others to donate actual cash ;-)

Alternatively, someone could try and get ideas from the gmail adverts that accompany a thread like this. Can you tell this is the first time I've used gmail? It's quite scary how *relevant* some of the adverts are (seriously!). "Give as you earn - <website link removed> - Making a commitment to giving doesn't get any simpler than this!" OK, later on, the advert for an umbilical stem cell private bank isn't quite what I was looking for... Carcharoth

Anthony

11 Nov 11 Nov

3:02 p.m.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:52 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2008/11/10 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>om>:

At 5% interest you would still be needing $40-80 million +. There is at this time no way to do this.

Is thats accounting for the capital appreciation needed to offset inflation?

Don't forget the private foundation excise taxes. A 501(c)(3) which relies solely on interest income to support its needs, fails the public support test. Where can you safely get 5% interest, anyway? The 30-year bond is around 4%. Long-term municipal bonds are around 5%, but they're not totally safe nowadays. And this is, as Gregory pointed out, before inflation. The chance that the US is going to start adding zeros to its dollar bills in the next 30-years is non-negligible.

geni

12 Nov 12 Nov

5:15 p.m.

2008/11/11 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

...

Those numbers were thrown together to show that even with some very generous assumptions the approach was impractical. -- geni

Ray Saintonge

11:05 p.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

Where can you safely get 5% interest, anyway? The 30-year bond is around 4%. Long-term municipal bonds are around 5%, but they're not totally safe nowadays. And this is, as Gregory pointed out, before inflation. The chance that the US is going to start adding zeros to its dollar bills in the next 30-years is non-negligible.

Angela Anuszewski

11:20 p.m.

...

It's about time that the US abandoned $1.00 and $2.00 bills and just used coins instead. The risk is to have a situation such as prevails in Egypt. In the two weeks that I was there at Wikimania time I only twice received coins in change, and thsat was from the cashier at official government tourist sites. Everything else was paper money down to the 25 piastres note worth about 5 cents. Carrying that in one's pocket creates a soggy mess. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

We are so way off subject now, but I am actually encouraged at the amount of $1 coins I am seeing circulating. The federal government has mandated that vending machines on government property accept them, and since it seems silly to have manufacturers make special machines for government installation, most machines I encounter now accept them. I regularly give and recieve $1 coins in change here at work. The program the U.S. Mint has now that allows you to obtain $250 at face value (+ shipping) will likely increase their use, as collectors will put a few rolls aside and spend the rest. Angela -- Wikipedia:[[User:Psu256]]

Anthony

13 Nov 13 Nov

1:35 a.m.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Anthony wrote:

Where can you safely get 5% interest, anyway? The 30-year bond is around 4%. Long-term municipal bonds are around 5%, but they're not totally

safe

nowadays. And this is, as Gregory pointed out, before inflation. The chance that the US is going to start adding zeros to its dollar bills in

the

next 30-years is non-negligible.

It's about time that the US abandoned $1.00 and $2.00 bills and just used coins instead.

Given the current crisis, I wonder how (and if) that would affect interest rates, since bills are a liability of the federal reserve, but coins are not.

Ray Saintonge

14 Nov 14 Nov

8:32 p.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Anthony wrote:

It's about time that the US abandoned $1.00 and $2.00 bills and just used coins instead.

Given the current crisis, I wonder how (and if) that would affect interest rates, since bills are a liability of the federal reserve, but coins are not.

Kevin Wong

17 Nov 17 Nov

10:55 p.m.

Speaking of which, why does the foundation need so much more money than last year's donation drive? On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Anthony wrote:

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>

wrote:

> Anthony wrote: > >> Where can you safely get 5% interest, anyway? The 30-year bond is

around

>> 4%. Long-term municipal bonds are around 5%, but they're not totally

safe

>> >> nowadays. And this is, as Gregory pointed out, before inflation. The >> chance that the US is going to start adding zeros to its dollar bills

in the

next 30-years is non-negligible.

It's about time that the US abandoned $1.00 and $2.00 bills and just used coins instead.

Given the current crisis, I wonder how (and if) that would affect

interest

rates, since bills are a liability of the federal reserve, but coins are not.

Silver coin isn't silver anymore, and gold coins were effectively abandoned a long time ago. US nickels cannot be picked up by a magnet, and copper is too expensive for making pennies. If you inflate the bubble economy with enough hot air it starts to look very impressive. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- Whether you can or can't, any way you are correct. - Henry Ford

David Gerard

11:28 p.m.

2008/11/17 Kevin Wong <wikipedianmarlith(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Speaking of which, why does the foundation need so much more money than last year's donation drive?

The FAQ is linked from the donation page. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Questions/en#What_are_the_specif… - d.

Ian Woollard

11 Nov 11 Nov

4:13 a.m.

On 10/11/2008, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2008/11/10 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>om>:

I just think that the wikipedia needs to get itself to the point where the interest on the money it has is enough to run the servers forever, and any excess per year can be given to charity.

At 5% interest you would still be needing $40-80 million +. There is at this time no way to do this.

But I think that needs to be the goal. And the fund-raising would go differently if that is the goal. It's a bit like how many universities work, and it wouldn't take that many people dying and leaving their money to the wikipedia to reach that level. It might take a few years to raise the money, but it should reach it eventually.

...

Nope going up wikipedia is getting more media rich.

But bandwidth and hardware costs are probably going down more quickly. the media richness should largely plateau at some point anyway.

...

-- geni

-- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.

Anthony

3:38 p.m.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

On 10/11/2008, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2008/11/10 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>om>:

I just think that the wikipedia needs to get itself to the point where the interest on the money it has is enough to run the servers forever, and any excess per year can be given to charity.

At 5% interest you would still be needing $40-80 million +. There is at this time no way to do this.

But I think that needs to be the goal. And the fund-raising would go differently if that is the goal.

It's basically not possible for a US-based 501(c)(3) organization to risklessly pre-fund itself in perpetuity. Google "private foundation payout requirement".

...

It's a bit like how many universities work, and it wouldn't take that many people dying and leaving their money to the wikipedia to reach that level. It might take a few years to raise the money, but it should reach it eventually.

It's not at all like how universities work. For one thing, universities are given special treatment under 509(a)(1) of the IRC. They're essentially exempt from the public support test. But that's because universities rely on tuition payments to keep themselves going. Unless the WMF wants to start charging tuition fees, the university funding model is unavailable to it. The purpose of the WMF is to serve the public. Pre-funding it for perpetuity is pretty much guaranteed to destroy its incentives for continuing to serve the public. That's fine for something like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, created by a small number of people to further their legacy, but that's not what the WMF is about.

Carcharoth

12 Nov 12 Nov

5:34 p.m.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: <snip>

...

It's basically not possible for a US-based 501(c)(3) organization to risklessly pre-fund itself in perpetuity. Google "private foundation payout requirement".

Gregory Maxwell

5:56 p.m.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

While we are on the Foundation and legal stuff, can someone tell me whether as a US-based 501(c)(3) organization there is any legal requirement for Wikipedia, as a website, to meet certain minimum accessibility requirements?

None as a result of being a 501(c)(3). (If Wikimedia were a government agency OTOH...) Never the less, it's obviously desirable to be as accessible as possible: I can't think of any reason why any material accessibility problems wouldn't be given a fairly high priority. Not only is accessibility good on its own merits but accessible development usually supports other things we consider good (such as broad client compatibility and machine readability).

Carcharoth

6:07 p.m.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

While we are on the Foundation and legal stuff, can someone tell me

whether

as a US-based 501(c)(3) organization there is any legal requirement for Wikipedia, as a website, to meet certain minimum accessibility

requirements? None as a result of being a 501(c)(3). (If Wikimedia were a government agency OTOH...) Never the less, it's obviously desirable to be as accessible as possible: I can't think of any reason why any material accessibility problems wouldn't be given a fairly high priority. Not only is accessibility good on its own merits but accessible development usually supports other things we consider good (such as broad client compatibility and machine readability).

Thanks. We have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accessibility But I wonder how much of that is really followed. Should start a new thread, really. Carcharoth

Jay Litwyn

13 Nov 13 Nov

4 p.m.

Even without looking, I do not think so. If some semblance of a unanimity arrived at observing a day of rest every week, then that is what would happen, basically. We would end up with a mirror that splintered and ran only on that day. If we were forced, due to financial constraints, to operate six months a year, I do not think there is any law that would compel operation outside those constraints. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carcharoth" <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Donation banner and strongly negative reactions

...

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: <snip>

It's basically not possible for a US-based 501(c)(3) organization to risklessly pre-fund itself in perpetuity. Google "private foundation payout requirement".

<snip> While we are on the Foundation and legal stuff, can someone tell me whether as a US-based 501(c)(3) organization there is any legal requirement for Wikipedia, as a website, to meet certain minimum accessibility requirements? Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Kevin Wong

14 Nov 14 Nov

1:03 a.m.

Actually, I find it annoying too. It could be quite a bit smaller. On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

-- Whether you can or can't, any way you are correct. - Henry Ford

5652

days inactive

5662

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

29 comments

17 participants

tags (0)

participants (17)

Andrew Cates
Andrew Gray
Angela Anuszewski
Anthony
Carcharoth
Charlotte Webb
David Gerard
geni
Gregory Maxwell
Ian Woollard
Jay Litwyn
Kevin Wong
Nathan
Philip Sandifer
Ray Saintonge
Thomas Dalton
Walter Vermeir