I'm not here to discuss the wording of the fundraising slogans yet again, but this one screams "legal trouble":
Wikipedia. Ad-free forever. [Progress bar] [Donate now button]
I'd interpret this as "if we reach $7.5M, Wikipedia will be ad-free forever". I really wish that'd be the case, but if not, people (from simple dudes to legal trolls) might come out of the woodwork screaming fraud.
Or maybe I'm just too paranoid.
Cheers, Magnus
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd interpret this as "if we reach $7.5M, Wikipedia will be ad-free forever". I really wish that'd be the case, but if not, people (from simple dudes to legal trolls) might come out of the woodwork screaming fraud.
Some might think that, but to me that means: "Help us keep Wikipedia Ad-free Forever -- donate." It's not a promise, it's a dedication to staying ad-free that we need help on from the donors. It address the "now" , while leaving open the possibility of ads in the future.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not here to discuss the wording of the fundraising slogans yet again, but this one screams "legal trouble":
Wikipedia. Ad-free forever. [Progress bar] [Donate now button]
I'd interpret this as "if we reach $7.5M, Wikipedia will be ad-free forever". I really wish that'd be the case, but if not, people (from simple dudes to legal trolls) might come out of the woodwork screaming fraud.
Strange, I'd interpret it as "Wikipedia will be ad-free forever. Now, hand over the cash."
But afaik the foundation has never said such a thing. The last I heard was Jimbo saying "not anytime soon, and only if there is some major shift in public opinion".
Steve
Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not here to discuss the wording of the fundraising slogans yet again, but this one screams "legal trouble": Wikipedia. Ad-free forever. [Progress bar] [Donate now button] I'd interpret this as "if we reach $7.5M, Wikipedia will be ad-free forever". I really wish that'd be the case, but if not, people (from simple dudes to legal trolls) might come out of the woodwork screaming fraud.
Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Strange, I'd interpret it as "Wikipedia will be ad-free forever. Now, hand over the cash." But afaik the foundation has never said such a thing. The last I heard was Jimbo saying "not anytime soon, and only if there is some major shift in public opinion".
Well, that's certainly a shift from the "never" position. We really have to give props to Jimbo for sticking with it so long though. Money isn't the issue nor the object, and that's the principle that will endure, regardless.
But, putting the ideas in this thread together with an earlier discussion about creating an endowment: Ostensibly there is some validity to the idea that, if people discussed (openly, dammit) how big exactly a permanent Wikipedia endowment would have to be, and then asked the community (ie. the people that give Wikipedia its actual value) for permission to allow ads (small ones, no animation, no scripting, at the bottom of Wikipedia articles) for a just the exactly-calculated period of time necessary to create the target endowment, then people might see that as not violating the principle.
And Wikimedia can do the same if it wants one.
-Stevertigo
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Strange, I'd interpret it as "Wikipedia will be ad-free forever. Now, hand over the cash."
That's pretty much how I'd see it too. I would like to see WP ad-free forever but it does seem a little unwise to tie your hands using that banner.
The strategy process is still ongoing and there are a number of proposals for adverts. I don't sense they're going to get any traction this time. But if the WMF severely lacked funds in future years I imagine everyone would start considering them.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
The strategy process is still ongoing and there are a number of proposals for adverts. I don't sense they're going to get any traction this time. But if the WMF severely lacked funds in future years I imagine everyone would start considering them.
Yeah, that's probably a wise position for them to take.
Incidentally, first hand anecdote that different advertising messages work for different people. Was cruising on the French wikipedia and there was an ad with a big progress bar, showing the total number of articles at 12 million (I assume cross all projects), heading towards 25. I was like "yeah, I'd donate to make that happen!" :)
Steve
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
The strategy process is still ongoing and there are a number of proposals for adverts. I don't sense they're going to get any traction this time. But if the WMF severely lacked funds in future years I imagine everyone would start considering them.
Yeah, that's probably a wise position for them to take.
Incidentally, first hand anecdote that different advertising messages work for different people. Was cruising on the French wikipedia and there was an ad with a big progress bar, showing the total number of articles at 12 million (I assume cross all projects), heading towards 25. I was like "yeah, I'd donate to make that happen!" :)
Some of the later slogans are better as well. If "Wikipedia Forever" was preparing the ground for the later slogans, it begins to make sense (I think Erik said this was the plan all along).
"Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you"
"You depend on us, now we need your help. Support Wikipedia today."
I like those two, but the best one so far, IMO, is this one:
"One entry became 14 million. One language became 270. Help protect what we’ve created."
That is really eye-catchingly different. One became 14 million. 270 languages is (superficially at least) also very impressive. I suppose they might use the number of daily edits next as well.
On the negative side, the "great, great, great, grandson/daughter" one made me cringe. Even more than the "Wikipedia Forever" one. It seemed to distract from the utility people have for Wikipedia right here and now.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
That is really eye-catchingly different. One became 14 million. 270 languages is (superficially at least) also very impressive. I suppose they might use the number of daily edits next as well.
Eh. If you came up with this one though, how much would you charge for it?
On the negative side, the "great, great, great, grandson/daughter" one made me cringe. Even more than the "Wikipedia Forever" one. It seemed to distract from the utility people have for Wikipedia right here and now.
The issue behind both was endurance - futurism, and Wikipedia's place in it (and who better to wax about that than a bunch of ad execs with a total of maybe ten edits amongst them). Do you have some particular *issue with reproducing and then leaving the planet and all your stuff behind? ;-)
-Stevertigo