On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources, many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :)
Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is not unusual about this banner:
*"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time. I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or subtle to get me thinking."*
Lila, the concern is not that the fundraiser is working, which your soundbite confirms, but that it is deceiving people, or at least manipulating them 'too much' to be consistent with our values.
One way to test that would be to organise a survey for donors, informing them of the current financials, the current strategy document and current status on achieving that strategy, a breakdown on where the money is currently going and ask them whether they are happy with the amount and tone of the information they were given before being asked to donote. WMF donors may already being surveyed like this (ideally done by academics in the discipline rather than WMF staff/contractors); if so, hopefully that data can be shared.
In addition to the concern about the tone of the fundraiser damaging the brand, there is a strong correlation between increased WMF revenue (and the growth of chapters) and the loss of edit contributors. Has research been done to rule out causation? i.e. specifically asking previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work being adequately supported?
-- John Vandenberg