On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila(a)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?