I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the
themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk
Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ].
==communication re: fundraising season==
* develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team
already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too]
* if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you
communicate it to the stakeholders
* fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged
that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]
* Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job
at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their
* don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get
the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.]
* don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll
go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [note, I'm
not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it
because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in
* message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is
clear/is too American [the latter is a problem esp. with English
Wikipedia messaging, I suspect]
* comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year]
* comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls
who get a/b tested
* as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not
demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating
because of above points.
* pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus]
* sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point]
* banners that obscure content are no good [note, though we agree on
the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this
banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there]
* mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small
* current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above
* harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this]
* messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def.
* user sentiment analysis is important [possible action point: maybe
user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner
* what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners?
[note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not
have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison.
Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm
unusual in that way].
* we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians
* especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data
* social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than
past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?
* how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've
been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence
the shorter fundraiser]
Other questions for me:
Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of
weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board
approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the
secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the
most exciting discussion.
Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my
papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send
it to you if I did.