I don't think anyone is surprised when the Reg publishes a negative article about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Someone there seems to have had an axe to grind for years.
But in this case, we certainly need to stop giving them the ammo.
Regards, Charles
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our
banners
are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get
bigger
and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
exception.
However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems
to
be
more fear inducing as well.
Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was
in
financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because
there
isn't.
The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the
first
person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a
real
problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel manipulated.
My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is
rare
for
him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's
ads
are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate.
I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce
the
number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when
people
stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to
an
advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search).
- Ryan Lane
Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every
year
on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I
know
how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc.
etc.
Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December
for
now on.
Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser
as
quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep
the
yearly donation drive as short as possible.
Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the
appearance
and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the
reader
as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our
content
forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people.
Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise
to
the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm. But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline.
We're
not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to
want
the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would
be
right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long
run, I
think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year.
For now, two requests. # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal? # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more
than
50% of the space above the fold.
I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers.
Kind regards,
--Martijn
I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly coincidence with this one, that would help.
For reference, there was an article in The Register on this a couple of days ago:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/penniless_and_desperate_wikipedia_si...
Slashdot:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/02/1528227/a-mismatch-between-wikimedia...
Discussion of the Register article on Jimmy Wales' talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Article_in_the_Register
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe