(Sorry, something went awry with my mail client. Let's try this again to
keep the thread intact).
Besides what readers think when they're fully informed, I'm also concerned
about the legal issues surrounding the fundraising. IANAL, but I have a
feeling that consumer protection attorneys may take an interest if they
feel that there is a meaningful disconnect between what messages FR conveys
and (1) how the funds are actually spent and/or (2) the overall financial
health of WMF. Let's avoid inflicting legal costs and PR damage on
ourselves, please. (:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Lisa Gruwell
So, we have drilled down on this more in our
research to better
understand what our readers think on this topic. We should have more to
share on that in a week or two.
What readers think about this topic will very much depend on what
information they have been given.
You need to find out what readers think who know
1. the cost of Internet hosting relative to the total budget (about 3
2. that you took five times as much money last year as you took five years
3. how much money the Foundation has in cash and investments;
4. that the number of paid staff has increased more than twentyfold since
5. how the vastly increased spending is affecting reader experience.
Do you know what readers who know all of this think about the banners? Have
there been focus groups with donors who were given all of this information?
This is necessary to make sure that when (not if) readers do find all of
this information out, there won't be a storm of protest from people who
feel they were misled as to the Foundation's financial situation.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: