A slight tangent: I did a quick Google search to try and refresh my memory
about the Wikipedia Forever thing, and these were the results:
.
I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
fundraising message as a summary.
Cheers,
Michel
On 4 December 2014 at 23:40, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
I think this discussion and the uproar is only in part
because of the
wordings used, the size of the banners (which are maybe terrible, and I get
exhausted from seeing the banner all year round because I have bad luck to
be in so many test groups somehow). A big chunk is about the usual:
communication. Somehow we seem to be unable to set up a communication
workflow where the community feels that they have been involved in the
process. That they have been able to contribute ideas, thoughts,
improvements.
Life is not all about A/B testing and success rates. Keeping Wikipedia up
is not just about getting enough money as quickly as possible. It is much
more about growing the community, and involving it - using its strengths
and diversity on as many places as possible. And somehow, in the field of
fundraiser and everything surrounding that there seems to be a lot to be
improved.
I don't agree things can't get better. After the Wikipedia Forever drama,
things did get better. Communication was improved a lot, and both chapters
and individuals were actively involved. Unfortunately, it seems that it has
gotten worse since. I would appreciate efforts to improve this again.And
that has to be more than just asking suggestions for more A/B testing. It
may cost more work in the short run, but I sincerely believe that in the
long run, it is worth it: better results, more creativity and less
frustration.
Best,
Lodewijk
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:20 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila,
and to the fundraising
team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
financial health and future.
Some perspective from my role as a trustee:
One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the
fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the
longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends
include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two
years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised.
At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the
places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want
and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term
-- not only to keep the lights on but also to build better
infrastructure (ranging from current contributor-supporting projects
-- see the recent product survey -- to making the software easier on
new editors).
And, of course, fundraising is only one small supporting piece of the
overall picture -- so we discussed how shifting patterns in Wikimedia
project consumption, ranging from mobile to Google knowledge graph
type products, might affect our mission long-term.
Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we
should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
(which I personally think is wise, given current trends). We also
discussed and deeply appreciate the delicate balance that fundraising
has: yes, we can raise more by running more banners, but at what cost?
I should note that the board didn't set new targets in this meeting.
But we did express our support and thanks for the fundraising team's
efforts, which have been remarkable at making sure that our projects
are funded by a world-wide group of independent readers.
One side note about the evolution of fundraising in Wikimedia that I
think is worth noting is that the overall length of the fundraiser has
shrunk dramatically in the last 7-8 years -- from a month at 100% in
2006 to a targeted 2 weeks (or less) today. Individual readers see
many fewer banner impressions now than they used to.
Personally, I think readers should worry about Wikipedia. We are a
nonprofit that exists because of the labor of volunteers. Our readers
who rely on our work and don't think much about how it gets on their
screens should recognize that what we do isn't guaranteed in
perpetuity -- it all depends on help, support and work from our global
community. If that knowledge motivates people to contribute,
fantastic. If contributing means donating 3$, great. And if it means
becoming an editor: even better. Let's all work towards that.
-- Phoebe
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update. Fundraising trends and
data
are
always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and
test local messages.
I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team,
who
have made great progress over the last few years
– in storytelling &
translation, mobile giving, testing & data analysis. I look forward to
seeing what we learn this year.
Sam
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
>
> I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of
those
> in our upcoming reports and metrics and we
will plan to shift to a
> quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include
> fundraising.
>
> Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly
> changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in
> emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the
> knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where
free
> speech is criminalized are learning about
Wikipedia. We need to keep
> supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see
Wikipedia
> becoming a part of the fabric of the internet
itself: embedded in web
> searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great
too:
>> people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however
can
>> make it more difficult to raise funds
(and sometimes contribute), so
we
> have
to make sure we adapt.
>
> We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified
> fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site
banners.
>> Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high
with
>> readers, was only shown once to each
user and cut the total number of
>> impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns
however.
The
> Fundraising team listened and quickly
integrated your feedback. While
our
> launch banner will be different from last
year’s, it will not be a
pop-up,
> overlay content, or be sticky. As always this
starting design will
iterate
> daily and have parallel tests, so you may see
variations at any given
time.
>
> Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the
process
>> to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the
coming
>> month.
>>
>> And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising
team
>> for all of their hard work and to all of
the volunteers who have
helped
> with
the campaigns.
>
> ~~~~ Lila
>
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at>
gmail.com *
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>