I also feel disheartened about this yearly controversy, which seems to go nowhere.
I also am scared by even considering
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#/media/File:Sept2015BannerEx.png
In my opinion this very ambitious budget (maybe too ambitious if such extreme doomsday
measures are needed to reach our goals),
may well be putting our reputation at risk, and perhaps even alienate part of our
community.
"Trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback"
So who should we address to bring about change, and set more modest goals?
I belief fundraising is doing as they're told, the best they can.
The Wikimedia Foundation gets a lot of flak in these discussions.
But isn't WMF operating within limits set by the Board of Trustees?
Lila can propose a budget, but the Board is ultimately responsible, needs to approve that
budget, and can amend it.
Erik Zachte
(disclaimer: I'm speaking in my role as volunteer, not as contractor for WMF)
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Southwood
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:38
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update
+1
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas
Kolbe
Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 2015 7:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I saw that banner and I want to do all I can to help
you not use it
even if it performs 20% better. I put my story in p.s. so it's easier
to skip for whoever chooses to skip. This is a true story. :-\
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree, that banner does not reflect the values of
this movement.
Pure and simple; it's not a grey area, and not worth my time to
discuss for the 97th time.
Personally, I long ago gave up participating in these discussions, for
the most part -- because the same valid points get made over and over
again, and the same *AWFUL* errors are made year after year in the
fund-raising campaign.
Leila's post here is heartening, and I'm glad that somebody has the
energy to articulate the concerns so well. I, myself, do not; I have
simply lost faith in the integrity of the Wikimedia Foundation's
fund-raising operation. I am, honestly, ashamed to tell people that I
used to work in the fund-raising department there (though I believe
the work we did was valuable).
I recently heard from a high-ranking executive at a software company.
She told me that she had given money to the Wikimedia Foundation, and
then looked into the WMF's budget, and the messages in the campaign
she had responded to. The word she used to describe her feeling was
"mortified."
She had considered asking for her money back, but had decided against it.
Fortunately, she was sophisticated enough not apply her negative
feelings to Wikipedia, but rather to the Wikimedia Foundation. But can
the WMF afford to assume that will always be the case?
I endorse what Leila and Pete said above. My responses to the black banner differ in
details from Leila's, but the overall impression is the same: it is fear-inducing, as
though someone or something has been murdered, or is about to be. Looking at the black
banner, my eyes are first drawn to the highlighted sentence, and then the one following
it, about "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free."
Of course the banner "works". But it works for the wrong reasons. (The same
could be said for the #keepitfree hashtag on Twitter.) It's the result of purely
Darwinian A/B testing run amok, untempered by reason and conscience.
As Pete Forsyth has said: that process is broken. It seems not unlike the process by which
the yellow press come up with its headlines, designed to pander to the basest, most primal
instincts.
I will reiterate here that, according to the recent fundraising report[1], the Foundation
took $75.5 million in 2014/2015, exactly five times what it had taken five years prior, in
2009-2010 ($15.1 million). Most organisations would see such revenue growth not as
evidence of a looming financial crisis calling for desperate appeals for more cash, but as
an amazing, stunning success.
Credibility, once lost, is hard to regain. So far, you have lost it only for a number of
individuals, like that software executive Pete mentioned in his post. But that number is
increasing, and as your bank balance grows and your appeals become more
desperate-sounding, there will come a tipping point.
If you are going to ask people this December to donate money "to keep Wikipedia
online and ad-free" (something that in the narrow sense costs the WMF no more than $3
million p.a.), when in reality you are shooting for $70 million to $100 million, including
several million dollars for an endowment and several million more for further staff
expansion, you risk doing catastrophic damage to the Foundation's future fundraising
ability.
Would you like that to be your legacy?
[1] See graphic in Signpost report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_…
p.s. Here is the story:
I open my laptop at 5:30am to check few definitions on Wikipedia for
an upcoming early morning meeting. The room is dark and the only
source of light is my laptop, I go to Wikipedia and I see that banner
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#/media/File:Sept2015Banner
Ex.png
.
I'm still sleepy, and probably my
mind is not functioning the way it
normally does, nevertheless, here is what comes to my mind: I have a
sudden feeling of fear. I see a very black background, and I think
someone very important has died. I look a bit more, and I see some red
colors, then I think something in the order of SOPA has happened. I'm
getting quite nervous. I look at the text, but it's too long for me to
parse it at that moment with the thoughts I have in the background. I
look more at the background, I see some orange colors, some yellow
colors, and a little human circled, I first think that whole color
combination is a flame (red, orange, yellow, and the semi shape of a
flame), then I think someone is jailed/executed. My eyes finally
manage to see the right-hand-side of the page, and I see there are
dollar signs and numbers. I sigh in relief, and then I get really
upset (though I manage to pass that stage soon). Now, if I was not
involved in the movement, I'm not sure if I would pay or not (maybe I
would) seeing that banner, but because I'm in the Movement, I got really sad seeing
myself going through that experience because I know more.
I also acknowledge that different people have different backgrounds
and experiences in life. What I see as a sign of death and war, may
not be a signal for many other people (though the color black is
almost universally used for signalling death), and I acknowledge that
you cannot accommodate everyone. But please be aware, some people get
really scared seeing this kind of banner.
_______________________________________________
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>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4447/10820 - Release Date: 10/14/15
_______________________________________________
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>