1) Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct them.
2) When is it okay to run smaller commercial ads rather than larger fundraising banners? Never. I would much rather see the WMF become smaller than to see ads run.
Hoi, I rather see the WMF pick up the work that it does not do. Money seems to be a dirty word but it is what makes some things possible. Money is raised by adverts. DEAL WITH IT
When people say that they rather see the WMF and its need for money become less, they typically are well served . They complain for ideological reasons about Wikipedia Zero and they have all the bandwidth in the world. They think the gender gap is so big but that is cultural. The excuses why countries like Syria are so badly served in Wikipedia are hardly expressed because as a problem it does not even register.
Wikidata, Wikisource suck big time in the usability department. For Wikidata the only tool that provides information from the data glut is Reasonator. For Wikisource the notion of readers is not really considered. Get real, we are immature and a lot of the big work is ahead of us not behind us. Consequently our need for funding will increase not decrease.
Having a centrally led fundraising is part of the problem. It is concerned about "global" issues and it does not even see the local need or opportunity. Consequently it does not raise the amount of money in countries like the Netherlands it could.
And now you want to curtail our future because some people dislike ads ? REALLY you should be ashamed, I dislike ads but I like our future more. Thanks, GerardM
On 4 December 2015 at 05:25, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
- Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising
banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct them.
- When is it okay to run smaller commercial ads rather than larger
fundraising banners? Never. I would much rather see the WMF become smaller than to see ads run.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF _______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
- Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising
banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct them.
Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought using stock images was OK.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080112.html
Im not sure the Fundraising team are on board with your 'free content only' expectations. Lisa indicated that contractors are also allowed to use WMF owned media that hasnt been released as free content, and 'upload to Commons' is not part of their processes before media is used in worldwide campaigns.
Some declared fundraising principles, which everyone agrees and adheres to, would be good.
- When is it okay to run smaller commercial ads rather than larger
fundraising banners? Never.
I think the acceptable model for 'commercial' ads worth exploring is to run 'thank you' ads for large corporate donors, provided those 'ads' are not targeted based on content or user. e.g. targeting only based on time segments or countries.
Would you find a donation matching 'ad' acceptable, like was done for Virgin Unite in 2006?
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thanks_Virgin_Unite
I would much rather see the WMF become smaller than to see ads run.
'smaller' isnt a good way to look at it. reduced expenditure may be achieved by being more efficient, especially by using volunteers more effectively.
Are you doing any planning around that possibility?
My understanding is the WMF management + fundraising costs are ~30% of expenditure, which is below the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) 's best practise of 80% program spend. The current rate is still in acceptable efficiency ranges according to the AIP. If the revenue decreases, as is a credible concern that has been raised by WMF Fundraising team, fundraising costs will need to decrease to avoid that percentage moving into the unacceptable range.
On 15-12-04 04:14 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought using stock images was OK.
Please don't put words into my mouth that weren't there. I said that I didn't find it /concerning/, not that it was "OK".
My point in that email was that commons makes it ungodly hard to find what you want, not commenting on whether or not the use of stock photography is desirable.
Also, I don't work with fundraising and am not involved with the banners in any way. Even if I /had/ expressed the opinion that it was Ok to use stock photography, it'd just be that - my personal opinion.
-- Marc
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org