Seeing http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics I'm quite worried about the onlook.. choosing "year to date" tab shows a definite deacceleration (and we still need about 4x the current cumulative amount).
Therefore I'm particularly concerned about an ongoing campaign on catalan wikipedia asking to NOT donate to wikimedia (and instead give money to their own association). Here is the campaign:http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Martorell&oldid=6331799 http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Mafoso&oldid=6410669%C2... http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullop&oldid=6331931 It basically says "I want to donate, but I wont donate to Wikimedia, instead I will donate to Amical. My donation will be appreciated and well used. Sorry Jimbo, but I need to think locally" Now who are these users? These are cawiki sysops campaining about not donating in the very worst timing, and in the very worst circumstances (fundarising is getting short).
Now.. what is Amical? Amical is NOT a wikimedia chapter. It's an non profit association of wikimedians with aims to becoming a chapter REF1: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Associaci%C3%B3 And if you follow the external link, you see that for example, Martorell above is member of its board: REF2: http://www.viquimedia.cat/viqui/Junta (notice they present themselves, in domain and logo as "viquimedia " (localized spelling) and not as "Amical" (yet they haven't been approved as chaper) Now, these days a banner across wikis from the president of Amical (and appointed president of the non-yet-approved WM:CAT (REF3) Joan Gomà) is replacing Jimbo's in asking for donations REF3: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_Catalan/ca#Junta I see a conflict of interests. Amical people (including a board member) is promoting NOT to donate to Wikimedia and instead give to their association, while its president says otherwise. Notwhistanding the use of a WP userpage for propaganda (campaigning for money to a non WM organization), and giving my concern about the fundraising going slower I feel I need to point out this campaign so it is publicly known.
...................Now.. why would members of an association whose objective is to support Wikimedia would be torpedoing the fundraiser? Notice the diff dates (mid november). Here's the context: there's a nationalist conflict regarding Catalunya status in Spain (they want to separate). Not directly related, but influenced by this, there has been friction over the past months about the proposals of Wikimedia CAT and Wikimedia ES.
WM:CAT gets rejected REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002097.ht... (november 5)Quote:"Catalan Group has been rejected by the chapters committee. There is nosuch thing as Wikimedia Catala. Cheers, Delphine"
And then attacks on Delphine start REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002120.ht... (november 13) "Delphine, as always, boicoting the cooperation between Catalans and the rest of the world.Now it seems she is also against cooperation with iberoamerica." Notice "Marc Fontevila" is User:Mafoso (as signature shows)
AlsoREF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002181.ht... (nov 16)
Next day, the banners boycotting the fundraiser appear on the Amical supporter pages. (Nov 17)Notice the wording about lack of transparencyhttp://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullop&oldid=6331931
A few day latters, it's crosswiki posted a request on meta with biased wording about transparency againBut it's very soon found that the proposal is ***just another attempt to further the WMCAT agenda***disguised as "solving a general problem"http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Chapters._Proposal_to_gi... catalan sysops have yet spoken pro proposal. Wording was later changed and sections added to present things differently, but original wording can be seen onhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Chapters._P... you don't support, you're against transprency"
Basically, that's the context. I'm REALLY CONCERNED about this boycott for purely wikipolitics reasons. Given that Joan Goma is one of the few selected editors appearing on banners requesting donations, while at the same time the users on the association he's president of boycott Wikimedia for what seems a grudge, this has been up for several weeks, I think at least Amical as association (or Goma as president) should step forward and help clear things. It's not acceptable an association who claims to support Wikimedia is boycotting it. Sorry Jimbo, but as they say on their campaing: they have to thing first to themselves http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&ie=UTF-8&sl...
This seems limited to messages on individuals' user pages, saying that they personally will be donating to "Amical" rather than WMF. I don't think the Foundation should step in on this unless the site notice or a community page is being messed with, though some form of clarification from Amical's leadership would be good. In the meantime it might be worth removing the Joan Goma banners from rotation for PR reasons.
Separate from the fundraiser, there may be a problem with their use of "viquimedia" if it hasn't been approved by the Foundation, and action should be taken to sort this out.
Pete / the wub
On 7 December 2010 06:39, Ernesto García wbibliotecario@yahoo.com wrote:
Seeing http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics I'm quite worried about the onlook.. choosing "year to date" tab shows a definite deacceleration (and we still need about 4x the current cumulative amount).
Therefore I'm particularly concerned about an ongoing campaign on catalan wikipedia asking to NOT donate to wikimedia (and instead give money to their own association). Here is the campaign:http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Martorell&oldid=6331799 http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Mafoso&oldid=6410669 http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullop&oldid=6331931 It basically says "I want to donate, but I wont donate to Wikimedia, instead I will donate to Amical. My donation will be appreciated and well used. Sorry Jimbo, but I need to think locally" Now who are these users? These are cawiki sysops campaining about not donating in the very worst timing, and in the very worst circumstances (fundarising is getting short).
Now.. what is Amical? Amical is NOT a wikimedia chapter. It's an non profit association of wikimedians with aims to becoming a chapter REF1: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Associaci%C3%B3 And if you follow the external link, you see that for example, Martorell above is member of its board: REF2: http://www.viquimedia.cat/viqui/Junta (notice they present themselves, in domain and logo as "viquimedia " (localized spelling) and not as "Amical" (yet they haven't been approved as chaper) Now, these days a banner across wikis from the president of Amical (and appointed president of the non-yet-approved WM:CAT (REF3) Joan Gomà) is replacing Jimbo's in asking for donations REF3: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_Catalan/ca#Junta I see a conflict of interests. Amical people (including a board member) is promoting NOT to donate to Wikimedia and instead give to their association, while its president says otherwise. Notwhistanding the use of a WP userpage for propaganda (campaigning for money to a non WM organization), and giving my concern about the fundraising going slower I feel I need to point out this campaign so it is publicly known.
...................Now.. why would members of an association whose objective is to support Wikimedia would be torpedoing the fundraiser? Notice the diff dates (mid november). Here's the context: there's a nationalist conflict regarding Catalunya status in Spain (they want to separate). Not directly related, but influenced by this, there has been friction over the past months about the proposals of Wikimedia CAT and Wikimedia ES.
WM:CAT gets rejected REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002097.ht... (november 5)Quote:"Catalan Group has been rejected by the chapters committee. There is nosuch thing as Wikimedia Catala. Cheers, Delphine"
And then attacks on Delphine start REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002120.ht... (november 13) "Delphine, as always, boicoting the cooperation between Catalans and the rest of the world.Now it seems she is also against cooperation with iberoamerica." Notice "Marc Fontevila" is User:Mafoso (as signature shows)
AlsoREF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002181.ht... (nov 16)
Next day, the banners boycotting the fundraiser appear on the Amical supporter pages. (Nov 17)Notice the wording about lack of transparencyhttp://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullop&oldid=6331931
A few day latters, it's crosswiki posted a request on meta with biased wording about transparency againBut it's very soon found that the proposal is ***just another attempt to further the WMCAT agenda***disguised as "solving a general problem"http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Chapters._Proposal_to_gi... catalan sysops have yet spoken pro proposal. Wording was later changed and sections added to present things differently, but original wording can be seen onhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Chapters._P... you don't support, you're against transprency"
Basically, that's the context. I'm REALLY CONCERNED about this boycott for purely wikipolitics reasons. Given that Joan Goma is one of the few selected editors appearing on banners requesting donations, while at the same time the users on the association he's president of boycott Wikimedia for what seems a grudge, this has been up for several weeks, I think at least Amical as association (or Goma as president) should step forward and help clear things. It's not acceptable an association who claims to support Wikimedia is boycotting it. Sorry Jimbo, but as they say on their campaing: they have to thing first to themselves http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&ie=UTF-8&sl...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Ernesto García wbibliotecario@yahoo.com wrote:
Seeing http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics I'm quite worried about the onlook.. choosing "year to date" tab shows a definite deacceleration (and we still need about 4x the current cumulative amount).
<snip>
The target for fiscal 2010-11 is $20.4 M in total revenue, but only $13.5 M in individual donations under $10k. Most such donations (80-90%) come in via the annual fundraiser. By extension, the target for the fundraiser itself should be about $12 M.
We've raised $6.7 M so far, which would be 55% of $12 M. At this point, we are about 40% of the way through the fundraiser.
The slowing donation rate over the last several days is a natural result of donor fatigue and a sign of a campaign starting to grow stale. Simple projections accounting for the declining donation rate would put us around $10.5M at the end, and hence somewhat shy of $12M. However, experience suggests that variations in the appeal can often boost the donation rate even late in a campaign. So, while we will have to push a bit to meet the targets, I would say it is still entirely plausible to do so and there is no need to panic.
-Robert Rohde
One of the problems is probably the rhythm of the fundraiser. Jimbo stepped in as he would normally do several weeks later. One would till then see the bar running up to the number WMF was trying to reach - and may be decide to actually make WMF reach its target. The present campaign is extremely personalised and it has cancelled the "what we need / and what we have" question. The reactions on the present campaign are as personal reaching from satire to the odd individual (as now seen) trying to bring his own person into the game. Olaf
I believe that the plan is to bring in the "thermometer" showing how close we are to our target in the later stages of the fundraiser. As you say, hopefully that will boost donations again.
At the moment we seem to be doing fine. The personal appeal has proved itself extremely powerful, I think the only reason the Jimbo appeal came so late last year was that no one realised just how effective it could be. It's only natural that response will decrease over time, so that's why there are a variety of messages being trialled to keep up interest.
Pete / the wub
On 7 December 2010 15:00, Olaf Simons olaf.simons@pierre-marteau.com wrote:
One of the problems is probably the rhythm of the fundraiser. Jimbo stepped in as he would normally do several weeks later. One would till then see the bar running up to the number WMF was trying to reach - and may be decide to actually make WMF reach its target.
The present campaign is extremely personalised and it has cancelled the "what we need / and what we have" question. The reactions on the present campaign are as personal reaching from satire to the odd individual (as now seen) trying to bring his own person into the game.
Olaf
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
After all, a person probably isn't going to donate ten times just because ten different people appealed for funds.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
I believe that the plan is to bring in the "thermometer" showing how close we are to our target in the later stages of the fundraiser. As you say, hopefully that will boost donations again.
At the moment we seem to be doing fine. The personal appeal has proved itself extremely powerful, I think the only reason the Jimbo appeal came so late last year was that no one realised just how effective it could be. It's only natural that response will decrease over time, so that's why there are a variety of messages being trialled to keep up interest.
Pete / the wub
On 7 December 2010 15:00, Olaf Simons olaf.simons@pierre-marteau.com wrote:
One of the problems is probably the rhythm of the fundraiser. Jimbo
stepped in
as he would normally do several weeks later. One would till then see the
bar
running up to the number WMF was trying to reach - and may be decide to
actually
make WMF reach its target.
The present campaign is extremely personalised and it has cancelled the
"what we
need / and what we have" question. The reactions on the present campaign
are as
personal reaching from satire to the odd individual (as now seen) trying
to
bring his own person into the game.
Olaf
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Seriously...just get rid of it - it's pure spam.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Arlen Beiler arlenbee@gmail.com wrote:
After all, a person probably isn't going to donate ten times just because ten different people appealed for funds.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Coombe <thewub.wiki@googlemail.com
wrote:
I believe that the plan is to bring in the "thermometer" showing how close we are to our target in the later stages of the fundraiser. As you say, hopefully that will boost donations again.
At the moment we seem to be doing fine. The personal appeal has proved itself extremely powerful, I think the only reason the Jimbo appeal came so late last year was that no one realised just how effective it could be. It's only natural that response will decrease over time, so that's why there are a variety of messages being trialled to keep up interest.
Pete / the wub
On 7 December 2010 15:00, Olaf Simons olaf.simons@pierre-marteau.com wrote:
One of the problems is probably the rhythm of the fundraiser. Jimbo
stepped in
as he would normally do several weeks later. One would till then see
the
bar
running up to the number WMF was trying to reach - and may be decide to
actually
make WMF reach its target.
The present campaign is extremely personalised and it has cancelled the
"what we
need / and what we have" question. The reactions on the present
campaign
are as
personal reaching from satire to the odd individual (as now seen)
trying
to
bring his own person into the game.
Olaf
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org