Q1 Fundraising Update

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Please upload Wikiconference USA...

[Wikimedia Announcements]...

Megan Hernandez

9 Oct 2015 9 Oct '15

10:58 p.m.

Hi all, There's a new Q1 fundraising update on meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#2015-2016_Q1_Update> and posted here as well. The Wikimedia Foundation has just wrapped up the first quarter of the 2015-16 fiscal year. Over these past three months, the fundraising team has been running ran campaigns in Japan, Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa, Belgium and Luxembourg and prepared for the upcoming year-end English fundraising campaign. The online fundraising team missed the $6 million goal for the quarter due to postponing the Italy fundraiser to October to support the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. We raised roughly $5.7 million in the first quarter of the year and plan to make up for the loss in the next quarter. The 2014-15 fiscal year fundraising report <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2014-2015_Fundraising_Report> was also posted in this quarter. If you haven’t read it yet, please do check out the report for a wealth of information on the last fiscal year. The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand new banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the fundraising message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best- performing banner from last quarter. Better performing banners are required to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing new banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go. The banner message has also been updated with suggestions from the Wikimedia community. Thank you to everyone who has suggested improvements so far! We have changed “We survive on donations averaging about $15” to “We are sustained by donations averaging about $15.” We’ve also changed “Please help us end the fundraiser and get back to improving Wikipedia” to “Please help us end the fundraiser and improve Wikipedia.” These message edits did not positively or negatively affect donations and were made in response to community feedback. In the past, we have also relied on community feedback to improve our campaigns. In the last year, community feedback has led to improvements to the usability of the close X icon and a new line to highlight the editing community, “Wikipedia is written by a community of volunteers with a passion for sharing the world’s knowledge.” All of these community suggestions remain in the banner. Another sentence that was briefly tested on a small percentage of users about a year ago that received negative community feedback was “If everyone reading this gave $3, we could keep it online and ad-free another year.” We did not end up using that sentence for the campaign and we commit to not using it in any future campaign. In the next quarter, we are planning many more message tests -- with both brand new ideas as well as smaller tweaks to the existing text. If you have an idea to test, please share on the 2015-16 test ideas page <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas>. Thanks again to everyone who has shared ideas so far. This upcoming quarter will be our biggest of the year with campaigns in Italy, France, the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. The team is focused on providing the best donation invitation and experience possible to readers. We will be sharing plenty of more information about the upcoming campaigns over the next couple of months. Thank you for your support! -- Megan Hernandez Director of Online Fundraising Wikimedia Foundation

Show replies by date

Leila Zia

9 Oct 9 Oct

11:56 p.m.

Hi Megan, Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during Q1. My comments below. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand new banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the fundraising message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best- performing banner from last quarter.

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. :-\

...

Better performing banners are required to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing new banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.

I've said this couple of times in the past through different channels (sorry to those of you who have heard this before) but I think it's key to repeat it here just so we are all clear about what we know and what we don't know. We know that our pageviews are not growing globally (depending on how you look at the trend and predictions, they are going down with a slow slope or are almost flat, neither case is good.). We also know that a higher budget means more work for Furndraising to meet the budget. We do not know the relation between the decline in pageviews and our ability to raise money, we do not have research evidence for the above statement given the data we have, so I highly encourage all of us not to repeat this statement (even though it sounds very intuitive) until we show such evidence because the more we say it, the more we believe it. Ellery explains what we know and don't know about this specific topic when I ask him a question about this in Metrics Meeting in April 2015. That discussion is recorded starting minute 37, second 38 here <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/WMF_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting_April_8%2C_2015.ogv> . Best, Leila 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:Sept2015BannerEx.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. I said the story above, but I also want to say that I understand the pressure on you. I've said it here <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas#Banner_test_ideas> (and btw, huge thanks for being open to suggestions :-), and I'm saying it here as well: I'm happy to help us to fix such an experience for our users. Please let me know if you're open to test new designs. I'm more than happy to help you for some time for us to bring in more designers and community members into this conversation. I'm sure we can do this.

...

-- Megan Hernandez Director of Online Fundraising Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ 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>

Pete Forsyth

10 Oct 10 Oct

12:58 a.m.

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? Apparently, the thinking thus far is, "yes." -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hi Megan, Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during Q1. My comments below. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Better performing banners are required to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing

new

banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.

. Best, Leila 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:Sept2015BannerEx.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. I said the story above, but I also want to say that I understand the pressure on you. I've said it here < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas#Banne…

(and btw, huge thanks for being open to suggestions :-), and I'm saying it here as well: I'm happy to help us to fix such an experience for our users. Please let me know if you're open to test new designs. I'm more than happy to help you for some time for us to bring in more designers and community members into this conversation. I'm sure we can do this.

> --

> Megan Hernandez

> Director of Online Fundraising > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > 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>

Pete Forsyth

1:09 a.m.

I want to be clear about my previous message -- I am not questioning any individual person's integrity in the process, and I know from firsthand experience that a tremendous amount of good work goes into this stuff. But I think the process that has evolved around developing the campaign is broken. In Megan's message, I see a great deal of emphasis on the specific points that are attributable to community suggestions/requests. But there is a bigger point that gets lost: It's not about where the ideas come from, it's about whether the final result "gets it right." If the WMF produced mission-compatible banners without any community consultation at all, I'd be happy, and I think most others would be too. Running an open process is not the right way to measure success here. An open process is one of many ways to surface problems, and maybe to generate ideas; but it's not the be-all end-all. The fund-raising department is clearly held accountable on its easily-measured performance. It needs to also be held accountable to the mission. How to do that is a difficult design and management problem, and I don't pretend to have the perfect answer. But it's something that needs to be done. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi Megan, Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during Q1. My comments below. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org

wrote:

Better performing banners are required to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing

new > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.

> --

> Megan Hernandez

> Director of Online Fundraising > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > 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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Toby Negrin

6:43 p.m.

Hi Folks -- I would suggest that if you are unhappy with the banners you apply your energy to the annual planning process[1]. As long as the budget goes up 20% year over year and page views fall, the Fundraising team will need to crank up the banners. It's worth pointing out that Fundraising is one of the strongest voices for fiscal restraint at the Foundation. -Toby [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:09 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? Apparently, the thinking thus far is, "yes." -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi Megan, > > Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during > Q1. > My comments below. > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <

mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org

> > > wrote: > > > > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand

new

> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and > > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the

fundraising

> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the > > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best- > > performing banner from last quarter. > > > 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. :-\ > > > > Better performing banners are required > > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue

testing

> new > > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go. > > > > I've said this couple of times in the past through different channels > (sorry to those of you who have heard this before) but I think it's key

> repeat it here just so we are all clear about what we know and what we > don't know. > > We know that our pageviews are not growing globally (depending on how

you

> look at the trend and predictions, they are going down with a slow slope > or > are almost flat, neither case is good.). > > We also know that a higher budget means more work for Furndraising to

meet

> the budget. > > We do not know the relation between the decline in pageviews and our > ability to raise money, we do not have research evidence for the above > statement given the data we have, so I highly encourage all of us not to > repeat this statement (even though it sounds very intuitive) until we

show

> such evidence because the more we say it, the more we believe it. Ellery > explains what we know and don't know about this specific topic when I

ask

> him a question about this in Metrics Meeting in April 2015. That > discussion > is recorded starting minute 37, second 38 here > < >

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/WMF_Monthly_Metrics_Mee…

> > > . > > Best, > Leila > > 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:Sept2015BannerEx.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,

> 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. > > I said the story above, but I also want to say that I understand the > pressure on you. I've said it here > < >

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas#Banne…

> > > (and btw, huge thanks for being open to suggestions :-), and I'm saying

> here as well: I'm happy to help us to fix such an experience for our > users. > Please let me know if you're open to test new designs. I'm more than

happy

> to help you for some time for us to bring in more designers and

community

> members into this conversation. I'm sure we can do this. > > > > > -- > > > > Megan Hernandez > > > > Director of Online Fundraising > > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > <

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Leila Zia

9:34 p.m.

Hi Toby, On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Toby Negrin <tnegrin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

There are few things to address related to your suggestion: 1) Some banners involve messages that can clearly invoke potential donors to donate for a reason they think they are donating for, but in reality that reason is not completely valid. Those messages really should not be shown, whether they are for meeting a budget need or any other reason. Every person in the movement should agree on this simple statement and support the Fundraising team for not showing those messages. 2) Banners are our most outward facing signals, especially when they involve requests for donations. What goes to the banner is the face of the Movement, not the Foundation (because we know many people don't know what is the difference between Wikipedia, for example, and the source who is asking for donation), so it's essential for our many volunteers to get behind its message. Some things are the matter of taste and we can never make everyone happy with, some things are more generally understood as problematic: we need to address those. 3) The argument here is not that the Fundraising team should not crank up, of course if they are asked to deliver more they should do something differently. The issue is about the content of the messages and what they deliver. If the Fundraising techniques with all the correct messages the Movement can get behind don't deliver as much as the budget requires, then the Movement should brainstorm about what to do. That conversation can involve budget cuts, new approaches for raising more money, showing ads, etc. My point is, we should make this decision together so we can all support it. Raising money is not the Foundation's problem only, it's the Movement's problem, and we need to solve it together. 4) The Fundraising team needs to get the budget they need to operate in a way that is healthy for them and the movement. If they don't, all of us in the Foundation should help them get the resources they need, if that means some of us giving 10% of our time to the team, so be it. I'm happy to offer that time if I see we, as a whole, are willing to make a difference, but I would advocate for the team getting what they need in the first place without extra help because it's a critical team. 5) The Fundraising team has been very receptive to my comments (both on the meta page and offline) and I will talk to them offline some time next week as well. I'm going to slow down a bit on this thread after couple of more emails. :-) Best, Leila

...

-Toby [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

But

I think the process that has evolved around developing the campaign is broken. In Megan's message, I see a great deal of emphasis on the specific points that are attributable to community suggestions/requests. But there is a bigger point that gets lost: It's not about where the ideas come from,

it's

about whether the final result "gets it right." If the WMF produced mission-compatible banners without any community consultation at all, I'd be happy, and I think most others would be too. Running an open process is not the right way to measure success here. An open process is one of many ways to surface problems, and maybe to

generate

ideas; but it's not the be-all end-all. The fund-raising department is clearly held accountable on its easily-measured performance. It needs to also be held accountable to the mission. How to do that is a difficult design and management problem,

and I

don't pretend to have the perfect answer. But it's something that needs

be done. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:58 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

> 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? > > Apparently, the thinking thus far is, "yes." > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Hi Megan, >> >> Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done

during

> Q1. > My comments below. > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <

mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org

> > > wrote: > > > > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand

new >> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons,

and

> > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the

fundraising >> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended

the

>> > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the

best-

>> > performing banner from last quarter. >> >> >> 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. :-\ > > > > Better performing banners are required > > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue

testing >> new >> > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go. >> > >> >> I've said this couple of times in the past through different channels >> (sorry to those of you who have heard this before) but I think it's

key

> repeat it here just so we are all clear about what we know and what we > don't know. > > We know that our pageviews are not growing globally (depending on how

you >> look at the trend and predictions, they are going down with a slow

slope

> or > are almost flat, neither case is good.). > > We also know that a higher budget means more work for Furndraising to

meet >> the budget. >> >> We do not know the relation between the decline in pageviews and our >> ability to raise money, we do not have research evidence for the above >> statement given the data we have, so I highly encourage all of us not

> repeat this statement (even though it sounds very intuitive) until we

show >> such evidence because the more we say it, the more we believe it.

Ellery

> explains what we know and don't know about this specific topic when I

ask

> him a question about this in Metrics Meeting in April 2015. That > discussion > is recorded starting minute 37, second 38 here > < >

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/WMF_Monthly_Metrics_Mee…

>> > >> . >> >> Best, >> Leila >> >> p.s. Here is the story: >> I open my laptop at 5:30am to check few definitions on Wikipedia for

>> upcoming early morning meeting. The room is dark and the only source

> light is my laptop, I go to Wikipedia and I see that banner > < >

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#/media/File:Sept2015BannerEx.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

(red, >> orange, yellow, and the semi shape of a flame), then I think someone

> 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,

> 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. > > I said the story above, but I also want to say that I understand the > pressure on you. I've said it here > < >

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas#Banne…

>> > >> (and btw, huge thanks for being open to suggestions :-), and I'm

saying

> here as well: I'm happy to help us to fix such an experience for our > users. > Please let me know if you're open to test new designs. I'm more than

happy

> to help you for some time for us to bring in more designers and

community >> members into this conversation. I'm sure we can do this. >> >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Megan Hernandez >> > >> > Director of Online Fundraising >> > Wikimedia Foundation >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > <

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…

> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pine W

11 Oct 11 Oct

1:23 a.m.

Hi Toby, I asked several questions about this year's Annual Plan, only some of which received responses even after multiple pings from me, so I regret to say that I get the impression that community questions and input on the annual plan may be brushed aside. I wish that the situation was different. It seems to me that responding to good-faith community inquiries and comments about the Annual Plan should be a high priority throughout WMF. I would be grateful to receive answers to my questions that are still awaiting replies. Pine On Oct 10, 2015 12:43 PM, "Toby Negrin" <tnegrin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

But

it's

generate

and I

don't pretend to have the perfect answer. But it's something that needs

be done. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:58 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

> 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

"mortified."

> She had considered asking for her money back, but had decided against

it.

> > Fortunately, she was sophisticated enough not apply her negative

feelings

during

> Q1. > My comments below. > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <

mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org

> > > wrote: > > > > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand

new >> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons,

and

> > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the

fundraising >> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended

the

>> > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the

best-

>> > performing banner from last quarter. >> >> >> 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. :-\ > > > > Better performing banners are required > > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue

key

> repeat it here just so we are all clear about what we know and what we > don't know. > > We know that our pageviews are not growing globally (depending on how

you >> look at the trend and predictions, they are going down with a slow

slope

> or > are almost flat, neither case is good.). > > We also know that a higher budget means more work for Furndraising to

> repeat this statement (even though it sounds very intuitive) until we

show >> such evidence because the more we say it, the more we believe it.

Ellery

> explains what we know and don't know about this specific topic when I

ask

> him a question about this in Metrics Meeting in April 2015. That > discussion > is recorded starting minute 37, second 38 here > < >

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/WMF_Monthly_Metrics_Mee…

>> > >> . >> >> Best, >> Leila >> >> p.s. Here is the story: >> I open my laptop at 5:30am to check few definitions on Wikipedia for

>> upcoming early morning meeting. The room is dark and the only source

> light is my laptop, I go to Wikipedia and I see that banner > < >

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#/media/File:Sept2015BannerEx.png

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

(red, >> orange, yellow, and the semi shape of a flame), then I think someone

> 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,

> 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. > > I said the story above, but I also want to say that I understand the > pressure on you. I've said it here > < >

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas#Banne…

>> > >> (and btw, huge thanks for being open to suggestions :-), and I'm

saying

> here as well: I'm happy to help us to fix such an experience for our > users. > Please let me know if you're open to test new designs. I'm more than

happy

> to help you for some time for us to bring in more designers and

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 > <

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…

> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Mathias Damour

6:32 p.m.

Le 10/10/2015 18:43, Toby Negrin a écrit :

...

For sure. Thus we may question why the budget should go up 20% year over year. The 2015-2016 Annual Plan doesn't really justify it. How long do they plan to keep this growth? What is the limits to this growth if the fundraising team is just supposed to meet the targets it is given ? Will the limit be by choice of the WMF or one day failing to meet theses targets, despite more and more insistent banners? What about capping the WMF growth just as the chapters funding was capped? What about degrowth? Would it be impossible for the WMF to fulfil its mission with the budget it had, say, 3 years ago?

...

It's worth pointing out that Fundraising is one of the strongest voices for fiscal restraint at the Foundation. -Toby [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I want to be clear about my previous message -- I am not questioning any > individual person's integrity in the process, and I know from firsthand > experience that a tremendous amount of good work goes into this stuff. But > I think the process that has evolved around developing the campaign is > broken. > > In Megan's message, I see a great deal of emphasis on the specific points > that are attributable to community suggestions/requests. But there is a > bigger point that gets lost: It's not about where the ideas come from, it's > about whether the final result "gets it right." > > If the WMF produced mission-compatible banners without any community > consultation at all, I'd be happy, and I think most others would be too. > Running an open process is not the right way to measure success here. An > open process is one of many ways to surface problems, and maybe to generate > ideas; but it's not the be-all end-all. > > The fund-raising department is clearly held accountable on its > easily-measured performance. It needs to also be held accountable to the > mission. How to do that is a difficult design and management problem, and I > don't pretend to have the perfect answer. But it's something that needs to > be done. > > Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]]

-- Mathias Damour [[User:Astirmays]]

Samuel Klein

1:06 a.m.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during Q1. My comments below.

Thanks likewise, Megan. I'm always impressed by your team's work.

...

Better performing banners are required to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing

new

banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.

I think a more pressing response to this is to reduce the budget to get some breathing room, increase work through partnerships (which Wikimedia doesn't have to fund entirely on its own), and increase non-banner revenue streams. It's also key to improve banner effectiveness. How nice it would be to have a composite that combines measures of the favorability of the banner among readers (most of whom don't donate anyway), mood setting & meme propagation, and the reduction in usability of the site (which may have an effect over months), against the immediate fundraising impact. A banner that is 5% better with improved favorability among readers may be better than a banner that is 20% better but with double the unfavorability. There are thousands of worthy projects that have expanded their budgets as far as they could, then expand in-your-face banners as far as they can, and only stop once their sites are quite difficult to use. It happens gradually (I'm looking at you, Wikia ;) but the result is the usability equivalent of linkrot. Let's not let WP end up like that. Sam

Andreas Kolbe

14 Oct 14 Oct

7:01 p.m.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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:Sept2015BannerEx.png

Peter Southwood

15 Oct 15 Oct

12:37 p.m.

+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:

...

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Erik Zachte

3:13 p.m.

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:

...

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

_______________________________________________ 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>

Liam Wyatt

10 Oct 10 Oct

1:47 a.m.

On 9 October 2015 at 22:58, Megan Hernandez <mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

All of these community suggestions remain in the banner. Another sentence that was briefly tested on a small percentage of users about a year ago that received negative community feedback was “If everyone reading this gave $3, we could keep it online and ad-free another year.” We did not end up using that sentence for the campaign and we commit to not using it in any future campaign. In the next quarter, we are planning many more message tests -- with both brand new ideas as well as smaller tweaks to the existing text. If you have an idea to test, please share on the 2015-16 test ideas page <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas>. Thanks again to everyone who has shared ideas so far.

For what it's worth, as the person who's made by far the most edits to that page and as one of the people responsible for some of that 'negative community feedback', I'd like to say thanks to the fundraising team for being very responsive to all the feedback that has been given. This is doubly so because the fundraising department doesn't have a dedicated 'community liaison' staff role, meaning that the responsibility for reading, triaging, enacting those suggestions is spread across the team. Not all of the suggestions have been put in place, some have - as mentioned in Megan's email, but they have all been responded to in good faith. So... thanks :-) -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata

Lodewijk

3:20 p.m.

Hi Megan, Thanks for sharing the update. I'm a little confused though, so I hope you (or someone else) can clarify something for me: what does a campaign look like these days? Because I'm seeing banners all year round (I live in the Netherlands, maybe that makes a difference), every now and then. But I also understood that the campaigns nowadays are more sophisticated, and don't show the banner 100% any longer, but only once per IP/computer/person? Is the difference only the intensity of the banner? Or is there also a media campaign involved? Thanks, Lodewijk On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Leila Zia

9:41 p.m.

Hi Lodewijk, On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:

...

I'm a little confused though, so I hope you (or someone else) can clarify something for me: what does a campaign look like these days? Because I'm seeing banners all year round (I live in the Netherlands, maybe that makes a difference), every now and then. But I also understood that the campaigns nowadays are more sophisticated, and don't show the banner 100% any longer, but only once per IP/computer/person?

The Fundraising team can better address this but since we're in a long weekend, I'll say as much as I know: There are different kinds of campaigns, ones that go constantly in a country for a period of time, those that go on for a sample of the traffic in a country for a specific period of time. The team is trying to spread the effort across the year so all our eggs are not in one basket which is December. :-) In terms of frequency, I think the team experiments with different banner frequencies. We know that if you see the banner more than 5 times, banner fatigue will take over. So, I think we are mostly testing with showing banners less than 5 times. For the December campaign in the US last year, if I remember correctly, you would see it once big, and then after that as a little bar on top of the page until you would close it or donate. Leila

...

Thanks, Lodewijk On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <mhernandez(a)wikimedia.org

wrote: > Hi all,

> There's a new Q1 fundraising update on meta > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#2015-2016_Q1_Update> and > posted here as well.

> The Wikimedia Foundation has just wrapped up the first quarter of the > 2015-16 fiscal year. Over these past three months, the fundraising team has > been running ran campaigns in Japan, Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa, > Belgium and Luxembourg and prepared for the upcoming year-end English > fundraising campaign. The online fundraising team missed the $6 million > goal for the quarter due to postponing the Italy fundraiser to October to > support the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. We raised roughly $5.7 million > in the first quarter of the year and plan to make up for the loss in the > next quarter. The 2014-15 fiscal year fundraising report > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2014-2015_Fundraising_Report> was > also posted in this quarter. If you haven’t read it yet, please do check > out the report for a wealth of information on the last fiscal year.

> The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand new > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the fundraising > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best- > performing banner from last quarter. Better performing banners are required

to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing

new > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.

> The banner message has also been updated with suggestions from the > Wikimedia community. Thank you to everyone who has suggested improvements > so far! We have changed “We survive on donations averaging about $15” to > “We are sustained by donations averaging about $15.” We’ve also changed > “Please help us end the fundraiser and get back to improving Wikipedia” to

“Please help us end the fundraiser and improve Wikipedia.” These message edits did not positively or negatively affect donations and were made in response to community feedback. In the past, we have also relied on community feedback to improve our campaigns. In the last year, community feedback has led to improvements to the usability of the close X icon

and a

new line to highlight the editing community, “Wikipedia is written by a community of volunteers with a passion for sharing the world’s

knowledge.”

end

up using that sentence for the campaign and we commit to not using it in any future campaign. In the next quarter, we are planning many more

message > tests -- with both brand new ideas as well as smaller tweaks to the > existing text. If you have an idea to test, please share on the 2015-16 > test ideas page > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas>. > Thanks again to everyone who has shared ideas so far.

> This upcoming quarter will be our biggest of the year with campaigns in > Italy, France, the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. The > team is focused on providing the best donation invitation and experience > possible to readers. We will be sharing plenty of more information about > the upcoming campaigns over the next couple of months. Thank you for your > support!

> --

> Megan Hernandez

3116

days inactive

3122

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

14 comments

12 participants

tags (0)

participants (12)

Andreas Kolbe
Erik Zachte
Leila Zia
Liam Wyatt
Lodewijk
Mathias Damour
Megan Hernandez
Pete Forsyth
Peter Southwood
Pine W
Samuel Klein
Toby Negrin