This is not the first time this conflict appears, but this is the worst
outcome ever so far. In all the years I have been asking for an explanation
why it is not possible to move it, or why it is urgently to do it in
September, nothing reasonable has been provided for that. Nothing in all
those years.
If a fundraising banner has a big negative influence on a project, I think
it is time to have the community involved and have them speak out what they
think about the situation. As FR only speaks to a few people, they seem to
have the impression that they can freely decide without taking the
community in account. I think it will be time to have the community speak
out what they think in a request for comment/voting or something on Meta.
Anyone an idea or the experience how to set such up?
Romaine
2015-08-20 13:26 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg <mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com>om>:
Which is Fundraising's point? I haven't seen
anything here about why WMF so
urgently needs to request Italian donations in September.
Am 20.08.2015 07:27 schrieb "Risker" <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>om>:
I can understand the frustration that members of
WMIT are expressing
here,
but I also see Fundraising's point. I wonder
if there are not some other
options that could be considered. For example, instead of a banner,
perhaps a big bright button on the sidebar that says "Upload images for
Wiki Loves Monuments here!" may be technically feasible. It's not quite
the equivalent of a banner, but it does address the wayfinding issue at
least. (I think that's possibly the biggest downside of not having the
WLM
banners in rotation.)
Let's give ourselves permission to think outside the box a bit here; both
of these activities are valuable and important to our movement, each of
them have different but viable reasons for wanting to proceed during that
specific period. There are a lot of smart people reading this mailing
list.
I'd like to think between the several-hundred
of us we might be able to
come up with a solution that works to accommodate both groups.
Risker/Anne
On 20 August 2015 at 01:19, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Andrew is right. Navigation is a very important focus point of
> organising every Wiki Loves Monuments.
>
> The complexity of the navigation is that MediaWiki and the whole group
of
> Wikimedia wikis is not designed for
navigation, but designed for
showing
content.
In the past eight years small improvements have been made in
this
field, but in general speaking it is still not
easy to navigate for the
majority of the people.
Romaine
2015-08-19 20:45 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>om>:
I think Andrew is right: the WLM banner serves as
a pointer, and it's
very
> easy to remember "go on Wikipedia and click into the banner on the
top".
> It's much more difficult to remember the
strange name of the contest
(in
> > Italy it's still called "Wiki Loves Monuments", even if it's
English).
>
> And of course we do not have good analytics for the banner: nobody
knows
> > homw many page views there are in a single wiki per day, so we cannot
> count
> > the clickthroughs (which we have as the link is on a WLM landing
page).
>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Gray <
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 19 August 2015 at 14:26, Sam Klein <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu>
wrote:
> > > > There's a more general problem here we should fix:
> > > >
> > > > We already know that effectiveness of any single banner drops off
> > > > dramatically after the first few views. So there's rarely a
reason
> to
> > > run
> > > > a continuous banner -- certainly not if there are other banners
to
> run.
> > >
> > > I think we should be cautious about using our fundraising
experience
> >
to predict the efficiency of 'delayed call-to-action' banners like
WLM
> > - to my mind they seem to function in
quite different roles.
> >
> > The fundraising banner is calling for an immediate action. You see
it,
> > > and you either donate or you don't. If you decide not to donate,
you
> > > probably won't decide to
donate on seeing it tomorrow, either;
while
> >
if you have donated, you're probably not going to donate again. So
the
> > > banner being repeated doesn't gain us much, and it has
progressively
> > > less value on the third, fourth,
fifth appearances. There are
> > > relatively few people who see a fundraising banner and decide
"I'll
> > > sleep on it", then come back tomorrow and donate. And if they *do*,
> > > well - there's a donate link on every page, once they're looking
for
> > > it.
> > >
> > > However, WLM is calling for a delayed action - "go off, do
something,
> >
and come back again to tell us about it".
> >
> > The most desired outcome is probably that a previously uninvolved
> > person will see it, click through, think "that sounds fun", and go
off
> > > to take some photos - after all, it's running all month, they can
do
> >
it at the weekend. A few days later they come back, and want to
upload
> > their photos... but if the banner's
not there on Wikipedia, they
won't
> > > really know where to go. They might not remember the name ("Wiki
> > > something?"), making it hard to search for the contest, and they
> > > probably didn't bookmark the WLM pages. There isn't anything else
on
> > > the page that would help to take
them there, and if they're not
> > > involved in the projects already they probably won't know where the
> > > information's likely to be. If we can't make sure they can find
WLM
> > > easily when they return, then we've wasted the original call to
> > > action, we've wasted the potential contributions, *and*, most
> > > importantly, we've wasted their time and goodwill.
> > >
> > > I think this difference in intended response styles makes it hard
to
> > > generalise from the
"diminishing returns" experienced on
fundraising.
> > > Yes, a repeated banner will get
progressively diminishing
> > > clickthroughs. But with WLM, those second clickthroughs in some
ways
> >
provide the "value" to the first clickthrough - they need to return
to
> > make the campaign a success, which
isn't really a concern for
> > fundraising. We need to make sure that that channel is open and
> > visible in some way when they come back.
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>