My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it strange the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get the wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's highly antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using the mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to scroll down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to be much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it strange the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get the wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's highly antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an endowment fund.
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is about to vanish.
Thanks, Fae
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose jacob.jose@gmail.com wrote:
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using the mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to scroll down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to be much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it strange the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get the wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's highly antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently * A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok) * A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once before) * A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP went down during finals)
All worried either that there had bee some sudden change, or that knowledge or access would be lost in the near future. Perhaps there's a way to reach the same people while highlighting our commitment to persistent access to knowledge across time. And maybe a way to measure interpretation or reaction to a banner in addition to its conversion rate. [Some banners are so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without; and I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low probability, continuously year-round.]
Wikilove, SJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an endowment fund.
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is about to vanish.
Thanks, Fae
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose jacob.jose@gmail.com wrote:
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using the mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to scroll down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to be much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it
strange
the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get
the
wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's
highly
antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I've sent in multiple emails about this issue already, the last one about a week ago. I was given a response within a few hours; a boilerplate explaining why one might be seeing banners after they had donated, and explaining my options on how to hide them.
I had not donated, and I did not mention that at all in my email. It was feedback (more of a complaint) about the style of the campaign. I'm quite disappointed that my email was evidently not read at all and simply replied to with some generic boilerplate.
And I have to agree with everyone else here. I have an immensely strong dislike of this campaign.
Regards, Vermont
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:58 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently
- A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok)
- A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once before)
- A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP went
down during finals)
All worried either that there had bee some sudden change, or that knowledge or access would be lost in the near future. Perhaps there's a way to reach the same people while highlighting our commitment to persistent access to knowledge across time. And maybe a way to measure interpretation or reaction to a banner in addition to its conversion rate. [Some banners are so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without; and I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low probability, continuously year-round.]
Wikilove, SJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an endowment fund.
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is about to vanish.
Thanks, Fae
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose jacob.jose@gmail.com wrote:
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using the mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to
scroll
down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to
be
much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years
now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it
strange
the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like
they
might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get
the
wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's
highly
antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better, that things have been tested, etc.
The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff *works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere. Just like last year and the year before.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, 22:58 Samuel Klein, meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently
- A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok)
- A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once before)
- A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP went
down during finals)
All worried either that there had bee some sudden change, or that knowledge or access would be lost in the near future. Perhaps there's a way to reach the same people while highlighting our commitment to persistent access to knowledge across time. And maybe a way to measure interpretation or reaction to a banner in addition to its conversion rate. [Some banners are so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without; and I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low probability, continuously year-round.]
Wikilove, SJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an endowment fund.
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is about to vanish.
Thanks, Fae
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose jacob.jose@gmail.com wrote:
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using the mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to
scroll
down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to
be
much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years
now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it
strange
the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like
they
might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get
the
wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's
highly
antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think the current messages are quite good and clear, the ones I've seen get better each year. I don't find the messaging alarmist or misleading. But perhaps subtle cues can change how they are perceived.
[I also don't usually get this feedback from people outside our community (last: in 2012), so it might just be random walks through feedback space.]
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:30 PM Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better, that things have been tested, etc.
The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff *works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere. Just like last year and the year before.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, 22:58 Samuel Klein, meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently
- A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok)
- A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once before)
- A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP went
down during finals)
All worried either that there had bee some sudden change, or that
knowledge
or access would be lost in the near future. Perhaps there's a way to
reach
the same people while highlighting our commitment to persistent access to knowledge across time. And maybe a way to measure interpretation or reaction to a banner in addition to its conversion rate. [Some banners
are
so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without; and I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low
probability,
continuously year-round.]
Wikilove, SJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an endowment fund.
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is about to vanish.
Thanks, Fae
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose jacob.jose@gmail.com wrote:
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using
the
mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to
scroll
down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to
be
much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years
now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it
strange
the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like
they
might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to
get
the
wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's
highly
antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yeah, I've been getting this feedback each year for at least the past years too. I am pretty sure that most of the people who were alarmed and told me, did not thoroughly read the message, but mostly picked up on cues. It may be that I have more of such people in my circle of acquaintances than you :)
Lodewijk
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:44 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I think the current messages are quite good and clear, the ones I've seen get better each year. I don't find the messaging alarmist or misleading. But perhaps subtle cues can change how they are perceived.
[I also don't usually get this feedback from people outside our community (last: in 2012), so it might just be random walks through feedback space.]
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:30 PM Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better,
that
things have been tested, etc.
The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff *works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere. Just like last year and the year before.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, 22:58 Samuel Klein, meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently
- A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok)
- A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once
before)
- A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP
went
down during finals)
All worried either that there had bee some sudden change, or that
knowledge
or access would be lost in the near future. Perhaps there's a way to
reach
the same people while highlighting our commitment to persistent access
to
knowledge across time. And maybe a way to measure interpretation or reaction to a banner in addition to its conversion rate. [Some banners
are
so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without;
and
I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low
probability,
continuously year-round.]
Wikilove, SJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an endowment fund.
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia
is
about to vanish.
Thanks, Fae
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose jacob.jose@gmail.com
wrote:
I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did.. If one is viewing using
the
mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to
scroll
down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need
to
be
much less loud than it's now..
Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10
years
now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought
it
strange
the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like
they
might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to
get
the
wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think
it's
highly
antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Samuel Klein wrote:
[Some banners are so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without; and I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low probability, continuously year-round.]
Which banners are delightful? The ones I've seen this year take up two pages of scrolling on mobile. This isn't cute or endearing; as you and others note, it's alarming to many people.
As I imagine I've said previously, I think it's helpful to call this type of behavior what it is: spam or advertising. Calling it "fundraising" or speaking of "banners" makes it a lot easier to brush aside how intrusive and obnoxious this code is and the damaging impact it has.
Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is about to vanish.
Yes, absolutely. While there's often talk of "Wikimedia values", it's always been incredible to me to see the exact confines of those values from Wikimedia Foundation Inc. staff who are charged with bringing in money. For years, there have been complaints about this spam being borderline deceitful; in some cases the spam has been outright misleading or wrong. How does tricking people into thinking that Wikipedia will stop surviving if they don't give $5 an acceptable practice?
MZMcBride
I know the history of our content and I know the slip ups that have been made along the way but the team take this seriously. Our internal review processes have significantly improved over the years and for this fundraiser it's definitely been our most rigorous yet and I think it's proven to be pretty effective. The scale of the fundraiser means that things will slip through because there are human beings involved. But I promise you that the people I work with are holding themselves to a standard of honesty in our content. I and others wouldn't work here if that wasn't the case.
Seddon
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:05 AM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
[Some banners are so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without; and I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low probability, continuously year-round.]
Which banners are delightful? The ones I've seen this year take up two pages of scrolling on mobile. This isn't cute or endearing; as you and others note, it's alarming to many people.
As I imagine I've said previously, I think it's helpful to call this type of behavior what it is: spam or advertising. Calling it "fundraising" or speaking of "banners" makes it a lot easier to brush aside how intrusive and obnoxious this code is and the damaging impact it has.
Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is about to vanish.
Yes, absolutely. While there's often talk of "Wikimedia values", it's always been incredible to me to see the exact confines of those values from Wikimedia Foundation Inc. staff who are charged with bringing in money. For years, there have been complaints about this spam being borderline deceitful; in some cases the spam has been outright misleading or wrong. How does tricking people into thinking that Wikipedia will stop surviving if they don't give $5 an acceptable practice?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey Benjamin!
Just wanted to acknowledge your email and let you know I'll respond in full as soon as possible.
Many Thanks Seddon
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it strange the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get the wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's highly antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey Benjamin,
Your dad is right, in some regards. More than 85% of our revenue comes from the general public. It's how we've survived and has supported our growth over the last decade.
We have conducted surveys, focus groups and user testing over the years to get better insights into our readers and donors and have published results from some of our research surveys. [1][2] We definitely monitor feedback on social media for reader reactions to our fundraising but I don’t think we have specifically researched the question you raised about readers taking away the wrong impression. It's definitely something for us to consider for the future. It’s worth noting that readers arrive at our website with misconceptions. Until only very recently, half of our readers didn’t realise that Wikipedia was non-profit and a quarter of them thought we were funded by commercial advertising.
Our current messaging has moved on from previous years. There is definitely a sense of urgency in the fundraising message because there is urgency behind our work. We aren't saying that our sites are going to be taken down, and we avoid using that kind of messaging these days, but the movement has set itself some pretty significant goals for the next 10 years. If we are to be genuinely serious about achieving or making headway in those areas, we need the support of our readers. We are trying to get that urgency across without causing anxiety and it is certainly a challenge.
One thing to keep in mind is unlike websites like the Guardian, Wikipedia doesn’t fundraise year round in all countries. In our larger campaigns, other than “pre-campaign testing,” we generally fundraise for a total of 4 weeks in any one country each year. In just a few moments, we need to try and educate our readers efficiently and effectively about who we are and make a convincing pitch for their support.
Our messaging isn’t static and it is in a constant state of change. And our content doesn’t just change according to test results. Specifically it changes in response to feedback like yours and the others on this thread. When we hear from community members, donors or members of the public that something in our banners isn’t working or seems disingenuous, we take that feedback extremely seriously and it will help guide where we spend our efforts testing. In the last year in our desktop messaging, we removed lines such as “If Wikipedia became commercial, it would be a great loss to the world”. The reference to coffee has also, for the time being, been retired from the desktop large banner for the past 10 days. As recently as today, we’ve softened the intro to our desktop messaging in an attempt to reduce a perceived alarmist tone. A few weeks back, when we asked the community to choose a rewrite for the second half of our desktop large appeal, 40 people took part and we adopted the most popular variant.
Last year, we received important feedback on our mobile banners regarding their length. Whilst we made changes to the designs last year, it doesn’t mean that we have forgotten about that feedback. Throughout the last 3 weeks, we have run numerous tests focused on decreasing the length of the banner through design or messaging changes, and we’ve been able to shave off a further fraction from the banner even though there was a reduction in effectiveness.
Going forward, if community members want me to look into setting up regular office hours on IRC or Google Hangouts or some other venue we can do that. We’ve run it before and if the interest is there happy to do this again. If there other venues or methods you feel would work I’m open to ideas. Either way the fundraising team does listen to feedback and does act on that feedback. The team genuinely believes it's possible to reach our goals and make the community proud and I think we’ve come a long way over the years.
Thank you again for your questions and others for their feedback. Seddon
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fundraising_donor_research_findings.pdf [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/ef/Report.WikimediaJapan...
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it strange the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get the wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's highly antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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, 20 Dec 2019 at 19:24, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
... but the movement has set itself some pretty significant goals for the next 10 years.
Could you provide a link to where the movement, presumably not the report published in February 2018 that was written by the "Foundation’s staff and its consulting teams", has agreed and set the specific measurable goals to be met over the next 10 years that fundraising is aiming for?
Thanks in advance, Fae
Apologies if my response seemed to infer something I did not intend it to. I was referring to the strategic direction which provides high level goals for the movement as a whole developed by people from across the movement.
Measureable contributions in working towards those goals, comes down to the strategies of the various communities and organisations composing Wikimedia. In terms of the Wikimedia Foundation, the first phase of its strategic planning in working towards the direction is laid out within its medium term plan. Part of that includes funding the work of affiliates globally, all of whom will hopefully have their own strategies in working towards the 2030 direction.
Fundraisings role is to not aim for those goals but to generate the resources to support their delivery.
Regards Seddon
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:11 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 19:24, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
... but the movement has set itself some pretty significant goals for the next 10 years.
Could you provide a link to where the movement, presumably not the report published in February 2018 that was written by the "Foundation’s staff and its consulting teams", has agreed and set the specific measurable goals to be met over the next 10 years that fundraising is aiming for?
Thanks in advance, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org