Hey All--
There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-cli... Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.
Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.
As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.
Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.
On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.
-Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Rand Montoya rmontoya@wikimedia.orgwrote:
As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
I don't know - I think it would be interesting, at least on the English Wikipedia, to see some quotes in other languages. It would reinforce to the people who see quotes in Chinese or Russian that Wikimedia is an international project with broadly global goals.
Nathan
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Rand Montoya rmontoya@wikimedia.orgwrote:
The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in.
I don't know - I think it would be interesting, at least on the English Wikipedia, to see some quotes in other languages. It would reinforce to the people who see quotes in Chinese or Russian that Wikimedia is an international project with broadly global goals.
Normally I would agree with you. Last year, I was *all* for putting as many language quotes on the sitenotices as possible. However, if we are only going to have 6 quotes and they are going to be show-cased in such a large way (as opposed to a little line below the "people mover"), we should probably have them in the local language.
Casey Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Rand Montoya rmontoya@wikimedia.orgwrote:
The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in.
I don't know - I think it would be interesting, at least on the English Wikipedia, to see some quotes in other languages. It would reinforce to the people who see quotes in Chinese or Russian that Wikimedia is an international project with broadly global goals.
Normally I would agree with you. Last year, I was *all* for putting as many language quotes on the sitenotices as possible. However, if we are only going to have 6 quotes and they are going to be show-cased in such a large way (as opposed to a little line below the "people mover"), we should probably have them in the local language.
Well, given that we're doing comparison testing on other details, it seems like we could also use that to settle whether Nathan's or Casey's interpretation is more in line with how donors respond. The only hangup might be that there's quite a few questions we'd like to test, they're best done in isolation from each other, and we only have so much time to run them.
--Michael Snow
Quotes should be in the "local" language, indeed. Germans would find it strange to see suddenly quotes in a foreign language and believe that a technical fault has happend.
What about portret photos next to a quote? A general message like "Join us supporting" followed by a person. We show surprisingly few face(s), there are no eyes that look to the would-be-donator.
Such as: * "Help Brion Vibber keep Wikipedia running" (followed by his pic, and later with an explanation what he is doing) * "Make Dr. Winiger's edits accessible to everyone" (followed by a pic of this Zedler winner of 2007 ...) * "Alice Weigand wants a fast and working Wikipedia when teaching seniors to edit" * "Let Erdal not build up Kurdish Wikipedia alone"
Ziko
2008/11/26 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
Casey Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Rand Montoya <rmontoya@wikimedia.org
wrote:
The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we
hope) rotated in.
I don't know - I think it would be interesting, at least on the English Wikipedia, to see some quotes in other languages. It would reinforce to
the
people who see quotes in Chinese or Russian that Wikimedia is an international project with broadly global goals.
Normally I would agree with you. Last year, I was *all* for putting as many language quotes on the sitenotices as possible. However, if we are only going to have 6 quotes and they are going to be show-cased in such a large way (as opposed to a little line below the "people mover"), we should probably have them in the local language.
Well, given that we're doing comparison testing on other details, it seems like we could also use that to settle whether Nathan's or Casey's interpretation is more in line with how donors respond. The only hangup might be that there's quite a few questions we'd like to test, they're best done in isolation from each other, and we only have so much time to run them.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Such as:
- "Help Brion Vibber keep Wikipedia running" (followed by his pic, and later
with an explanation what he is doing)
- "Make Dr. Winiger's edits accessible to everyone" (followed by a pic of
this Zedler winner of 2007 ...)
- "Alice Weigand wants a fast and working Wikipedia when teaching seniors to
edit"
- "Let Erdal not build up Kurdish Wikipedia alone"
Interesting idea, but would focusing on certain individuals go against the "by everyone, for everyone" message?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Such as:
- "Help Brion Vibber keep Wikipedia running" (followed by his pic, and
later
with an explanation what he is doing)
- "Make Dr. Winiger's edits accessible to everyone" (followed by a pic of
this Zedler winner of 2007 ...)
- "Alice Weigand wants a fast and working Wikipedia when teaching seniors
to
edit"
- "Let Erdal not build up Kurdish Wikipedia alone"
Interesting idea, but would focusing on certain individuals go against the "by everyone, for everyone" message?
If we focused on a wider range of people, not just "special" people (staffers or awar winners), it would be okay. I like the idea as it is now, though. -- Bence Damokos
If we focused on a wider range of people, not just "special" people (staffers or awar winners), it would be okay. I like the idea as it is now, though.
Yes, it should be a wide range, maybe 10-20 different people, so that readers will not always see the same. The tricky thing is: the persons must be not special, but in any way "interesting". It makes no sence presenting ten persons who are only typo-fighting, although one of them would be fine. Finding people is not that easy, by the way.
Ziko
"Preserve History, Donate Now!"
________________________________ From: Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:17:50 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Site Notices Phase 2 - Annual Fundraiser 2008
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Such as:
- "Help Brion Vibber keep Wikipedia running" (followed by his pic, and
later
with an explanation what he is doing)
- "Make Dr. Winiger's edits accessible to everyone" (followed by a pic of
this Zedler winner of 2007 ...)
- "Alice Weigand wants a fast and working Wikipedia when teaching seniors
to
edit"
- "Let Erdal not build up Kurdish Wikipedia alone"
Interesting idea, but would focusing on certain individuals go against the "by everyone, for everyone" message?
If we focused on a wider range of people, not just "special" people (staffers or awar winners), it would be okay. I like the idea as it is now, though. -- Bence Damokos _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/27 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
"Preserve History, Donate Now!"
Preserve History, Buy Us A Better Backup Infrastructure!
- d.
Reregarding the list http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-cli...
So the phrase
Wikipedia is a non-profit projecthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Edu_Notice_2008_1.pnghad rather poor results. Maybe because it contains two words that sound negative to many people, "non" and "profit", and maybe many people do not understand at first glance what it means. By the way, I know that there are people who do dare to click on a button saying "buy now" or "donate here" because they believe that clicking means automatically that they have to pay. How about an expression that makes clear that the button is only sending to a page with more information about donations. Ziko
---------------- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
2008/11/27 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com:
So the phrase Wikipedia is a non-profit projecthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Edu_Notice_2008_1.pnghad rather poor results. Maybe because it contains two words that sound negative to many people, "non" and "profit", and maybe many people do not understand at first glance what it means.
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
- d.
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
- d.
2008/11/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I agree that the WMF fits the legal definition of a charity, but when one says "charity" the first thing that comes to my mind are organizations that take donations (often including food or clothes) for the primary purpose of redistributing most of them to the needy. You know, the Red Cross, United Way, Goodwill, food banks, etc. Obviously the WMF's mission and the use of their income is somewhat different from that, even though promoting the dissemination of knowledge is ultimately a charitable purpose.
So at least in my mind calling the WMF a charity feels less precise and more confusing. Just my two cents. Your reaction may vary.
-Robert Rohde
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I agree that the WMF fits the legal definition of a charity, but when one says "charity" the first thing that comes to my mind are organizations that take donations (often including food or clothes) for the primary purpose of redistributing most of them to the needy. You know, the Red Cross, United Way, Goodwill, food banks, etc. Obviously the WMF's mission and the use of their income is somewhat different from that, even though promoting the dissemination of knowledge is ultimately a charitable purpose.
So at least in my mind calling the WMF a charity feels less precise and more confusing. Just my two cents. Your reaction may vary.
-Robert Rohde
Certainly in UK law establishments with educational objectives may qualify as having charitable purposes. They may even generate what would normally be termed "profits", but the law requires them to plough back those funds into their fundamental purpose, failing which they would lose all the tax advantages. I don't see Wikipedia being that much different, but then I'm not an expert on US tax law.
The problem may be that "charity" also has a connotation in some places of being somewhat second-class and therefore almost pejorative.
It's not about a legal definition for WMF, but what words use in front of the greater public. To Germans I would not translate charity to "karitativ", because that sounds like feeding orphans.:-) The point is to make people do to something, play on their emotions, trigger their helpfulness. Explain what Wikimedians are doing, what we need money for. And, let them look into faces they can admire, identify with etc. Our donation site looks like made by iconoclasts.:-) Ziko
2008/11/27 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I agree that the WMF fits the legal definition of a charity, but when one says "charity" the first thing that comes to my mind are organizations that take donations (often including food or clothes) for the primary purpose of redistributing most of them to the needy. You know, the Red Cross, United Way, Goodwill, food banks, etc. Obviously the WMF's mission and the use of their income is somewhat different from that, even though promoting the dissemination of knowledge is ultimately a charitable purpose.
So at least in my mind calling the WMF a charity feels less precise and more confusing. Just my two cents. Your reaction may vary.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/27 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I agree that the WMF fits the legal definition of a charity, but when one says "charity" the first thing that comes to my mind are organizations that take donations (often including food or clothes) for the primary purpose of redistributing most of them to the needy. You know, the Red Cross, United Way, Goodwill, food banks, etc. Obviously the WMF's mission and the use of their income is somewhat different from that, even though promoting the dissemination of knowledge is ultimately a charitable purpose. So at least in my mind calling the WMF a charity feels less precise and more confusing. Just my two cents. Your reaction may vary.
Same in Australia, really. A wider meaning for the word "charity" is common in the UK, though.
- d.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise. Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful).
I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc. with "non-profit".
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise. Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful).
I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc. with "non-profit".
I would say "being charitable" and "being a charity" mean the same thing (in reference to an organisation). Under the UK definitions (I expect other jurisdictions are similar), a charity is a non-profit whose objects and activities fit the definition of charitable objects and activities (that definition may vary from place to place). Since the WMF is described as a charitable organisation on the official webpage, I assume it is correct to call it such, so "charity" is a more precise term than "non-profit". I don't think there is a jurisdictional problem - as long as it is a charity in its own jurisdiction, it should be fine to call it a charity on its own webpages.
The issue of varying cultural perceptions of the term "charity" (or literal translations) is a more serious one - we should give translators sufficient leeway to deal with such localisation issues.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise. Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful).
I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc. with "non-profit".
I would say "being charitable" and "being a charity" mean the same thing (in reference to an organisation). Under the UK definitions (I expect other jurisdictions are similar), a charity is a non-profit whose objects and activities fit the definition of charitable objects and activities (that definition may vary from place to place). Since the WMF is described as a charitable organisation on the official webpage, I assume it is correct to call it such, so "charity" is a more precise term than "non-profit". I don't think there is a jurisdictional problem - as long as it is a charity in its own jurisdiction, it should be fine to call it a charity on its own webpages.
The issue of varying cultural perceptions of the term "charity" (or literal translations) is a more serious one - we should give translators sufficient leeway to deal with such localisation issues.
That is why I prefer to keep calling it "non-profit". During translation I met some translators who strongly hesitate to use the equivalent "charity" in their languages since WMF type organization couldn't be in the scope of those "equivalent". As far as I know "non-profit" has caused no such problem.
Hoi, The problem with precise definitions is that they are not necessarily known and understood in this way by our audience. When you want people to give, you want to appeal to people and get their money, you have to target and emphasise the emotional side of the message. When you assume that people are likely to understand things in a certain way based on formal definitions, you forget that a large part of our readers do not have English as their mother tongue and consequently their understanding is a lot less precise. Even people for whom English is their mother tongue do not necessarily think in formal definitions and they are also best approached with a more emotional tinged message.
This requires a marketing approach. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise. Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful).
I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc. with "non-profit".
I would say "being charitable" and "being a charity" mean the same thing (in reference to an organisation). Under the UK definitions (I expect other jurisdictions are similar), a charity is a non-profit whose objects and activities fit the definition of charitable objects and activities (that definition may vary from place to place). Since the WMF is described as a charitable organisation on the official webpage, I assume it is correct to call it such, so "charity" is a more precise term than "non-profit". I don't think there is a jurisdictional problem - as long as it is a charity in its own jurisdiction, it should be fine to call it a charity on its own webpages.
The issue of varying cultural perceptions of the term "charity" (or literal translations) is a more serious one - we should give translators sufficient leeway to deal with such localisation issues.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Since the WMF is described as a charitable organisation on the official webpage, I assume it is correct to call it such, so "charity" is a more precise term than "non-profit".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/aa/501(c)(3)_Letter.png
"We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s) listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)]."
I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the fact that I said "charity" was a less precise term above (which I said because it doesn't seem to have a legal definition), I can also see an argument that it's a more precise term (I guess it's more precise, but less well defined, although "non-profit" actually isn't legally defined under Florida law either AFAIK, the actual law uses the phrase "corporation not for profit").
Anthony wrote:
"We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s) listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)]."
I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the fact that I said "charity" was a less precise term above (which I said because it doesn't seem to have a legal definition), I can also see an argument that it's a more precise term (I guess it's more precise, but less well defined, although "non-profit" actually isn't legally defined under Florida law either AFAIK, the actual law uses the phrase "corporation not for profit").
"Not for profit" is more precise than "non-profit". By implying some kind of intent it excludes those corporations that are non-profit only by virtue of poor management.
I would generally view "charities" as a broad subset of not-for-profit organizations, and education is properly a charitable purpose.
Ec
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
"We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s) listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)]."
I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the fact that I said "charity" was a less precise term above (which I said because it doesn't seem to have a legal definition), I can also see an argument that it's a more precise term (I guess it's more precise, but less well defined, although "non-profit" actually isn't legally defined under Florida law either AFAIK, the actual law uses the phrase "corporation not for profit").
"Not for profit" is more precise than "non-profit". By implying some kind of intent it excludes those corporations that are non-profit only by virtue of poor management.
I would generally view "charities" as a broad subset of not-for-profit organizations, and education is properly a charitable purpose.
Most jurisdictions (including the US Federal Gov) don't draw any legal distinction between "not-for-profit" and "non-profit" organizations, and usually choose to use only one term or the other exclusively. In those few places that do try to draw a legal distinction, my impression has been that "not-for-profit" is actually more expansive (fewer requirements) than "non-profit", and not more precise as you suggest.
I've never heard anyone try to refer to badly managed for-profit corporation as "non-profit". That would clearly be an incorrect description if you mean the legal meaning "non-profit", which is based on the intended purpose of the organization and not merely the presence or absence of profits.
-Robert Rohde -Robert Rohde
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise.
Not in the US it isn't. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in state corporation law. Not all non-profit organizations receive an exemption from taxation. Tax exemption (at least under federal law, but most states follow the federal) is governed by section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases
and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful).
Well, the term "charity" is less specific. The WMF was granted an exemption from taxation under 501(c)(3) of the IRC, which exempts "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes... [cutting out other relevant details]" It is my understanding that the WMF applied for exemption under the category of "educational purposes", not "charitable purposes", however, the IRS refers to 501(c)(3) organizations in general as "charitable organizations". They also make a distinction between "private foundations" and "public charities" based on section 509 of the IRC. (See http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=136459,00.html for more information on these last two sentences.)
That said, outside the United States I understand these terms are used much differently. I've witnessed a lot of misunderstandings over this seemingly US-specific (and maybe even IRS-specific?) terminology.
I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc.
with "non-profit".
I personally don't care one bit, but at least in the US, "non-profit" is not very specific.
Hoi, I am sure this is really interesting. It however does not get us any nearer to a text that invites people to support us.
"Help us with your money and allow us to spend it frugally to do what you love us to do."
This is a sentence that means more to me and has more appeal then the legalistic difference between charity and charitable. When it is clear that such terms are not understood, we should only use them for their emotional appeal. The sentence that I propose indicates that we do what people would like to do if they could. We can.
Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/28 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise.
Not in the US it isn't. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in state corporation law. Not all non-profit organizations receive an exemption from taxation. Tax exemption (at least under federal law, but most states follow the federal) is governed by section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases
and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful).
Well, the term "charity" is less specific. The WMF was granted an exemption from taxation under 501(c)(3) of the IRC, which exempts "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes... [cutting out other relevant details]" It is my understanding that the WMF applied for exemption under the category of "educational purposes", not "charitable purposes", however, the IRS refers to 501(c)(3) organizations in general as "charitable organizations". They also make a distinction between "private foundations" and "public charities" based on section 509 of the IRC. (See http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=136459,00.html for more information on these last two sentences.)
That said, outside the United States I understand these terms are used much differently. I've witnessed a lot of misunderstandings over this seemingly US-specific (and maybe even IRS-specific?) terminology.
I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc.
with "non-profit".
I personally don't care one bit, but at least in the US, "non-profit" is not very specific. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I do hope that WMF is a charity organization.
The last time I crossed the US-border in behalf of the Foundation I met a border officer who indeed never heard anything of WikiMedia Foundation or Wikipedia at all. And I had to explain her lengthy what the foundation is. One of her question is:"How much money do you earn for on the board of the Foundation?" And I answered:"Nothing, because we are a charitative organization." I do hope that I didn't lied to her. Otherwise I would have to fear to cross that border again.
Ting
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/11/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would probably be better perceived.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
"Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a charity?
Instead of these endless discussions on which phrases to use, I think we should rely on the recently posted statistics on which amounts of donations each phrase generated. We could have an open pool of phrases (a wiki page), and the system would automatically pick untested phrases at random, and continue to use those which are "successful in the marketplace". This simple principle should scale to every language.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
Quotes should be in the "local" language, indeed. Germans would find it strange to see suddenly quotes in a foreign language and believe that a technical fault has happend.
What about portret photos next to a quote? A general message like "Join us supporting" followed by a person. We show surprisingly few face(s), there are no eyes that look to the would-be-donator.
Such as:
- "Help Brion Vibber keep Wikipedia running" (followed by his pic, and later
with an explanation what he is doing)
- "Make Dr. Winiger's edits accessible to everyone" (followed by a pic of
this Zedler winner of 2007 ...)
- "Alice Weigand wants a fast and working Wikipedia when teaching seniors to
edit"
- "Let Erdal not build up Kurdish Wikipedia alone"
Also, don't overlook the power of social proof [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof]: People feel much more comfortable contributing when they see that other respectable people and organizations have contributed. Unfortunately many of the most powerful examples we could use are rejected by the communities as "advertising", but there are still opportunities here.
I realize that many of the people working on this are new, but have you given any thought to replicating / updating the "Personal Appeal" approach from 2005. Adjusted for changes in traffic, there is a good argument that the "Personal Appeal from Jimbo Wales" (last portion of Q4 2005 fund drive) had a higher response rate than any of the others that have been tried during the last several years.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Personal_Appeal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=336...
Only the early phase of Q3 2005 got similar play:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=216...
You'll notice that both of those turn on the "Wikipedia needs your help" meme that has worked well this time as well.
-Robert Rohde
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Rand Montoya rmontoya@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey All--
There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-cli... Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.
Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.
As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.
Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.
On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.
-Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving
-- Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving Wikimedia Foundation www.wikimedia.org Email: rand@wikimedia.org Phone: 415.839.6885 x615 Fax: 415.882.0495
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That would be worth trying. SJ
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that many of the people working on this are new, but have you given any thought to replicating / updating the "Personal Appeal" approach from 2005. Adjusted for changes in traffic, there is a good argument that the "Personal Appeal from Jimbo Wales" (last portion of Q4 2005 fund drive) had a higher response rate than any of the others that have been tried during the last several years.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Personal_Appeal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=336...
Only the early phase of Q3 2005 got similar play:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=216...
You'll notice that both of those turn on the "Wikipedia needs your help" meme that has worked well this time as well.
-Robert Rohde
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Rand Montoya rmontoya@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey All--
There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-cli... Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.
Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.
As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.
Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.
On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.
-Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving
-- Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving Wikimedia Foundation www.wikimedia.org Email: rand@wikimedia.org Phone: 415.839.6885 x615 Fax: 415.882.0495
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Will the "Why?" design link to something?
I realize that the Phase 2 set of banners seems to be an experiment to see what works, but a giant "Why?" in ~30 point font strikes me as an empty or even counterproductive message: Why... bother? Why... attack people with huge font? Why... don't they take this seriously? I don't think the natural answer to "Why?" is "Donate now" for any interpretation I would come up with. Maybe you plan to link it to something informative, but initial reaction is that this is too avante garde and not enough substance to attract donations.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and predict that "Why?" will be the worst performer of the five.
Some people are already testy about the size of the banner. Using that large space simply as an excuse to beef up the font is likely to offend more people. I realize there are only a finite number of things one can test, but I would like to have seen a test that compares an existing banner to a similar banner having ~2/3 the height. I suspect the increased real estate probably hasn't bought us much (i.e. increased attention gets offset against increased irritation).
-Robert Rohde
P.S. I would also like to note my fascination that 7 of Rand's image uploads on Meta are tagged for deletion as "no source/no license".
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Rand Montoya rmontoya@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey All--
There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-cli... Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.
Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.
As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.
Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.
On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.
-Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving
-- Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving Wikimedia Foundation www.wikimedia.org Email: rand@wikimedia.org Phone: 415.839.6885 x615 Fax: 415.882.0495
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi,
Rand said:
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our >volunteer translators and the tech team.
Besides all the discussion on possible rephrasing, Phase 2 notices seem not go live yet. Postponed? Or did I miss something?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Rand Montoya rmontoya@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey All--
There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-cli... Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.
Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.
As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.
Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.
On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.
-Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving
-- Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving Wikimedia Foundation www.wikimedia.org Email: rand@wikimedia.org Phone: 415.839.6885 x615 Fax: 415.882.0495
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Rand said:
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time
needed by our >volunteer translators and the tech team.
Besides all the discussion on possible rephrasing, Phase 2 notices seem not go live yet. Postponed? Or did I miss something?
I interpreted Rand's comment to mean that it would happen sometime this week (i.e. between now and December 7).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org