Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and banner have been discussed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fund...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_th...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Supp...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_th...
It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel.
I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not available on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the banner now.
My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative, and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at all. Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by Danny Wool last spring.
I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
Nathan
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and banner have been discussed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fund...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_th...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Supp...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_th...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel.
I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not available on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the banner now.
My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative, and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at all. Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by Danny Wool last spring.
I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't know about others, but I've been disabling site notices for a very very long time now. I've yet to ever read one that was ever useful to me. I think that registered users should most certainly have the ability to remove the banner entirely (and they can, via simple additions to their personal stylesheets, or in the case of enwiki, a gadget that does it for you).
I would even go so far as to say that anon users should be able to remove it as well. We're about providing free content, not shoving a donation banner in people's faces when they don't want to see it. Even allowing anonymous users to hide it won't matter much.
When a user sees it, one of two things will happen: A) They will donate, then the message is no longer relevant B) They aren't donating anyway, in which case they probably don't want to see the message.
Just my 0.02USD.
-Chad
Hoi, With all respect, on the English Wikipedia there is a gadget that allows signed in users to disable the fund raising banner. So what is the issue ?
When people take an interest in what Mr Wool has to say, they should in my opinion look into what Mr Wool says and how he says it. When he was to write a Wikipedia article it would be deleted because of the negative and extremely non-neutral point of view. I would invite the people who take Mr Wool seriously to go to his blog and analyse his tone and his message. Once this is done and they are still inclined not to support the WMF, I would shrug and consider it their right to do as they please.
As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and banner have been discussed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fund...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_th...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Supp...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_th...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel.
I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not available on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the banner now.
My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative, and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at all. Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by Danny Wool last spring.
I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, With all respect, on the English Wikipedia there is a gadget that allows signed in users to disable the fund raising banner. So what is the issue ?
When people take an interest in what Mr Wool has to say, they should in my opinion look into what Mr Wool says and how he says it. When he was to write a Wikipedia article it would be deleted because of the negative and extremely non-neutral point of view. I would invite the people who take Mr Wool seriously to go to his blog and analyse his tone and his message. Once this is done and they are still inclined not to support the WMF, I would shrug and consider it their right to do as they please.
As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition. Thanks, GerardM
And what about anonymous users who donate? We should have to go to some gadget to disable it - it should hide when hide is clicked.
I've never seen reactions this bad. If the WMF really expect to get as much as they're hoping for, they really ought to do something about this.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
We should have to go to some gadget to disable it - it should hide when hide is clicked.
Should have said "shouldn't"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Al Tally wrote:
I've never seen reactions this bad. If the WMF really expect to get as much as they're hoping for, they really ought to do something about this.
You clearly have never seen feedback about a Wikimedia fundraiser banner before, then. :)
In fact, feedback has been extraordinarily good this year -- the only complaints I'm seeing are that the banner's a bit big, the button's a bit bright, and the collapsed version isn't small enough -- all easily fixable matters of style.
The support we're getting is breathtakingly positive, with the first two full days bringing in about $95,000 *each day* towards our operating budget: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics
As in previous years, actual contributors are very positive in their comments: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionHistory
The banners are simple and clean. The pages are attractive and easy to read. The process is straightforward. The response to the actual fundraiser is *overwhelmingly* positive.
Allow time for the system to work; we're all listening, and the banners will be adjusted and improved over time.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) CTO, Wikimedia Foundation
Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...] The support we're getting is breathtakingly positive, with the first two full days bringing in about $95,000 *each day* towards our operating budget: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics [...]
| [...] | Breakdown of contributions by value for the fiscal year of 2008
| Amount (USD) Contributions Percentage (YTD) Average (USD) | Exactly 30.00 2106 15.36% - | Exactly 75.00 149 1.09% - | Exactly 100.00 542 3.95% - | Under 99.00 110043 802.41% 21.29 ^^^^^^^ | From 100.00 - 999.99 3276 23.89% 219.23 | Over 1000.00 124 0.9% 30792.08
I demand a recount! :-)
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tim Landscheidt wrote:
| Breakdown of contributions by value for the fiscal year of 2008
| Amount (USD) Contributions Percentage (YTD) Average (USD) | Exactly 30.00 2106 15.36% - | Exactly 75.00 149 1.09% - | Exactly 100.00 542 3.95% - | Under 99.00 110043 802.41% 21.29 ^^^^^^^ | From 100.00 - 999.99 3276 23.89% 219.23 | Over 1000.00 124 0.9% 30792.08
I demand a recount! :-)
It's being fixed. ;)
- -- brion
Regarding the statistics page:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics
The "minimum" columns isn't that useful. I'd propose using its space for a "median" column.
Regards, Peter
Peter Jacobi wrote:
Regarding the statistics page:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics
The "minimum" columns isn't that useful. I'd propose using its space for a "median" column.
Regards, Peter
I understand how the minimum donated some day can be $0.01 USD. But 0.00? Looks like it's saying "The person who donated the less, didn't donate"
I suppose that it was a donation on a different currency, valued less than $0.01, but then it should probably be shown with more decimal digits.
How useful are donations smaller than a cent?
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Jacobi wrote:
Regarding the statistics page:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics
The "minimum" columns isn't that useful. I'd propose using its space for a "median" column.
Regards, Peter
I understand how the minimum donated some day can be $0.01 USD. But 0.00? Looks like it's saying "The person who donated the less, didn't donate"
I suppose that it was a donation on a different currency, valued less than $0.01, but then it should probably be shown with more decimal digits.
How useful are donations smaller than a cent?
If I recall last year's discussions, most donations under a dollar actually cost more to the WMF than they bring in (due to PayPal transaction fees). Also, I saw somewhere in the plans a Javascript solution to set the minimum donation so that every donation brings in money (~1$ mimimum donation).
Regards, Bence Damokos
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Jacobi wrote:
Regarding the statistics page:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics
The "minimum" columns isn't that useful. I'd propose using its space for a "median" column.
Regards, Peter
I understand how the minimum donated some day can be $0.01 USD. But 0.00? Looks like it's saying "The person who donated the less, didn't donate"
I suppose that it was a donation on a different currency, valued less than $0.01, but then it should probably be shown with more decimal digits.
How useful are donations smaller than a cent?
If I recall last year's discussions, most donations under a dollar actually cost more to the WMF than they bring in (due to PayPal transaction fees). Also, I saw somewhere in the plans a Javascript solution to set the minimum donation so that every donation brings in money (~1$ mimimum donation).
As I understand, it donations less than $0.30 go entirely to PayPal. There is no cost to the WMF if the donation is less than $0.30, but there is also no gain.
-Robert Rohde
Robert Rohde schreef:
As I understand, it donations less than $0.30 go entirely to PayPal. There is no cost to the WMF if the donation is less than $0.30, but there is also no gain.
-Robert Rohde
It could be useful to include on the donation page something like;
"Every donation, how small it may be is welcome ... but know that by donation only $1 means we get only X% of your money after transactions fees. If you donate $5 then we receive X% of your donation."
I do not know the current fees but it think for $1 is must be around $0,60 to the WMF and $0,40 paypal. So 40% lost, 60% of your donation received. For $5 that is that a smaller part that goes to paypal.
That could motivated people for not donating a very small amount but give a bit more.
Btw; http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionHistory
these numbers are those not the source amounts before the transactions fees?
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
It could be useful to include on the donation page something like;
"Every donation, how small it may be is welcome ... but know that by donation only $1 means we get only X% of your money after transactions fees. If you donate $5 then we receive X% of your donation."
Most of the really tiny donations (especially in USD) are criminals attempting to verify stolen credit cards. There is no point in begging them to donate more. :)
For the non-fraudsters use JS to set a currency dependent minimum which makes sense for the typical users of the currency. Trying to get people to understand paypal fees is just too much complexity, and is likely to just bring crys about why we don't offer a lower overhead option (I think the google payment service is less costly than paypal, for example).
On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:54, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
It could be useful to include on the donation page something like;
"Every donation, how small it may be is welcome ... but know that by donation only $1 means we get only X% of your money after transactions fees. If you donate $5 then we receive X% of your donation."
Most of the really tiny donations (especially in USD) are criminals attempting to verify stolen credit cards. There is no point in begging them to donate more. :)
[citation needed]
For the non-fraudsters use JS to set a currency dependent minimum which makes sense for the typical users of the currency. Trying to get people to understand paypal fees is just too much complexity, and is likely to just bring crys about why we don't offer a lower overhead option (I think the google payment service is less costly than paypal, for example).
If you explain paypal fees clearly as they'll apply to that transaction (i.e. taking into account the currency), then I'm sure 99% of people will be able to understand them just fine. However, the ideal would be to use lower overhead options, as you say - is there nothing around that has a low to zero overhead fee for non-profits/ charities?
Mike
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Most of the really tiny donations (especially in USD) are criminals attempting to verify stolen credit cards. There is no point in begging them to donate more. :)
[citation needed]
The list is not Wikipedia: If you don't care to believe me it's your own loss. This was what paypal told Wikimedia during a prior fund raising drive. Perhaps it's no longer true, but I think it's a lot more plausible than the notion of people genuinely intending to donate 0.01 USD.
It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/
W
Can anybody confirm this?
Ian
On 11/10/08, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/
W
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Ian A. Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
Can anybody confirm this?
En.wp user Rlevse tells me that this block has been on the king's article for a few weeks now.
-- John V
I life in Thailand and I have a Thai Internet provider and I have been a Wikimedian for over 5 years ..... is my word not good enough for ya?
W
Can anybody confirm this?
Ian
On 11/10/08, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/
W
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/10 Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th:
I life in Thailand and I have a Thai Internet provider and I have been a Wikimedian for over 5 years ..... is my word not good enough for ya?
That you can't access it doesn't necessarily mean the government has blocked it (although that would seem the most likely explanation). Confirmation that it has been intentionally blocked by the government would be good, although I'm not sure you'll find any - it's not the kind of thing governments make official statements about.
On Monday 10 November 2008 13:31:01 Waerth wrote:
I life in Thailand and I have a Thai Internet provider and I have been a Wikimedian for over 5 years ..... is my word not good enough for ya?
It's not that you aren't trusted, but it could be limited to your provider or similar, so it's always better to have additional confirmation.
Can anybody confirm this?
Ian
On 11/10/08, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/
Ian A. Holton wrote:
Can anybody confirm this?
Ian
On 11/10/08, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/
W
I did some research to see if anyone else is reporting this, and it seems that others are experiencing the same problem, but it has not yet made the news (in reference to Wikipedia's block explicitly).The Freedom Against Censorship Thailand blog reports that it has been blocked since at least October 1, and though I can't read the Thai sites they cite, it seems pretty well independently verified. http://facthai.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/wikipedia-blocked-by-some-thai-isps-fact-exclusive/
Thailand enforces a lese majeste law, which means people may be prosecuted for "insulting" the king (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9#Thailand). As a result, Thailand has a rather active internet censorship program that has become more active during the recent political crisis http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7696101.stm. (Incidentally, the author of that article, BBC's Thailand correspondent, was himself under investigation earlier this year, accused of insulting the king: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/08/asia/AS-GEN-Thailand-BBC.php.)
It seems that several media agencies, like BBC, reported the recent surge in censorship, but none of them mention Wikipedia explicitly, while it is likely that it was one of the sites targeted in the October crackdown. Incidentally, last year's brief blocking of YouTube by Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Thailand#YouTube_controversy) led to much greater international media scrutiny, and it seems likely that if it continues, Wikipedia's block may yet be newsworthy, especially since unlike the inflammatory YouTube videos, the Wikipedia article seems relatively neutral.
Dominic
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Dominic dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
It seems that several media agencies, like BBC, reported the recent surge in censorship, but none of them mention Wikipedia explicitly, while it is likely that it was one of the sites targeted in the October crackdown.
Guardian Weekly, print edition November 7th, page 2: "Firewall for a king: Thailand is to build a national internet firewall to block websites deemed insulting to the monarchy. The move appears to be the result of pressure on the government from the military to stamp out criticism of King Bhumibol Adulyadej".
Right, this does not mention Wikipedia explicitly, but I think we can take it nearly for granted that the access problems described by Waerth are related to this. I think we can't expect a press notice listing all the blocked sites ;-)
Michael
2008/11/10 Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th:
It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/
W
I was wondering when that would happen. Does it also block https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej ?
geni wrote:
2008/11/10 Waerth:
It seems that the Thai government has decided to block wikipedia's page in English about the King .... . If going there by interwiki link from the Dutch wikipedia I end up here: http://w3.mict.go.th/
W
I was wondering when that would happen. Does it also block https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej ?
It can't block just https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej They would need to blacklist the whole secure server.
What it may not be blocking are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumibol_Adulyadej or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=250835396
For being a goverment, they could at least improve the page they're redirecting people to. An 'Unconfigured IIS' page, no dns on other domain sections. :/
2008/11/10 Platonides Platonides@gmail.com:
For being a goverment, they could at least improve the page they're redirecting people to. An 'Unconfigured IIS' page, no dns on other domain sections. :/
Slight problem with the being a government line. With the current issues there is an open question what body is actually functioning as the government at the moment.
By the way, to jump backward to the original topic of this discussion, I wanted to point out that on the French Wikipedia, this year is the one with the least negative reaction. I saw rather little discussion on the pump. Certainly, some people are not so happy by the ridiculous size of the banner, and by the fact it can not be easily collapsed entirely. And perhaps are they tired of complaining year after year ;) But seriously, there is rather little complaining this year.
Ant
2008/11/10 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
By the way, to jump backward to the original topic of this discussion, I wanted to point out that on the French Wikipedia, this year is the one with the least negative reaction. I saw rather little discussion on the pump. Certainly, some people are not so happy by the ridiculous size of the banner, and by the fact it can not be easily collapsed entirely. And perhaps are they tired of complaining year after year ;) But seriously, there is rather little complaining this year.
the least negative reaction... have there been any positive so far? I've seen none on de.
greetings, elian
Hoi, If you are looking for positive reactions, on my blog, http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com I have endorsed the fund raiser. I have even included the banner twice in a blog entry.
As has been also said by others, fund raising is an activity that enables other activities, and there is more good that can be expected of the WMF when it has the money that makes things possible. It will be interesting to notice how the balance between expenditure and income will be. So far the WMF organisation has done wonders with relatively little money. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.comwrote:
2008/11/10 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
By the way, to jump backward to the original topic of this discussion, I wanted to point out that on the French Wikipedia, this year is the one with the least negative reaction. I saw rather little discussion on the pump. Certainly, some people are not so happy by the ridiculous size of the banner, and by the fact it can not be easily collapsed entirely. And perhaps are they tired of complaining year after year ;) But seriously, there is rather little complaining this year.
the least negative reaction... have there been any positive so far? I've seen none on de.
greetings, elian
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, If you are looking for positive reactions, on my blog, http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com I have endorsed the fund raiser. I have even included the banner twice in a blog entry.
As has been also said by others, fund raising is an activity that enables other activities, and there is more good that can be expected of the WMF when it has the money that makes things possible. It will be interesting to notice how the balance between expenditure and income will be. So far the WMF organisation has done wonders with relatively little money. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.comwrote:
2008/11/10 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
By the way, to jump backward to the original topic of this discussion, I wanted to point out that on the French Wikipedia, this year is the one with the least negative reaction. I saw rather little discussion on the pump. Certainly, some people are not so happy by the ridiculous size of the banner, and by the fact it can not be easily collapsed entirely. And perhaps are they tired of complaining year after year ;) But seriously, there is rather little complaining this year.
the least negative reaction... have there been any positive so far? I've seen none on de.
greetings, elian
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, If you are looking for positive reactions, on my blog, http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com I have endorsed the fund raiser. I have even included the banner twice in a blog entry.
As has been also said by others, fund raising is an activity that enables other activities, and there is more good that can be expected of the WMF when it has the money that makes things possible. It will be interesting to notice how the balance between expenditure and income will be. So far the WMF organisation has done wonders with relatively little money. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.comwrote:
2008/11/10 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
By the way, to jump backward to the original topic of this discussion, I wanted to point out that on the French Wikipedia, this year is the one with the least negative reaction. I saw rather little discussion on the pump. Certainly, some people are not so happy by the ridiculous size of the banner, and by the fact it can not be easily collapsed entirely. And perhaps are they tired of complaining year after year ;) But seriously, there is rather little complaining this year.
the least negative reaction... have there been any positive so far? I've seen none on de.
greetings, elian
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
elisabeth bauer wrote:
2008/11/10 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
By the way, to jump backward to the original topic of this discussion, I wanted to point out that on the French Wikipedia, this year is the one with the least negative reaction. I saw rather little discussion on the pump. Certainly, some people are not so happy by the ridiculous size of the banner, and by the fact it can not be easily collapsed entirely. And perhaps are they tired of complaining year after year ;) But seriously, there is rather little complaining this year.
the least negative reaction... have there been any positive so far? I've seen none on de.
greetings, elian
If we can identify some donations coming from community members, I guess that can count as a positive reaction ;-)
cheers
Ant
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition. Thanks, GerardM
But to this extend I have only seen it with the Virgin stuff. And yes, it is ugly and certainly not very convincing to give money.
Bryan
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition. Thanks, GerardM
But to this extend I have only seen it with the Virgin stuff. And yes, it is ugly and certainly not very convincing to give money.
I can only assume you weren't around at the start of last year's fundraiser when the scrolling marquee of death made people want to storm the WMF with pitchforks and torches.
By comparison, the complaints this year seems tame.
That's not an excuse not to listen to editor complaints though. As discussed at Meta, collapsing the thing should do more to surpress it [1], and banner is somewhat bigger and more obnoxious than it needs to be.
Fact remains though that it does seem to be generating substantially more income than the early phase of last year's drive.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2008/design_drafts#Collapsed...
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition. Thanks, GerardM
But to this extend I have only seen it with the Virgin stuff. And yes, it is ugly and certainly not very convincing to give money.
I can only assume you weren't around at the start of last year's fundraiser when the scrolling marquee of death made people want to storm the WMF with pitchforks and torches.
Forgot about that one. In that case it really is tradition :)
Bryan
Robert Rohde wrote:
I can only assume you weren't around at the start of last year's fundraiser when the scrolling marquee of death made people want to storm the WMF with pitchforks and torches.
By comparison, the complaints this year seems tame.
Indeed. Every fundraiser brings out a few pitchforks, sometimes because of things we've done badly, but other times based on general principles.
At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
--Jimbo
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
--Jimbo
Not for anonymous users though.
Al Tally wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
Not for anonymous users though.
Can it be done with javascript and a cookie?
--Jimbo
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
Not for anonymous users though.
Can it be done with javascript and a cookie?
Yep, it's no longer unsafe to set cookies for anons.
Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Yep, it's no longer unsafe to set cookies for anons.
Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
Anons may be the ones donating. And as someone said earlier, if they want to donate, they'll click donate, and if they don't, they should have an option of removing it so it's not interfering.
2008/11/7 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
If it's a cookie, presumably that means it'll only be dismissed for that reader (and anyone else on the same machine). If they've taken the time to read the banner enough to see a [dismiss] button, they've probably taken it in - after all, most of us don't scan banner ads for "go away now" buttons normally!
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/7 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
If it's a cookie, presumably that means it'll only be dismissed for that reader (and anyone else on the same machine). If they've taken the time to read the banner enough to see a [dismiss] button, they've probably taken it in - after all, most of us don't scan banner ads for "go away now" buttons normally!
I dunno, with dismissible watchlist notices I often dismiss them then wish I could get them back later. Perhaps I'm weird (though I also know enough to flush the cookie).
I thought part of the point of the big persistent banner was that after someone has seen it a few dozen times they'll eventually click through to see what it's about. ::shrugs::
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno, with dismissible watchlist notices I often dismiss them then wish I could get them back later. Perhaps I'm weird (though I also know enough to flush the cookie).
I thought part of the point of the big persistent banner was that after someone has seen it a few dozen times they'll eventually click through to see what it's about. ::shrugs::
Sorry for the double post, there was another point I wanted to raise:
If we offer a dismiss then discover that it slaughters donation rates what do we do? Restoring the notice a few days later would likely offend people who dismissed it. In my experience the public is totally fine with the banner that lacks a dismiss, but I expect they'd be less fine with a dismiss button that ignored their request.
There is probably a solution to this that doesn't preclude offering the dismiss button, but we should have it ready just in case.
Hoi, If they decide not to, and they can dismiss it only to a smaller banner, there is guilt that may drive them to donate at a later moment. When they are not reminded at all we have lost that opportunity. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/7 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
If it's a cookie, presumably that means it'll only be dismissed for that reader (and anyone else on the same machine). If they've taken the time to read the banner enough to see a [dismiss] button, they've probably taken it in - after all, most of us don't scan banner ads for "go away now" buttons normally!
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, If they decide not to, and they can dismiss it only to a smaller banner, there is guilt that may drive them to donate at a later moment. When they are not reminded at all we have lost that opportunity. Thanks, GerardM
Trying to guilt someone into donating isn't exactly nice...
Like I said, if someone wants to donate, by all means we should make it easy and accessible and welcome it with open arms. If they don't, forcing the "please donate now" message down their throats is both rude and nonconstructive.
-Chad
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Al Tally wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
--Jimbo
Not for anonymous users though.
It's already collapsable for anonymous users. The current collapsed view is however still a bit large, which is why we've been discussing slimming it down.
- -- brion
2008/11/7 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
Not for anonymous users though.
Incentive to create a login. Hey kid, your first edit's free!
- d.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
Hm? Every previous one has had strongly negative reactions from some contributors.
(I do not know for sure if this is better or worse but, for example, to me it appears appears far less significant at this point compared to the reaction at the time of the virgin unite thank-you.)
The general public is already banner-blind. I'm not aware of any significant negative response from the general public to any of these fundraisers.
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Hm? Every previous one has had strongly negative reactions from some contributors.
(I do not know for sure if this is better or worse but, for example, to me it appears appears far less significant at this point compared to the reaction at the time of the virgin unite thank-you.)
It seems to me the amount of discontentment is about the same as for the previous fundraisers. On the French language Wikipedia, it even seems to be lower than last year.
2008/11/7 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it expected?
Yes - the fundraising banner always creates a strong, initial negative reaction when it goes up.
Last year, we had dismissability for logged in users (which led to a smaller version of the banner which still included a thermometer), and no dismissability for users who are not logged in. This year, both logged in and logged out users can collapse the banner to a smaller version. Many Wikipedians have expressed annoyance at the size of the collapsed version, especially because it includes a bright red button.
Several wikis now have a gadget in the user preferences to hide the banner completely. The gadget instructions can be found here for those who want to copy it to their wiki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2008/design_drafts#Enable_th...
I've asked Rand to work with the technology team towards a significantly smaller default collapsed version for logged in users (e.g. just showing the current amount and a plain link to donate, plus an expand link). But, in the absence of data showing whether or not the current collapsed version incentivizes donations by repeat viewers, we won't make it smaller for logged out users at this point.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know that some projects have disabled the banner.
No, if they had disabled the banner for everyone, they would have been reverted. It's not the local administrators' decision to hide the site notice for everyone, including anonymous users. :-)
It was for a time not available on the Spanish Wikipedia,
because we enabled it only on certain wikis at the beginning.
and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the Russian Wikibooks.
because we haven't enabled it on the sister projects yet.
A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the banner now.
Yes, now all Wikipedia projects have the banner -- whether or not we have translations of the text. If you know of a wiki that does not have a translated site notice and would like to translate one, please send them in my direction. :-)
Ah - I was told that ru.wikibooks did not have the banner because all banners there were disabled.
Thank you to everyone else who commented. I suppose I wasn't "plugged-in" enough last time around to get a full sense of the reaction to the banner - I remember some negative reactions, but not on the level I've seen so far. Given your answers, and particularly the statistics on donations so far, it does seem like the positive reaction outweighs any potential negative.
I hope that the folks who are vocal about not donating to the WMF and why are met, as often as possible, with counter-arguments about why they should and why others should as well. I'm concerned that when that doesn't happen, it makes other current Wikimedians have less confidence in the Foundation and also makes them less likely to personally donate.
Nathan
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the Russian Wikibooks.
because we haven't enabled it on the sister projects yet.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org