+1
A missed opportunity to celebrate one of our volunteer photographers, especially considering the competitions that have included photographs of food in the last year. Shame to fall back on stock photos and commercial pro-photographers when we have our own massive project to provide this as a free resource.
Fae
On 2 December 2015 at 14:46, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
"On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I doubt it will be a click through to the file page.
I couldnt find the image in
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cups_of_black_coffee
The image is only on donate.wikimedia.org, uploaded by "BHouse (Trilogy)", which I assume means they are an employee of http://www.trilogyinteractive.com (see previous years Form 990):
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg
It appears to be a stock photo, by photographer Dimitrios Stefanidis.
http://tineye.com/search/2267feed8737197d64056553011261b75ef34a9e/
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/coffee-on-white-25228505
So my hopeful guess WMF bought a licence to the photograph, but even that would be inappropriate IMO.
It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg
(assuming the license is correct; I cant see CC0 on http://rejke.deviantart.com/art/Coffee-384565868)
-- John Vandenberg
Buying a photo, when we have ready access to massive amounts of freely usable content, would be quite unacceptable and a misuse of funds, no matter the amount of the funds. I hope someone can actually clarify what happened here.
Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, or otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the inevitable butbutbut.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
+1
A missed opportunity to celebrate one of our volunteer photographers, especially considering the competitions that have included photographs of food in the last year. Shame to fall back on stock photos and commercial pro-photographers when we have our own massive project to provide this as a free resource.
Fae
On 2 December 2015 at 14:46, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
"On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image…
as I
doubt it will be a click through to the file page.
I couldnt find the image in
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cups_of_black_coffee
The image is only on donate.wikimedia.org, uploaded by "BHouse (Trilogy)", which I assume means they are an employee of http://www.trilogyinteractive.com (see previous years Form 990):
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg
It appears to be a stock photo, by photographer Dimitrios Stefanidis.
http://tineye.com/search/2267feed8737197d64056553011261b75ef34a9e/
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/coffee-on-white-25228505
So my hopeful guess WMF bought a licence to the photograph, but even that would be inappropriate IMO.
It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg
(assuming the license is correct; I cant see CC0 on http://rejke.deviantart.com/art/Coffee-384565868)
-- John Vandenberg
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, or otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the inevitable butbutbut.
Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these issues with last month's survey.[1]
When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a representative sample.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_...
That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the reason there are readers at all. On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts,
or
otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the inevitable butbutbut.
Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these issues with last month's survey.[1]
When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a representative sample.
[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
"Community" is a loaded term, because it is typically self-praisingly used by a relatively small number of administratively-oriented Wikipedians to describe themselves. It's basically WP:AN/ANI, Arbcom & associated access level seekers, and those who use Wikipedia as a social or socializing network. The vast majority of *content* editors, occasional or prolific, are completely unaware of this other side of Wikipedia. It's they who build the encyclopedia. I'd argue that where Wikipedia articles are good, it's a result of the content editors, not the administrative participants lauding themselves for riding herd on them.
Lila Tretikov has said that the proper definition of the Wikipedia "community" is *all* the editors, administrative participants, and readers. The administrative subset is not a *representative* subset of that. It's rather a self-selecting and much smaller subset with its own behaviors. You can see this recently I think, where in the current Arbcom elections, it has installed a filter to screen editors with less than 500 edits from asking questions of the candidates. I'm not aware that it has yet barred such editors from actually voting, but that would be the next step following its own logic. What the administrative component is doing is protecting its own influence and position by keeping these others out of the process.
Todd Allen took it a step farther below by proclaiming "community members" as "way more important than readers." Seems pretty brazen and non-inclusive to me, and illustrative of the attitudes of the administrative set.
Trillium Corsage
02.12.2015, 16:36, "Todd Allen" <email clipped>:
That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the reason there are readers at all. On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
> Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, or > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the > inevitable butbutbut.
Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these issues with last month's survey.[1]
When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a representative sample.
[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, It is because of the readers that the work the volunteers do has a purpose. Volunteers are typically intrinsically motivated but their motivation is not necessarily focused on others. Some people are more focussed on themselves. That is ok as it takes all sorts.
The question who is more important is hardly relevant, one cannot do without the other. When it comes to donations though, it is the readers who are more important. I for one do get messages from Jimmy and all he gets from he is an additional edit or two. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 December 2015 at 17:36, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the reason there are readers at all. On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.
That's
really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves,
shouts,
or
otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the inevitable butbutbut.
Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these issues with last month's survey.[1]
When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a representative sample.
[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost all of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational matters. Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the encyclopedia. The exceptions are for WMF staff and affiliate staff who weren't hired from within the community; an ongoing issue is the need to acculturate these staff into the ways of the Wiki and to educate them about our (often complex) ways, while leveraging the value that they can bring to Wikimedia organizations in areas like legal advocacy, visual design, press communications, tech ops, etc.
Viewers, content contributors, funders, volunteer tech and organizational leaders, and paid staff are all necessary parts of the Wikimedia ecosystem. These groups and individuals interact in complex and intricate ways, and changes to the ecosystem are always in motion.
Pine
I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I think they really appreciate all of your work:
Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus of "why? why? why?" that has run through my brain since I was old enough to think. I also believe its a factor in why I am currently in the eligible Jeopardy! contestant pool. In short, thanks Wikipedia.
Wikipedia helps me almost daily, I cannot count the number of times me and friends have been debating the answer to life, the universe and everything (42, in case you were wondering!) and Wikipedia has dispelled the discrepancies in one or more of our arguments. Thanks to wiki, we have been able to convince each other we were wrong, and educate on topics we have never considered. Wiki is very important, and for this I will continue to donate as long as I can afford to. The more the world has open access to information for free, the sooner mankind will get along. Wikipedia is making the world a better place one article at a time. Thank you.
I've had a roadrunner and wild turkey with poults in my yard and I've used Wiki to obtain information about them.
There was a time I used to get embarrassed due to lack of general knowledge. Wikipedia gave me confidence. Thank you.
well, over time, using it became a reflex, like breathing but when i pause to think about it, it is one of the source of knowledge I use most and I am the better for it.
It's one of a tiny number of fund raising calls that I respond to. The charter or quest of Wikipedia , I think is among the highest ideals that humans can aspire to.
Wikipedia is the first point of call for any research i am performing, especially on a new subject. It has been a life-saver on more than one occasions
Wikipedia is part of my information ecosystem. It's like a road map for new intellectual territory.
There was (more than) one time when I needed to know if some dumb obscure TV actor from the 70s was still alive and Wikipedia was there for me. Plus all the other times when I just need a quick bit of info: size of a country's population, name of a president, details about a math function; it's endless.
Helped me with my uni degree, gave me medical information on health problems, let me learn new things about animals that I like :D Helps me answer questions from my kid about the world that I want to give her, but don't know the answers to
I think you're the only organisation that can fundraise that way and you deserve it.
My older sister doesn't have a computer (she's 82), so we talk on the phone and I look up stuff for her. It's a nice way to spend time with her, and it brings us together
As a journalist and travel writer, this online research is often my first port of call. For a quick scan of even just the most basic information about a topic, I used to have to walk down to the basement of the national television building I worked in to ask the archivist to dig out a series of reference books that applied to my topic. Sometimes the books were already in use by someone else, which meant I had to wait even longer or beg the person to share the book with me. Now, I just Google it and often end up on Wikipedia. While I always still double check everything I read on these pages and use other sources for my actual fact finding, it no longer takes hours or days to get started with my research
I've lost many bets because of wikipedia. So because of you I have looked stupider than if you didn't exist
Wikipedia is the first step in any student's research. When it comes to education, Wikipedia is the real MVP!
As a student, Wikipedia is a goldmine. I love you guys.
I use it for everything from government and politics to celebrities and tv shows to authors and books. There's a facebook group I'm a part of called "Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club." People post weird, strange, interesting wikipedia pages they've found. Basically, wikipedia is awesome! (I'd really love there to be an accuracy scale though, since I usually end up researching stuff after I read the wikipedia page, just to make sure it's correct.)
I'm an engineer. I was not the smartest nor the dumbest in uni. I was average and over the years I forget concepts/theories/formulae all the time and I use Wikipedia to give my memory the nudge it needs to get back on track. Thank you.
It is my main source of information.
Taking AP Physics in high school I would constantly get confused with all of the unites and what they actually measured. Joules, watts, newton's, difference between power and work. Lucky wiki saved that day with wonderful articles that explained what everything meant. It helped me solidify my foundation in physics, helping me to conquer a college level class at the age of 16.
Keeps Me from lying awake at night wondering about past events & historical data
it is just just always super handy
I see Wikipedia as my knowledgeable friend which knows everything on every topic. For example, once I was really confused about red giants in astronomy, but Wikipedia saved me.
life is better with it than without it.
One of the nicest things about Wikipedia is the explicit information about local places -- especially for off-the-beaten-track places in the U.S. which are overlooked by guide books. For example, when I had some spare time in the SF Bay Area, I having a delightful adventure, finding an obscure wine-tasting area and great descriptions of museums which match my offbeat tastes, such as The Museum of Computer History in Mountain View, California. It is also a great way to find public domain pictures for lectures and to find out where my students are starting, as a baseline.
It is my "Encyclopedia"
Writing this I've just turned 28. I was perhaps among the first schoolchildren to hear "Don't cite Wikipedia; it's unreliable as a source!" by their teachers. Even back then in high school I knew that Wikipedia was important. Before I had left for college I had started my own axiom - "Wikipedia LEADS to the source!" I use Wikipedia every day of my life. I've taken it as a natural given, like it is a simple fact of our daily lives now. If I want to understand any subject with more clarity or depth (which I almost always do) I type it into Wikipedia. I am continually using it throughout the day to learn and re-learn and enrich my life. -but this is just me. I fully believe that Wikipedia will be how the younger generations will grow up in the future. In the past, kids would ask embarrassing questions of their friends or family, or maybe not at all - questions of sex and medical issues would torture young minds and could even lead to trauma and great frustration...but now any child can access Wikipedia and have the Whole of Human Knowledge at their fingertips to learn at their own pace. With Wikipedia, we've become our own parents, teaching each other all that we know; information is shared globally, and freely, in an unending and beautiful cycle. Truly, as romantically tragic as it may sound, Wikipedia is one of the few things that gives me hope for the future; as it shows people coming together in such a glorious way.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost all of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational matters. Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the encyclopedia. The exceptions are for WMF staff and affiliate staff who weren't hired from within the community; an ongoing issue is the need to acculturate these staff into the ways of the Wiki and to educate them about our (often complex) ways, while leveraging the value that they can bring to Wikimedia organizations in areas like legal advocacy, visual design, press communications, tech ops, etc.
Viewers, content contributors, funders, volunteer tech and organizational leaders, and paid staff are all necessary parts of the Wikimedia ecosystem. These groups and individuals interact in complex and intricate ways, and changes to the ecosystem are always in motion.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Lisa.
More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns. I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size of the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners might be a good tradeoff.
I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze for next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to continue to grow income.
Pine
Hi Pine-
We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner some. Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations, more quickly. We have also looked into reader opinions of the intrusiveness of the banner. Readers found the larger banners only slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones. Those findings are here (slide 24): https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fun... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf&page=24
We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner. The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so lengthening the campaign has a diminished return. Here is the data on that from last December: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Revi...
With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions. Not everyone visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the course of weeks.
Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic. Let us know what you think.
Thank you, Lisa
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Lisa.
More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity concerns. I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size of the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners might be a good tradeoff.
I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze for next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to continue to grow income.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lisa, I was just about to say that I like the new banner. It's a pleasant surprise. Who designed the lightbulb? I like how it's cohesive with the theme of "Keep Wikipedia Growing", and the lightbulb works well with the "light of knowledge" concept of an encyclopedia.
Pine
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine-
We are definitely trying to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, while still reaching the fundraising target. It is a bit of a balancing act. We have looked into the issue of the size of the banner some. Of course, A/B tests show the larger banners raise more donations, more quickly. We have also looked into reader opinions of the intrusiveness of the banner. Readers found the larger banners only slightly more intrusive than the smaller ones. Those findings are here (slide 24):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fun... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_2014_English_Fun...
We also know that most donors give the very first time they see a banner. The donation rate drops off significantly on each subsequent impression, so lengthening the campaign has a diminished return. Here is the data on that from last December:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fundraising_Quarterly_Revi...
With these learnings, we use a large banner on the first impressions and then switch to the smaller banner for later impressions. Not everyone visits the site everyday, so the first banner impressions happen over the course of weeks.
Also, we have a new banner running now – with a lightbulb graphic. Let us know what you think.
Thank you, Lisa
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Lisa.
More directly on the topic of fundraising banners, I appreciate that the wording has been tweaked this year to address the major integrity
concerns.
I can appreciate that fundraising is necessary for Wikipedia. It would be nice to disrupt the user experience as little as possible, so one issue I think should get a look going forward (if it hasn't already) is the size
of
the banner in proportion to viewer screen size. Others have mentioned the color issue. I suppose that the trick is to get the reader's attention while minimizing the disruption to the content experience. It seems to me that a moderately longer campaign in exchange for less intrusive banners might be a good tradeoff.
I'm also continuing to hope that WMF will have a top-line budget freeze
for
next year, which could take some pressure off of the online campaigns to continue to grow income.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Article in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-ha...
TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just about fullscreen advertising.
I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then, there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward mistakes happen.[2]
At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many important questions that would need to be answered as part of that strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other related concerns:
- Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4]) - Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process - rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers. - culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death") - Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement" rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic challenge of "editor recruitment and retention". - Addressing some of the inequities of how money is raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa letter". - movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising clash with WikiLovesMonuments)
Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent! However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated support despite years of that community begging for it.
I've probably written too much now... sorry!
-Liam
[1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role: https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are potentially renewable. [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay [4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080150.html wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Article in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-ha... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the person donated. On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt" liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just about fullscreen advertising.
I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then, there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward mistakes happen.[2]
At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many important questions that would need to be answered as part of that strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges this would bring. Carefully and consultatively addressing the challenges in creating an endowment would also go a long way towards fixing other related concerns:
- Improving the transparency of the WMF strategy and the way decisions
are made (see also the discussion about the FDC recommendations[4])
- Having the global community, especially the Chapters which have
local fundraising capacity, involved in the fundraising process - rather than being held at arms length. The community should be seen as the fundraiser's biggest asset, not the pageview numbers.
- culturally sensitive communication (to avoid things like the email
saying "let's end this" being translated into French as the *equivalent* of "I challenge you to a fight to the death")
- Integrating the activities of fundraising as "part of the movement"
rather than as something that is held/holds itself apart. The WMF donor database, for example, has tens of thousands of people who would be interested in learning to edit. Why have we never tried to create a [privacy-policy-compliant] way of introducing those people to their local communities/chapters to help address the other strategic challenge of "editor recruitment and retention".
- Addressing some of the inequities of how money is
raised/disseminated across our movement which are based on rules "grandfathered in" from chapter-fundraising rules prior to the "Haifa letter".
- movement calendars (to avoid things like this year's fundraising
clash with WikiLovesMonuments)
Some people say that the fundraising goal is too high. Perhaps, but we also have a long list of fixes-needed and wanted-features. We can't do a lot more with a lot less, although we can certainly increase the efficiency/transparency of how the existing WMF budget is spent! However, with the increased total budget, also comes a increased expectation of results. I think that a lot of my own frustration comes from this - I could probably be supportive of a fullscreen banner IF I felt the results justified it. But, for just one example, as Andrea described today[5], Wikisource has NEVER received any dedicated support despite years of that community begging for it.
I've probably written too much now... sorry!
-Liam
[1] Side note: If you'd like to apply for what is think is probably the hardest (and therefore very important) job in Wikimedia, WMF Fundraising is hiring a community-liaison role: https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/113040?t=26r71l [2] like saying "A year ago, you gave 0.00 € to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free." https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120214 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Yes, I realise the metaphor isn't perfect. Oil is a non-renewable resource while donations are potentially renewable. [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay [4] and thank you Lila for your response on that topic thus far https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/079940.html [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080150.html wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 3 December 2015 at 09:16, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Article in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-ha...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
(resending to thread with subject line, apologies if this comes through twice!)
Hi all, just wanted to weigh in on a few things brought up in this and the other threads.
* The coffee cup stock image was a mistake and miscommunication with a contractor. IANAL but my understanding is that they had a license from the stock photo company, so the use was legal, but not free use as we would like. Once we became aware there was a problem, we stopped using the image and switched to the current lightbulb graphics. We'll certainly be more careful about this in future.
* A number of people have suggested using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_of_Coffee.svg, which is a very nice image but unfortunately seems to be lacking permission and is pending deletion from Commons. We've found some other alternative freely licensed coffee cup images, but for now the lightbulb graphics are doing very well so we're concentrating on them.
* In the past we have tested a few banners which focused on highlighting great images from Commons (with attribution of course). [1] Unfortunately these didn't perform as well as our other banners, but it's something we would like to revisit in future. We have also been testing using Commons images in some of our emails to past donors, which has seen more success.
* Uploading fundraising banner images to donate.wikimedia.org was simply a pragmatic decision. Because these images are so widely seen, they could be a tempting target for vandalism. Uploading to Commons would require protecting them, which is an extra step that's easy to forget, and would also require granting Commons administrator or staff rights to multiple people. We could have used wikimediafoundation.org, but it was thought better to keep all the fundraising images together, and avoid overloading that project with something it wasn't really intended for. When we produce artwork or an image that is Commons worthy, we share it there.
* Not showing the banner again if someone donated is a great suggestion, and in fact it's something we already do by setting cookies when people reach the Thank You page.
Thanks, Peter
[1] You can see some examples here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#2015-2016_Q1_Update
I would assume you are also going to provide some input some comment into the discussion other than just dumping a pile of quotes in here?
On 3 December 2015 at 07:06, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
I thought this might be a good point in the conversation to share some of the comments we have received from donors over the past day and a half. I think they really appreciate all of your work:
Wikipedia has provided an unfathomable outlet for the inexhaustible chorus of "why? why? why?" that has run through my brain since I was old enough to think. I also believe its a factor in why I am currently in the eligible Jeopardy! contestant pool. In short, thanks Wikipedia.
Wikipedia helps me almost daily, I cannot count the number of times me and friends have been debating the answer to life, the universe and everything (42, in case you were wondering!) and Wikipedia has dispelled the discrepancies in one or more of our arguments. Thanks to wiki, we have been able to convince each other we were wrong, and educate on topics we have never considered. Wiki is very important, and for this I will continue to donate as long as I can afford to. The more the world has open access to information for free, the sooner mankind will get along. Wikipedia is making the world a better place one article at a time. Thank you.
I've had a roadrunner and wild turkey with poults in my yard and I've used Wiki to obtain information about them.
There was a time I used to get embarrassed due to lack of general knowledge. Wikipedia gave me confidence. Thank you.
well, over time, using it became a reflex, like breathing but when i pause to think about it, it is one of the source of knowledge I use most and I am the better for it.
It's one of a tiny number of fund raising calls that I respond to. The charter or quest of Wikipedia , I think is among the highest ideals that humans can aspire to.
Wikipedia is the first point of call for any research i am performing, especially on a new subject. It has been a life-saver on more than one occasions
Wikipedia is part of my information ecosystem. It's like a road map for new intellectual territory.
There was (more than) one time when I needed to know if some dumb obscure TV actor from the 70s was still alive and Wikipedia was there for me. Plus all the other times when I just need a quick bit of info: size of a country's population, name of a president, details about a math function; it's endless.
Helped me with my uni degree, gave me medical information on health problems, let me learn new things about animals that I like :D Helps me answer questions from my kid about the world that I want to give her, but don't know the answers to
I think you're the only organisation that can fundraise that way and you deserve it.
My older sister doesn't have a computer (she's 82), so we talk on the phone and I look up stuff for her. It's a nice way to spend time with her, and it brings us together
As a journalist and travel writer, this online research is often my first port of call. For a quick scan of even just the most basic information about a topic, I used to have to walk down to the basement of the national television building I worked in to ask the archivist to dig out a series of reference books that applied to my topic. Sometimes the books were already in use by someone else, which meant I had to wait even longer or beg the person to share the book with me. Now, I just Google it and often end up on Wikipedia. While I always still double check everything I read on these pages and use other sources for my actual fact finding, it no longer takes hours or days to get started with my research
I've lost many bets because of wikipedia. So because of you I have looked stupider than if you didn't exist
Wikipedia is the first step in any student's research. When it comes to education, Wikipedia is the real MVP!
As a student, Wikipedia is a goldmine. I love you guys.
I use it for everything from government and politics to celebrities and tv shows to authors and books. There's a facebook group I'm a part of called "Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club." People post weird, strange, interesting wikipedia pages they've found. Basically, wikipedia is awesome! (I'd really love there to be an accuracy scale though, since I usually end up researching stuff after I read the wikipedia page, just to make sure it's correct.)
I'm an engineer. I was not the smartest nor the dumbest in uni. I was average and over the years I forget concepts/theories/formulae all the time and I use Wikipedia to give my memory the nudge it needs to get back on track. Thank you.
It is my main source of information.
Taking AP Physics in high school I would constantly get confused with all of the unites and what they actually measured. Joules, watts, newton's, difference between power and work. Lucky wiki saved that day with wonderful articles that explained what everything meant. It helped me solidify my foundation in physics, helping me to conquer a college level class at the age of 16.
Keeps Me from lying awake at night wondering about past events & historical data
it is just just always super handy
I see Wikipedia as my knowledgeable friend which knows everything on every topic. For example, once I was really confused about red giants in astronomy, but Wikipedia saved me.
life is better with it than without it.
One of the nicest things about Wikipedia is the explicit information about local places -- especially for off-the-beaten-track places in the U.S. which are overlooked by guide books. For example, when I had some spare time in the SF Bay Area, I having a delightful adventure, finding an obscure wine-tasting area and great descriptions of museums which match my offbeat tastes, such as The Museum of Computer History in Mountain View, California. It is also a great way to find public domain pictures for lectures and to find out where my students are starting, as a baseline.
It is my "Encyclopedia"
Writing this I've just turned 28. I was perhaps among the first schoolchildren to hear "Don't cite Wikipedia; it's unreliable as a source!" by their teachers. Even back then in high school I knew that Wikipedia was important. Before I had left for college I had started my own axiom - "Wikipedia LEADS to the source!" I use Wikipedia every day of my life. I've taken it as a natural given, like it is a simple fact of our daily lives now. If I want to understand any subject with more clarity or depth (which I almost always do) I type it into Wikipedia. I am continually using it throughout the day to learn and re-learn and enrich my life. -but this is just me. I fully believe that Wikipedia will be how the younger generations will grow up in the future. In the past, kids would ask embarrassing questions of their friends or family, or maybe not at all - questions of sex and medical issues would torture young minds and could even lead to trauma and great frustration...but now any child can access Wikipedia and have the Whole of Human Knowledge at their fingertips to learn at their own pace. With Wikipedia, we've become our own parents, teaching each other all that we know; information is shared globally, and freely, in an unending and beautiful cycle. Truly, as romantically tragic as it may sound, Wikipedia is one of the few things that gives me hope for the future; as it shows people coming together in such a glorious way.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Trillium, in the "administrative set", I think you'll find that almost
all
of us produced content prior to our involvement in organizational
matters.
Those of us who have formal roles wouldn't be trusted with keys to the kingdom if we lacked track records of positive contributions to the encyclopedia. The exceptions are for WMF staff and affiliate staff who weren't hired from within the community; an ongoing issue is the need to acculturate these staff into the ways of the Wiki and to educate them
about
our (often complex) ways, while leveraging the value that they can bring
to
Wikimedia organizations in areas like legal advocacy, visual design,
press
communications, tech ops, etc.
Viewers, content contributors, funders, volunteer tech and organizational leaders, and paid staff are all necessary parts of the Wikimedia
ecosystem.
These groups and individuals interact in complex and intricate ways, and changes to the ecosystem are always in motion.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org