David Gerard wrote: Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say "(again)" in the subject line. ;-) There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused logged-in users to be hit with them as well. Talk about eating your own dog food. The French Wikipedia held what appears to be a straw poll with overwhelming denouncement of the banner. It's also been repeatedly described as a phishing attempt. Complaints and confusion aren't uncommon during any annual fundraiser, but I think we can and should hold ourselves to a higher standard when begging people for money. As pointed out on Meta-Wiki's "Wikimedia Forum" by Jules78120, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines is pretty clear that the (primary) goal is that banners "be as unobtrusive as possible." I wrote this in May 2011, I believe deliberately outside of the annual fundraising that takes place in December so that we could have a calm and reasonable discussion about appropriate CentralNotice usage. Sigh. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

old motto of "keep us online without advertising for one more year". I thought that we had collectively agreed that banners that directly threaten advertising next year were not going to happen any more.

Hi All -- A quick note to all of you. Please keep in mind this is one of the A/B test, the design changes daily based on data/performance results. The team will let you know which variations will be available next week, although even those will change daily. This is not to stifle this discussion (I personally read the comments to see how we can make this better for next year), this is just to give you some insights on the workings of this. Happy Thanksgiving if you are celebrating! ~~~~Lila

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: wrote: the Wikipedia Foundation it and that’s get a 21 that "work" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG… _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I'm going to second Liam's comment here, it is disappointing that we're discussing this here but the Foundation is not coming to the party and explaining why they are doing these things. They're creating an information void, and a void *will* be filled somehow; if the WMF is not proactive in filling it with the real story, it'll be filled with rumours and misinformation, the sort of stuff that inhibits the movement from achieving its goals. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a reasonably prompt answer to the sort of questions being posed here in a respectful fashion. I've copied in Megan Hernandez, the Director of Online Fundraising in the hope of getting a comment, just in case she's not aware of this discussion. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 27 November 2014 at 21:44, Liam Wyatt &lt;liamwyatt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: taken are yet? wrote: know, on like like food. of have a https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The banners may be effective, but they're not aligned with Wikimedia's values.

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote: I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share the underlying sentiment.

(a) solicit input from a neutral reputation management consultancy, and

(b) create a forum for staffers to talk openly about this matter, without fear of reprisal

"Wikipedia begging for donations per usual. "Advertising isn't evil" they say as they throw a second nag at me as I scroll down." https://twitter.com/enemyplayer/status/539180814739988481

Obnoxious banners *really do damage the brand*. What are the fundraiser metrics? If they don't include effect on the brand, they'll be motivating damaging behaviour.

All -- we will not have a pop-up banner. I know you want more insight into the trends: we will provide some of those in our upcoming reports and metrics and we will plan to shift to a quarterly cadence of a more specific metrics report that will include fundraising. Just to cover some basic trends: the last two years have significantly changed our traffic composition. Regionally, we are seeing growth in emerging languages and regions. This is great: people who need the knowledge most, but cannot afford it and often live in countries where free speech is criminalized are learning about Wikipedia. We need to keep supporting that. In Europe, North America, Australia, etc. we see Wikipedia becoming a part of the fabric of the internet itself: embedded in web searches, operating systems, and other online resources. This is great too: people get knowledge wherever they are. Both of those trends however can make it more difficult to raise funds (and sometimes contribute), so we have to make sure we adapt. We are doing a lot of work around thinking through a diversified fundraising strategy. That said, our main tool today are the site banners. Just to be clear: the pop-up banner had advantages. It tested high with readers, was only shown once to each user and cut the total number of impressions needed by a factor of 7! We did hear your concerns however. The Fundraising team listened and quickly integrated your feedback. While our launch banner will be different from last year’s, it will not be a pop-up, overlay content, or be sticky. As always this starting design will iterate daily and have parallel tests, so you may see variations at any given time. Megan Hernandez will send another email with more details about the process to-date, and how best to communicate with Fundraising during the coming month. And in the spirit of the holidays I'd like to thank the fundraising team for all of their hard work and to all of the volunteers who have helped with the campaigns. ~~~~ Lila On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:39 PM, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update. Fundraising trends and data are always welcome, particularly where communities can help improve and test local messages. I am also deeply thankful for the smooth work of the fundraising team, who have made great progress over the last few years – in storytelling & translation, mobile giving, testing & data analysis. I look forward to seeing what we learn this year. Sam On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Lila Tretikov &lt;lila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: those free Wikipedia too: banners. The pop-up, iterate time. process Wikimedia's share and not. banners not and this -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Megan Hernandez <mhernandez@...> writes: > > > As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising > campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the > mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our

> this year to-date. > > Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on > English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Our

> of year campaign goal is $20 million. As Lila mentioned, our goal is to > serve more powerful reminders to be able to limit the total number of > banners each reader sees. We are constantly experimenting with new

I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an

However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems to

more fear inducing as well. Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was in financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because

isn't. The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a real problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel manipulated. My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is rare

him because he doesn't often donate to charities. He said this year's ads are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate. I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce the number of times people need to see the ad, but it's not great when people stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to an advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search). - Ryan Lane

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

* Martijn Hoekstra wrote: as the Considering the rate at which the Foundation and its Chapters increase and want to increase "revenue", it is unlikely anybody is really trying to optimise how long it takes to collect enough money to keep Wikipedia "online and ad-free" for another year. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Martijn Hoekstra, 03/12/2014 10:13: Why December? Fundraising banners are up all year long. Due to the

Nemo

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: banners bigger to in first real rare ads the people year know etc. for as the appearance reader content to We're want be run, I than For reference, there was an article in The Register on this a couple of days ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/penniless_and_desperate_wikipedia_s… Slashdot: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/02/1528227/a-mismatch-between-wikimedi… Discussion of the Register article on Jimmy Wales' talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Article_in_the_Register Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, "Ryan Lane" &lt;rlane32(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: goals end methods exception. be there for an Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every year on the first week of December will save you frustration and effort. I know how this will end. It'll end like last year, and the year before, etc. etc. Where we conclude, yes, what we did now really cross the line, we have to tone it down a bit, with thank yous to those concerned, and apologies for taking it too far. I have no doubt it's exactly the same next year. So please see the email below I'll automate for the first week of December for now on. Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the yearly donation drive as short as possible. Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the appearance and the message presented. For the appearance, it is the size and obnoxiousness that bothers me. They seem to be designed to annoy the reader as much as possible. I know they only work when people notice them but do we really *have* to (select one from list: play audio/ obscure our content forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people. Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm. But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go off next week if You don't donate Now. The servers won't go offline. We're not on immediate danger. Yet that's what this year's campaign seems to want the message to be. But don't take my word for it, take a look at the messages accompanying the donations. People are genuinely worried. They will be angry if they find out they're being manipulated, and they would be right. Generally I'm proud of what we do as movement and proud of much of the way we do it. These banners make me ashamed of the movement I'm part of. And frustrated that I seem to be unable to change it in the long run, I think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year. For now, two requests. # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal? # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more than 50% of the space above the fold. I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers. Kind regards, --Martijn I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly coincidence with this one, that would help. --Martijn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Nicely put Martijn. Many a true word is spoken in jest. Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email) as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your work. You should continue to take great personal pride in the crucial role you play to make our [puzzle-]globe keep spinning each year! I also appreciate that you're in a sticky position of needing to try new things but also receiving flak when you do. Perhaps as a practical suggestion, so we can avoid this discussion happening *again *next year, it would be worth all of us collaborating here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles Perhaps it is worthwhile adding a section to this page which lists the more practical expectations about the fundraising banners which we have developed by consensus over the years. Things like "no animations/sounds", "no obscuring of the content", "no popups" and "no threats/warnings without genuine cause". I'd personally like to add two more things: - "easily dismissible on mobile" (because I've unintentionally clicked the banner with my finger many times when trying to press the impossibly-small "x" icon to dismiss the banner on my phone) and - "Tell the OTRS team and appropriate Chapter (when applicable) when any major change (such as adding/removing a new payment method) happens in that language/country. These Fundraising principles, according to that Meta page, are from "...an October, 2010 letter < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_princ… and a January, 2012 WMF resolution < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Developing_Scenarios_for_future_… The page itself was primarily edited by WMF Board of Trustees Stu and SJ. I would argue that it is possible that several of these principles are not being followed, at least according to the recent discussions on this list. Including: - "*Transparency*: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must be truthful with prospective donor". Instead, the public seems to be questioning if the messages are truthful about our financial stability. - "*Maximal Participation*: ...we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging." Instead, rather than being ambassadors for our mission, wikimedians are feeling increasingly embarrassed when their friends/public ask about the fundraising campaign. -"*Minimal disruption*: ...causing minimal disruption and annoyance for users of the projects" Instead, a desire to finish fundraising quickly is given higher priority. Even though that is *not *one of the stated principles. -"*Internationalism*: ...our fundraising practices must support the easiest possible transfer of money internationally." Instead, we've had the recent discussions about how donating is difficult from the Netherlands and impossible from Russia [did they get a response yet, by the way?] I'd also add that "I'll keep it short" as a subject-line for the fundraising email feels to me like "an Americanism" that would be far too casual to be taken seriously in many other cultures. -Liam On 3 December 2014 at 10:13, Martijn Hoekstra &lt;martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, "Ryan Lane" &lt;rlane32(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > Megan Hernandez <mhernandez@...> writes: > > > > > > > > As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising > > > campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the > > > mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are on our > goals > > > this year to-date. > > > > > Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on Our to > > > serve more powerful reminders to be able to limit the total number of > > > banners each reader sees. We are constantly experimenting with new > methods > > > to reach our readers and optimize the donation experience. > > > > > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners bigger to > be > > more fear inducing as well. > > > Today I had a coworker private message me, worried that Wikipedia was in > > financial trouble. He asked me if the worst happened, would the content > > still be available so that it could be resurrected? I assured him that > > Wikimedia is healthy, has reserves, and successfully reaches the budget > > every year. Basically I said there wasn't much to worry about, because > there > > isn't. > > > The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first real > > problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel > > manipulated. > > > My coworker told me that he donates generously every year, which is rare ads > > are putting him off. He doesn't feel like he should donate. > > > I understand that efficient banner ads are good, because they reduce the people > > stop posting funny banner memes and start asking Wikimedia to switch to > an > > advertising model (seriously, do a quick twitter search). > > > - Ryan Lane > > Excuse the cynicism, but maybe automating the message to go out every year know etc. for > now on. > Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as the > yearly donation drive as short as possible. > Yet the banners I'm seeing this year leave me troubled about the appearance reader content > forcing a click through / use animated content / take up the majority of > the screen above the fold). It annoys our users, the people we do it all > for, to no end. Take a look at Twitter, it's not just one or two people. > Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to We're want be run, I > think I may have send out a similar email to this one last year. > For now, two requests. > # could you please stop misleading the reader in our appeal? > # could you please make the banners a little less invasive? So that the > don't obscure content unless dismissed, and so that they take up more than > 50% of the space above the fold. > I know you work hard for the fundraiser to be successful, and as brief as > possible, but please take in consideration the dangers of damaging our > reputation for openness and honesty, and the impact on our volunteers. > Kind regards, > --Martijn > I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around > 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly > coincidence with this one, that would help. > --Martijn > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 3 December 2014 at 14:09, Liam Wyatt &lt;liamwyatt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I would suspect that what drives this is indeed the professionalism of the Fundraising team. I don't mean to be overly speculative, but what we are talking about here is an issue that doesn't readily translate into metrics. Creating and gathering metrics for "damage to the Wikipedia brand" would be extremely difficult and expensive. On the other hand, creating and gathering metrics for "the number/amount/... of donations received" is easy and cheap. Relatedly, "damage to the Wikipedia brand" is not something the impact of which you feel directly, while "the number/amount/... of donations received" is something that immediately translates into WMF's budget. So I assume the Fundraising team is in a somewhat uncomfortable position here. Getting them to change the way they run the campaigns might, in this case, really not work on its own; rather, in my view, any decision on this likely has to come from the very top of the Foundation (those that Fundraising reports to), who, to some degree, have to place their gut feeling over the implications derived from the available/feasible set of hard quantitative metrics. Cheers, Patrik _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes: to 3rd I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage. Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong. - Ryan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try talking to the Fundraising Team.

Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes: to 3rd I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage. Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong. - Ryan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources, many demands... and I'd like to keep us as lean as we are :) Below is a soundbite I got from many notes I get from our donors, this is not unusual about this banner: *"...banner on wikipedia today motivated me to donate for the first time. I think the increased size properly conveyed the importance of the donations to running the site. Previous banners were a bit too polite or subtle to get me thinking."*

John Mark Vandenberg wrote: Thanks for your great wording, John. I belong to this category (somewhat). I stopped contributing because I felt that my work is not adequately supported. I felt the need to develop some software. I have rather limited free time however, and I've been in the "not highly productive on-wiki" phase for over 3 years now. Incidentally, one of the entities that doesn't adequately support my work is my local chapter. It had been extremely hostile toward Wikimedia movement and after learning how it works I had no motivation to continue working with Wikimedia projects. How poorly the Wikimedia Foundation itself works wasn't the biggest obstacle (I found it mildly approachable and was (and am!) a tiny bit happy with it).

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana &lt;svetlana(a)fastmail.com.au&gt; wrote: > John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > >> i.e. specifically asking >> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped >> contributing >> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their >> work >> being adequately supported? > > Thanks for your great wording, John. >

Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter? Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows?

I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wording assuming the current word count do so and after you pick top 3-5 we can pilot with one of our next user groups.

I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wording assuming the current word count do so and after you pick top 3-5 we can pilot with one of our next user groups. On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter &lt;putevod(a)mccme.ru&gt; wrote: you _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter &lt;putevod(a)mccme.ru&gt; wrote: wrote: you I was aware that svetlana might be referring to Wikimedia Australia, but didnt know whether she had disclosed her locality (I now see she is using a .au email address..) Contrary to their webpage http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Committee (https://archive.today/5r3TH), and my enwp user page until a few seconds ago, I dont belong to that chapter. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

You have a community that's upset [...]

I wrote: > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating

communicating it early I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say: > it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for

communicating it early

The whole of your post suggests that the fundraising folks are deaf. Your last sentence doesn't make you more to the point. This makes you really unapproachable and puts the fundraising folks into harder position as they have to cry, beg pardon and spend time apologizing -- as if they had killed a kitten -- before they can approach you and ask for help. On one side, such hostile approach is something you might feel these folks deserve for their awful mistakes. You might feel that you're being more clear about it - but clarity doesn't really have to come at the cost of shaming and not having made a single move toward changing the situation. We are all learning.

"PS: The poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm, now blocked from en:wp, which has started spamming WM mailing lists (see the India list) and is squatting the site http://www.wikimedia.xyz/ . Please do not feed, and moderate as needed."

This is a good thread -- it's important to be unified in our message, proud of it, and aware of how broadly it spreads. Every campaign both raises some funds for the project, gives supporters an opportunity to talk about Wiki*edia with their friends, and shifts public perception of who we are, what we do, and why.

With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and financial health and future. Some perspective from my role as a trustee: One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised. At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term -- not only to keep the lights on but also to build better infrastructure (ranging from current contributor-supporting projects -- see the recent product survey -- to making the software easier on new editors). And, of course, fundraising is only one small supporting piece of the overall picture -- so we discussed how shifting patterns in Wikimedia project consumption, ranging from mobile to Google knowledge graph type products, might affect our mission long-term. Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves (which I personally think is wise, given current trends). We also discussed and deeply appreciate the delicate balance that fundraising has: yes, we can raise more by running more banners, but at what cost? I should note that the board didn't set new targets in this meeting. But we did express our support and thanks for the fundraising team's efforts, which have been remarkable at making sure that our projects are funded by a world-wide group of independent readers. One side note about the evolution of fundraising in Wikimedia that I think is worth noting is that the overall length of the fundraiser has shrunk dramatically in the last 7-8 years -- from a month at 100% in 2006 to a targeted 2 weeks (or less) today. Individual readers see many fewer banner impressions now than they used to. Personally, I think readers should worry about Wikipedia. We are a nonprofit that exists because of the labor of volunteers. Our readers who rely on our work and don't think much about how it gets on their screens should recognize that what we do isn't guaranteed in perpetuity -- it all depends on help, support and work from our global community. If that knowledge motivates people to contribute, fantastic. If contributing means donating 3$, great. And if it means becoming an editor: even better. Let's all work towards that. -- Phoebe On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Klein &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: who wrote: those free Wikipedia too: banners. The our pop-up, iterate time. process -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com * _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the fundraising message as a summary.

phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes: The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs. They raise money incredibly efficiently. So indeed, thank you fundraising team for your work. It's a high pressure job, which I can empathize with. As one of the people concerned about the projects' public image, I read your words of thanks, but don't feel thanked by the content of your post, since it doesn't address the raised concerns. Have you seen the data that suggests the public image isn't being damaged? The board members have signed NDAs, so they are allowed access to the raw data. I also have a signed NDA, so technically I should be allowed to see it as well.

Can you answer some direct questions? Do you feel the size of the banners is appropriate to the mission, given that it obscures the content significantly (and in many cases completely)? Do you feel the messaging is accurate to the financial situation of the Foundation?

For me, the problem is with the combined impact of the phrase "ask our readers to help us", the word "survive" and the words "keep it online and ad-free for another year".

phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> writes: I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Lila wrote in a previous post that they have data that shows the banners are not causing brand damage. I'm asking if you've seen that data.

The data from social media isn't anecdotal. It's public and is overwhelmingly negative towards the banners. It shows there's a negative reaction to both the message and size of the banners. Something I don't understand is why this isn't at least being acknowledged as being a problem.

I'm not asking for the Foundation to stop the banners. I'm not trying to make the fundraising team's life harder. What I want is acknowledgement that there is indeed a problem and that it will be addressed for next fundraiser. I do want more than a promise of that, though. I'd like to see progress on more reasonable banners during the next year before the 100% fundraiser starts, so that we're not having the same discussion yet again.

Hello all, I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too. Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ]. ==communication re: fundraising season== * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too] * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you communicate it to the stakeholders * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week] * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs" ==message content== * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.] * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [note, I'm not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in crisis terms.] * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is clear/is too American [the latter is a problem esp. with English Wikipedia messaging, I suspect] * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year] * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls who get a/b tested * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating because of above points. ==banner size== * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus] * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point] * banners that obscure content are no good [note, though we agree on the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there] * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small ==brand image== * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above content points * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this] * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def. worth exploring] * user sentiment analysis is important [possible action point: maybe user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner tests?] * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners? [note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison. Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm unusual in that way]. ==data== * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than past??/how much is there/should we worry about it? * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence the shorter fundraiser] ------- Other questions for me: Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the most exciting discussion. Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send it to you if I did. best, Phoebe

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: point] Hi Phoebe, Thanks for re-reading the whole thread, that must have been "fun", and for summarizing the points. From my perspective, you caught pretty much everything. The one thing I still have to add is the subject line of the Jimmy email. That came across as incredibly spammy and misleading to me (Why the hell is Jimmy mailing me telling me he'll keep it short? Oh, it's just a fundraiser email). The subject of the email is not Jimmy keeping it short, but a request to donate. That should be clearer in the subject line. And the sender should IMO be the Wikimedia Fundraising team or the WMF, not Jimmy. To others I imagine it reads like those spam emails with "Have you seen this article?" in the subject line with spoofed email addresses. Thank you for keeping working on this, and not getting pulled into emotion. Cheers, --Martijn _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too.

Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ]. ==communication re: fundraising season== * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too] * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you communicate it to the stakeholders * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week]

==data== * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than past??/how much is there/should we worry about it?

* how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence the shorter fundraiser]

Hello all, I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too. Anything else I missed? My editorializing is in brackets [ ]. ==communication re: fundraising season== * develop banner approaches in the off-season [the fundraising team already does this, but there's desire for community discussion too] * if you do something new (in a geography etc.) make sure you communicate it to the stakeholders * fundraising team seen as sometimes unresponsive [though acknowledged that this, the en.wp fundraiser, is their biggest crunch week] * Also many thanks for the acknowledged very efficient, remarkable job at fundraising to the team; "The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs" ==message content== * don't mislead about ads: potential implication that if we don't get the money we'll run ads is not ok [agreed.] * don't mislead about WMF finances: potential implication that we'll go off the air immediately if you don't donate is not ok [note, I'm not seeing this in the current message, but I may not be seeing it because every fundraising appeal I've ever gotten is crouched in crisis terms.] * message sounds like an obituary/doesn't sound like an obituary/is clear/is too American [the latter is a problem esp. with English Wikipedia messaging, I suspect] * comments about emails, too [note, previous donors get 1 email a year] * comment that 1/fundraiser a year is not true for those unlucky souls who get a/b tested * as contributors, we want to be proud of Wikimedia, and not demotivated by the banners. some find the fundraising demotivating because of above points. ==banner size== * pop-ups are no good [pretty clear consensus] * sticky banners no good [I'm not sure if there's consensus on this point] * banners that obscure content are no good [note, though we agree on the principle, I am personally skeptical about the claim of this banner interfering with our mission; the content is still right there] * mobile banners too big, x to dismiss too small ==brand image== * current messages are seen as harming brand image because of above content points * harming brand image is not ok [I think we're all agreed on this] * messages should encourage people to contribute content as well [def. worth exploring] * user sentiment analysis is important [possible action point: maybe user sentiment re: brand should be more highly weighted in the banner tests?] * what would happen if donors were shown financials alongside banners? [note this seems very impractical to me. The majority of donors do not have experience with big nonprofit finances or a scope of comparison. Yes, I look at the 990s of charities I give to, but I suspect I'm unusual in that way]. ==data== * we want all the data, because we are Wikipedians * especially .. user sentiment methodology & raw data * social media reaction: it seems very negative/more negative than past??/how much is there/should we worry about it? * how many impressions do people see? Is it really less? [note, we've been trying to optimize for fewer impressions for a long while, hence the shorter fundraiser] ------- Other questions for me: Nemo asks about minutes. I suspect they'll be out in a couple of weeks, and then there will be a week of delay or so as the board approves them. All delays are on the trustee end, not on the secretary's end. Note though that I already summarized probably the most exciting discussion. Andreas asks about the editor survey report. I looked through my papers the last time you asked, and I don't think I have it. I'd send it to you if I did. best, Phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Whining about effective fundraising is just that.. Please help us with approaches that bring in the additional money to do even more in stead. Thanks, GerardM

Dear Ms. Ayers Thanks for informing you are also a WMF trustee like "Sam" and you concede that.these controversial banners are "in your face". Sam's last email had this remark concerning the poster below:- Some direct questions to you as a WMF Trustee: a} if this is Trustee Sam's personal knowledge that "the poster below is part of a deranged sockfarm", or is it part of some official / transparent record of WMF which we can object to formally ? b) How Trustee Sam knows that the poster is "squatting the site http://www.wikimedia.xyz/" ? Is this also part of some official WMF record ? c) Do you deny the following official record of WMF concerning highly offensive remarks, including sexually charged remarks, psychiatric remarks, ways to fudge the accounts etc. ? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2011-05-26 extracts: [10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do? [10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-) [10:10am] <mindspillage>: ... [10:10am] <Ironholds>: ... [10:10am] <sgardner>: LOL :-) [10:10am] <Ironholds>: NOT what I meant [10:10am] <StevenW>: She spills her mind, obviously. ;) [10:11am] <Ironholds>: sgardner: you know the WMF covering psychiatric insurance? [10:11am] <Ironholds>: does it just cover YOURS, or are you going to pay for the trauma I've just suffered? :p [10:11am] <sgardner>: Most definitely :-) .. [10:13am] <mindspillage>: And what can we do to help guide the communities into making good choices and ensuring that success? [10:13am] <tommorris>: a few well-placed indef blocks... [10:13am] <StevenW>: Is movement roles sort of like that mindspillage? The strategic planning I mean. [10:13am] <mindspillage>: sgardner: I think the board could use psychiatric benefits... :-P .. [10:15am] <sgardner>: So for example, one of the issues the board grapples with is (and is currently grappling with) is how much emphasis the Wikimedia Foundation should put on growing its operational reserve fund. [10:15am] <StevenW>: Can you translate operational reserve fund to human speak Sue? ;) 10:16am] <Courcelles>: Thinks that would be "rainy day fund" [10:16am] <Nihiltres>: StevenW: the phrase "rainy day" comes to mind [10:16am] <StevenW>: Yes. [10:16am] <Nihiltres>: ah, damnit, Courcelles :P .. [10:18am] <GerardM->: the question is also what the effect of money spend now will be for advancing our goals 10:18am] <Prodego>: Nihiltres: sure, but the budget has gone up far faster than the site has grown .. [10:22am] <tommorris>: Prodego: I'm leaning towards a few million for a group of elite mercenaries to go around punishing vandals. .. [10:25am] <Fluffernutter>: tommorris: and so I was going to say that Ironholds is -- oops :P .. [10:29am] <quanticle>: Hardware is cheap; people are expensive, etc. .. [10:30am] <sgardner>: Just depends which way you want to slice the numbers. [10:30am] <SarekOfVulcan>: Ah, like it better sliced that way, Sue. :-) [10:30am] <sgardner>: :-) On 12/4/14, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.

On 2 December 2014 at 06:53, Lila Tretikov &lt;lila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: And how exactly would you describe this then? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oversized_donation_notice.png