thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Fri Dec 10 12:33:58 UTC 2010
On 10 December 2010 00:20, Philippe Beaudette <pbeaudette at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone -
> First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners. Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia. Yes, it'll come as a shock to all of you <tongue-in-cheek> but there are people who don't know that Wikimedia is anything more than a mis-spelling of Wikipedia. </tongue-in-cheek>. When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
How does using the wrong word clarify anything? I really don't
understand your explanation. I know you weren't intentionally
decieving people, but you were giving them false information. That
almost always confuses rather than clarifies. (They may not know they
are confused, but that's worse, not better.)
> Did we think it would be "drahma free"? No. Of course not. But it was based on our best data and with nothing but the very best of intentions. Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable. I think that our data-driven approach has proven to be very successful this year, and this (hypothesize, test, measure, react) was in line with that method. Obviously, this topic was more sensitive than many other areas where we've taken this approach.
I'm all for a data-driven approach, but you need to consider all the
data. There is more to the Wikimedia movement that raising funds. If A
raises more money than B, that doesn't necessary mean that A is
better. You need to consider the other effects of A compared to B.
When you are just trying different fonts and pictures, that isn't an
issue, but for more complicated changes it is.
I thought there was going to be a big change at the Foundation
involving integrating fundraising with the rest of the movement's
activities. That suggested to me that you all understood that you
can't just consider raising money is isolation, but this recent
incident seems to suggest otherwise. I am very confused...
> To anyone we offended, I offer my personal apologies.
> With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say Wikimedia.
That's progress, but it is still wrong. Sue is not the ED of
Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am part of
Wikimedia, but Sue is definitely not my boss (a fact of which she is
undoubted very relieved!).
More information about the wikimedia-l