On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
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!
I understand the principle of A/B testing, but if the only assessment criterion is which banner brings in the most money in a given time-frame, we will end up biasing ourselves towards the wordings that are most effective at emotional manipulation, rather than wordings that tell prospective donors openly and honestly about the programs the donated funds will be used for, and the tangible benefits the public can expect to receive from those programs.
Andreas
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
wrote:
I am however negatively-struck by the finishing statement, a return to
the
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.
The Foundation just reported in its latest financial statements[1] assets including –
· Cash and cash equivalents of $28 million (up 5.7 million), · Investments of $23 million (also up 5.7 million).
Claiming in the fundraising banner that money is needed to "keep
Wikipedia
online and ad-free" verges on dishonesty, in my opinion.
See also the graphs in the Wikipedia article[2] on the Wikimedia
Foundation
(this latest financial report is not yet included).
I remember Jimmy Wales proudly telling the public[3] in 2005 how little
it
cost to run Wikipedia:
*“So, we’re doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it’s really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers
and
the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars, and
that’s
essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee … We actually hired Brion [Vibber] because he was working part-time for two years and full-time at Wikipedia so we actually hired him so he could
get a
life and go to the movies sometimes.”*
While today, the Wikimedia Foundation attracts rather more page views –
21
billion a month, i.e. 15 times as much – even 15 times the $5,000 a month Wales mentioned would only be $75,000 a month, or $900,000 a year; and
that
is without allowing for economies of scale, and the fact that bandwidth costs have decreased since 2005. I am sure this is balanced by various server-side improvements, but still. The Foundation is now regularly taking, and asking for, more than $50 million a year.
I am sure these banners, which have been in testing for months now,
"work"
in terms of bringing money in. But wouldn't it be nice if the public were told what the money is really for, instead of being left with the impression that lack of money is jeopardising the continued existence of Wikipedia?
[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e3/FINAL_13_14From_KPMG....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275 _______________________________________________ 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