The fundraising banner

[HRIP7]

Worthwhile discussion on Wikimedia-l.

[HRIP7]

Somewhat related, parallel Wikimedia-l thread: fundraising blocked in Russia

(Also note Russia-related forum thread here.)

[EricBarbour]

Worthwhile discussion on Wikimedia-l.

And once again, they ignored your comments and concerns. Wasted effort, Andreas.

Plus, Millosh posted something amazingly stupid in the Russian thread.

Our movement is not just the most important thing to us. In my opinion, our movement is the best chance of our species to build the future. There were no and there is no comparable movements.

[HRIP7]

Worthwhile discussion on Wikimedia-l.

And once again, they ignored your comments and concerns. Wasted effort, Andreas.

Not entirely. There was also a gratifying bit of communication off-list.

In my view, they should simply be open about what they actually do want the money for. Most of the spending these days is concerned with professionalising their software engineering, and with outreach. So why not say that? And it wouldn't hurt them to point out in their message that Wikipedia content is written by unpaid volunteers. They could use the fundraising banner itself as a recruitment device.

[Vigilant]

Worthwhile discussion on Wikimedia-l.

And once again, they ignored your comments and concerns. Wasted effort, Andreas.

Not entirely. There was also a gratifying bit of communication off-list.

In my view, they should simply be open about what they actually do want the money for. Most of the spending these days is concerned with professionalising their software engineering, and with outreach. So why not say that? And it wouldn't hurt them to point out in their message that Wikipedia content is written by unpaid volunteers. They could use the fundraising banner itself as a recruitment device.

They need to spend another $3-5M hiring GOOD, SOLID engineers and a couple of AMAZING managers and an architect or two with PROVEN ability to deliver.

They are currently at ground "negative 5" with a full stable of bitter fools who built this edifice to incompetence and a pile of dubiously hired morons.

[JCM]

With all the recent departures from the staff, it would probably be a good idea to hire some proven professionals to replace them. I have absolutely no idea how one would find "proven professionals" in a field of this type, unfortunately.

[Vigilant]

With all the recent departures from the staff, it would probably be a good idea to hire some proven professionals to replace them. I have absolutely no idea how one would find "proven professionals" in a field of this type, unfortunately.

Well, they could start by discarding their previous hiring regime of bringing on anyone who can manage to build "Hello world" in Visual Basic and also spends more than 30 hours a week in wiki[p|m]edia IRC channels licking various people's nether bits.

Every angle is up from where they're starting.

[lilburne]

Worthwhile discussion on Wikimedia-l.

You said:

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?

but wikipedia is constantly saying that they are under some existential threat. Removing a kid's phopto of a butterfly - existential threat. Handling defamation - existential threat. Child protection - existential threat. Pending changes - existential threat. Removal of irrelevant and out-dated information about someone - existential threat. Removal of article about a Z-list celebrity - existential threat.

They are always at it, and according to ArbCom "Banning EC - existential threat."

[HRIP7]

Worthwhile discussion on Wikimedia-l.

You said:

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?

but wikipedia is constantly saying that they are under some existential threat. Removing a kid's phopto of a butterfly - existential threat. Handling defamation - existential threat. Child protection - existential threat. Pending changes - existential threat. Removal of irrelevant and out-dated information about someone - existential threat. Removal of article about a Z-list celebrity - existential threat.

They are always at it, and according to ArbCom "Banning EC - existential threat."

True. Well spotted.

[HRIP7]

A Wikimedia employee speaking up:

I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
the underlying sentiment.

I agree that the urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my
(admittedly limited) understanding of our financial situation. Could we run
a survey that places the banner copy alongside a concise statement of the
Foundation's financials, and which asks the respondent to indicate whether
they regard the copy as misleading.

Quantitative assessments of fundraising strategy ought to consider impact
on all assets, tangible or not. This includes the Foundation's goodwill and
reputation, which are (by common wisdom) easy to squander and hard to
repair. It is critical that we be maximally deliberate on this matter.

In addition to the survey suggested above, I want to also propose that we:

(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

All that being said, since this is a tough thread, and since it is
Thanksgiving weekend here in the US, it is a good opportunity to express
how much I appreciate the work of the fundraising team. Banners are never
going to be popular and it must be tough as hell to do this work while
fielding rants and grumbles from everybody and their cousin. I consider it
a stroke of cosmic luck that I get paid to work on Wikipedia and its sister
projects, and I am grateful to you for making that possible.

[thekohser]

The most impressive and honest things I've seen from a WMF employee in a long while.

A Wikimedia employee speaking up:

I wouldn't come out quite as strongly against these banners, but I share
the underlying sentiment.

I agree that the urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my
(admittedly limited) understanding of our financial situation. Could we run
a survey that places the banner copy alongside a concise statement of the
Foundation's financials, and which asks the respondent to indicate whether
they regard the copy as misleading.

Quantitative assessments of fundraising strategy ought to consider impact
on all assets, tangible or not. This includes the Foundation's goodwill and
reputation, which are (by common wisdom) easy to squander and hard to
repair. It is critical that we be maximally deliberate on this matter.

In addition to the survey suggested above, I want to also propose that we:

(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

All that being said, since this is a tough thread, and since it is
Thanksgiving weekend here in the US, it is a good opportunity to express
how much I appreciate the work of the fundraising team. Banners are never
going to be popular and it must be tough as hell to do this work while
fielding rants and grumbles from everybody and their cousin. I consider it
a stroke of cosmic luck that I get paid to work on Wikipedia and its sister
projects, and I am grateful to you for making that possible.

[HRIP7]

Some more stand-out quotes from the mailing list (emphases are mine).

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/w ... 536#534536

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 exception.
However, this year the banners didn't just get bigger, the copy seems 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
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 for
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

[HRIP7]

This one's from Martijn Hoekstra.

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/w ... 599#534599

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

[HRIP7]

Brief interlude from Twitter, where a past donor complains to Jimmy Wales that Wales spammed him.

https://twitter.com/williampietri/statu ... 7517868032

[HRIP7]

Two from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Lila Tretikov:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/w ... 718#534718

Hi all,

This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are
thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has
equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the
consequences and we will find flaws.

Now for the specifics:

Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust to
changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are
multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size,
parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation.
Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also
use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is
counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they
work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the
overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased 3rd
party to do some of this analysis.

No -- we are not perfect we are constantly working at improving. There are
a million opinions on how this should be done, and then there is research
and live data. This year we made only minimal changes to the text of the
banner. Next year we are going to play with different messaging, and the
team will welcome you suggestions.

Finally thank you for supporting the team. They are literally locked-up in
a room and working around the clock!
Lila

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75756.html

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."*

[HRIP7]

One of mine:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75758.html

I have no doubt that the banners work. But in the opinion of a number of
commentators here, the banners currently feature a very alarming wording –
making it sound as though there is not enough money to keep Wikipedia
online for another year without introducing advertising – and yet we know
that the Foundation has just reported having its healthiest bank balance
ever[1]. The person you quote had no way of knowing that, because the
banner doesn't tell people.

It doesn't seem fair.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... pdf#page=4

[EricBarbour]

Brief interlude from Twitter, where a past donor complains to Jimmy Wales that Wales spammed him.

https://twitter.com/williampietri/statu ... 7517868032

Damn that makes me want to slap Jimbo's little fuzzy round face. Arrrgghhh.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75756.html

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."*

So, one person says the obtrusive banner convinced them to donate, so it's okay to keep running it?

[HRIP7]

So, one person says the obtrusive banner convinced them to donate, so it's okay to keep running it?

I am sure lots of people are convinced to donate by the banners. They've been honed and tested and re-honed and re-tested to have as much "pull" as possible.

I'm quite sure they work, in terms of bringing money in. The question is simply whether it's ethical, given the impression given and the actual financial situation of the Foundation.

Personally, I think it's not right.

[HRIP7]

John Vandenberg chimes in:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75759.html

Lila, the concern is not that the fundraiser is working, which your
soundbite confirms, but that it is deceiving people, or at least
manipulating them 'too much' to be consistent with our values.

One way to test that would be to organise a survey for donors,
informing them of the current financials, the current strategy
document and current status on achieving that strategy, a breakdown on
where the money is currently going and ask them whether they are happy
with the amount and tone of the information they were given before
being asked to donote. WMF donors may already being surveyed like
this (ideally done by academics in the discipline rather than WMF
staff/contractors); if so, hopefully that data can be shared.

In addition to the concern about the tone of the fundraiser damaging
the brand, there is a strong correlation between increased WMF revenue
(and the growth of chapters) and the loss of edit contributors. Has
research been done to rule out causation? 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?

[HRIP7]

Another one from Ryan Lane:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75763.html

Lila Tretikov <lila at ...> writes:

>
> 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
>

You have a community that's upset because they believe the fundraising
banners are causing long-lasting harm to Wikimedia's brand. The analytics
team can probably spend a few hours handling this. They aren't allocated to
the fundraiser.

If it's so labor intensive to go through this data, then it's likely not
being actively used to make decisions. At minimum the methodology that's
being used can be shared.

> 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."*
>

Here's the results of a quick twitter search:

"Every year, the Wikipedia begging banners get bigger and bigger, now it's
3/4 of the screen"

"Wikipedia's donation banners are so huge now that they actually startle me
when they load."

". at Wikipedia might as well use their obtrusive donation banners as ad space.
Or whenever they are running low on funds, enable ads."

"every time wikipedia asks for money the banners get bigger and bigger"

"Holy shit, @wikipedia, just have done with it and put ads up—these donation
banners are awful."

"remember when wikipedia donation banners used to take up only 5% of the page"

"I WOULD donate to @Wikipedia but their donation banners are just too damn
small. I can never spot the darn things!"

"I hate to say this but @Wikipedia's "Donate !" banners are very annoying.
Especially when you've already donated & don't like to feel forced"

"fuck your giant ass banner ads, @wikipedia. i want my previous donations back."

"@sillyredfox Those ads are overly obtrusive. Never giving to @Wikipedia
until they're toned down."

"I'd rather let Wikipedia mine bitcoin on my machine than be assaulted with
their "these aren't ads" fundraiser ads."

"@codinghorror Considering Wikipedia have 90 mil in cash in the bank, the
ads have an oddly desperate tone."

"Dear Wikipedia users: To protect our independence, we'll never run
ads...except the huge one begging for cash you'll see on EVERY PAGE."

There's so, so many more and I only included results that were relevant to
the size or copy.

There's a theme of this search, too. There's not a single positive thing
being said about them. I used to see people joking about the Jimmy banners,
encouraging people to donate. The only jokes I see now are at Wikipedia's
expense.

- Ryan

[thekohser]

Hasten the day... from the offices in San Francisco!

[sparkzilla]

My addition to the genre: linkhttp://newslines.org/blog/stop-giving-wikipedia-money/[/link]

[SB_Johnny]

John Vandenberg chimes in:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75759.html

Lila, the concern is not that the fundraiser is working, which your
soundbite confirms, but that it is deceiving people, or at least
manipulating them 'too much' to be consistent with our values.

When is it going to sink in that the WMF's values have become divorced from the volunteers' values?

[HRIP7]

Another one from Ryan Lane:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75766.html

I worked for Wikimedia Foundation for a little over four years. Every year I
(and many other staff members) have expressed worry about the size and
message of the banners. There's been plenty of early communication.

Every year we get promises that they'll work on making the banners better.
However, it seems when they say better, they mean more effective from the
perspective of generating revenue. The message from the fundraising staff
and Lila is more of the same.

This year I've started having people I know worry that Wikipedia is in
financial trouble. It makes me feel ashamed when I have to tell them
Wikipedia is in fact fine, but that the foundation uses this messaging to
more effectively drive donations. It makes them angry to hear it.

I'm not trying to paint this as us vs them. I'm trying to express that
planting heads firmly in the sand is not an effective approach to dealing
with the brand damage that's readily apparent on social media.

- Ryan

[HRIP7]

MZMcBride:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75769.html

svetlana wrote:
>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.

I think you're being unreasonable here. Ryan pointed to specific examples
of problems with (i.e., negative comments about) the donation
advertisements. This isn't a hostile approach, it's examining and
analyzing evidence in order to reach an informed conclusion.

What you should actually be upset about is the lack of transparency
regarding fundraising statistics. Ryan very politely asked for these
statistics and the response was essentially "we've got higher priorities
right now," which of course is complete rubbish. Of course we're keeping
detailed logs of incoming donations, there's no extra burden there. And of
course people are e-mailing internally and creating internal reports. But
this information isn't being shared and we really must address this.

Nobody is suggesting that the fundraising team kills small furry animals
and I think everyone involved in this discussion (including and perhaps
especially those who are paid or were paid by donations) recognizes the
thankless and stressful job that the fundraising team has. But in the face
of active damage to Wikimedia's brand and reputation, after repeated and
lengthy discussions about the issues with obnoxious, misleading, and
obtrusive donation advertising, it's unsurprising that people are annoyed.

MZMcBride

[HRIP7]

Wikimedia Foundation board member Samuel Klein:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75772.html

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.

Liam, you made a series of good comments about the fundraising principles;
I've posted them and some related thoughts at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fu ... principles

Many people mentioned that we could remind readers they can express
gratitude by contributing knowledge. This message bears repeating every
year - it is welcoming to the millions of one-time contributors who read
it; it is encouraging to those who have never contributed; it offers an
option to those who want to be supportive but have no other way to donate.

Sam

[Zoloft]

Every time you criticize the WMF, Jimbo kills a kitten?

[Lukeno94]

I have Adblock enabled, so don't usually see this. However, whilst using a Uni computer, I was presented with a banner that, at 1280x1024 resolution, appeared to take up half of the screen!

[sparkzilla]

have Adblock enabled, so don't usually see this. However, whilst using a Uni computer, I was presented with a banner that, at 1280x1024 resolution, appeared to take up half of the screen!

I took a pic.

[Lukeno94]

Evidently it sticks to the same god-awful scale no matter what resolution you use then. There's just no excuse for a banner that size, given that the WMF aren't exactly short of a few quid right now.

[thekohser]

My understanding is that past donations have averaged about $25 to $30 per donor. I have a feeling that this year it is much less (see below, which is a commonly Tweeted notion -- that $3 or $5 doesn't really matter where it goes), and that's why the Fundraising team is keeping the ads so large and fearsome.

[sparkzilla]

Discussion at Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8698166 "dgerard" just showed up.

[Vigilant]

So, one person says the obtrusive banner convinced them to donate, so it's okay to keep running it?

I am sure lots of people are convinced to donate by the banners. They've been honed and tested and re-honed and re-tested to have as much "pull" as possible.

I'm quite sure they work, in terms of bringing money in. The question is simply whether it's ethical, given the impression given and the actual financial situation of the Foundation.

Personally, I think it's not right.

This works in the short term. In the long term, when people find out they've been manipulated, funding from those people will drop off.

In engineering, it's called eating your children.

[Vigilant]

My addition to the genre: linkhttp://newslines.org/blog/stop-giving-wikipedia-money/[/link]

This is perfect.

I love it.

[Vigilant]

I have Adblock enabled, so don't usually see this. However, whilst using a Uni computer, I was presented with a banner that, at 1280x1024 resolution, appeared to take up half of the screen!

Adblock and NoScript on Firefox/Chrome in a VM.

[HRIP7]

Lila Tretikov:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75786.html

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.

MZMcBride:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75792.html

I checked my inbox today to find a note from a friend asking if
Wikipedia was okay. My reply was essentially "Wikipedia is fine, if you
want to donate, make an edit or two."

I wonder how many Wikimedians are getting the same notes of concern. I'd
be quite surprised, for example, if Wikimedia Foundation department heads
weren't getting these types of notes right now. It's a bit sad. And I
wonder how others reply to sincere concerns about Wikipedia's health.
(Again, nobody knows what Wikimedia is, for better or worse.)

Meanwhile, also in my inbox, the author of this piece sent me a link to
<http://newslines.org/blog/stop-giving-wikipedia-money/>, which was silly
in parts, but an interesting perspective to read.

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>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.

Eh, fair play. I've started a page here:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundrai ... ember_2014>. I'm
busy today, but I'll try to brainstorm some better options. If we must
have donation advertising (a necessary evil, for now, we assume), we can
probably at least stop shouting at and misleading our readers/donors. :-)

MZMcBride

Me:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75802.html

Lila, when you say, "pilot with one of our next user groups", when would
this pilot happen, and whom/how many people would this pilot "user group"
comprise?

Best,
Andreas

[Vigilant]

And how much will the user group members get paid for fixing the fundraising group's utter fuckup?

[HRIP7]

Ryan Lane

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75803.html

phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at ...> writes:

>
> 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.
>

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?

> 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

gmane seems to be cutting off most of your message in the followup view,
which is unfortunate.

Your post mostly discusses the financial situation and the efficacy of the
banners. There's no question about the efficacy of the banners. They work
extremely well and there's shared data that proves it. There's question
about the content and the size of the banners and there's no shared data
that shows harm isn't being caused.

It's disappointing that a member of the board sees it as appropriate to
scare people as a means of generating funding. The foundation meets its
goals every year. As you've pointed out in this post, it does so faster than
ever, even while increasing the budget every year. This shows well that the
situation isn't dire.

- Ryan

[EricBarbour]

Discussion at Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8698166 "dgerard" just showed up.

Thanks for posting that. HN is a dark, twisted little corner of the web and deserves to be shaken up occasionally.

[Notvelty]

It is my opinion that, were the WMF an Australian Charity, they would be in breach of Section 52(1) of the old Australian Trade Practices Act (now s18 of the Australian Consumer Law) relating to Misleading and Deceptive conduct in relation to their statements in their advertising.

For those spooked by the "in trade or commerce" - there's a decent definition here...
http://www.minterellison.com/publicatio ... F20130507/

There are a few other sections that may apply, but "Section 52" as it's been known for most of the last however many years is one of the big ticket items. Systemic breaches are fined *per instance*

[SB_Johnny]

It is my opinion that, were the WMF an Australian Charity, they would be in breach of Section 52(1) of the old Australian Trade Practices Act (now s18 of the Australian Consumer Law) relating to Misleading and Deceptive conduct in relation to their statements in their advertising.

For those spooked by the "in trade or commerce" - there's a decent definition here...
http://www.minterellison.com/publicatio ... F20130507/

There are a few other sections that may apply, but "Section 52" as it's been known for most of the last however many years is one of the big ticket items. Systemic breaches are fined *per instance*

Perhaps this is why the Australian WMF chapter was never made official.

[HRIP7]

Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia Foundation trustee:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75804.html

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane32 at gmail.com> wrote:
> phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at ...> writes:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

You're asking me to prove a negative. My inability to do so has
nothing to do with NDAs or the lack of them. There's no secret data
that shows that "well, the banners make people hate Wikipedia but they
have a good donation rate." And if there was, why in the world would
anyone who cares about the projects make that choice? We are all on
the same side here regarding wanting to preserve the love that people
have for our projects.

So no, I don't have data for you about the no doubt diverse set of
reactions that exist in the world to the banners. (Beyond anecdotal
info that we all have access to: twitter, this mailing list, etc.)
What I do have is information about whether the banners are compelling
enough to donate -- that's where the a/b testing etc. comes in -- and
that is info that Megan et al shares with everyone.


> 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?

Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
I'm seeing in the U.S. at the moment:

"This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence,
we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now
is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our
fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price
of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs
of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something
special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to
think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to
keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you."

And all of that is certainly true. We do have the costs of a top
website, we are a small nonprofit (bigger than many, but smaller than
most brand-name NGOs), and we do survive on donations averaging $15
(something like 85% of our revenue comes from these donations, IIRC).
Additionally, I think we're all in agreement that we never will and
should never run ads.

I am not just saying this because I am a trustee -- I've seen every
fundraising campaign that the WMF has ever run, and participated in
discussions about most of them, and I genuinely do like this year's.
Yes, the banners are in your face, and I'm OK with that, given that
it's a quick campaign and as always one click makes them go away
(forever, I think). Obviously, opinions on the banner aesthetics can
and will vary. But discussions on how much money we should raise
(which, of course, is not an either/or choice) -- that's a different
conversation.

-- Phoebe

Me:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75806.html

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:49 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
> last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
> point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
> I'm seeing in the U.S. at the moment:
>
> "This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence,
> we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now
> is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our
> fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price
> of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs
> of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something
> special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to
> think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to
> keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you."
>


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".

You already have money to "keep it online and ad-free another year" – not
just for another year, but at least another five years. About $50 million
in cash and investments, according to the latest financial statement. More
than the Foundation has ever had: about $12 million more than this time
last year, and $50 million more than in 2009, just five years ago.[1]

Keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free is a small part of your budget today.
Funding for the continuation of that basic service is in no way in
jeopardy. You are above all collecting money to pay for the recent
aggressive expansion of software engineering staff.

(Also, while I am writing to you, will we ever see the results of the 2012
editor survey, especially the gender split? I and others have made numerous
inquiries about this over the past four months, on Meta[2] and on Tilman's
various user pages, and the response from the Foundation has been absolute
silence.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia ... n#Finances
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Researc ... ey_results

[HRIP7]

Mark:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 75809.html

On 12/5/14, 1:07 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> 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".

Yes, I've found myself in awkward discussions caused by this as well.
One person I chatted to earlier this evening set up a recurring donation
because he believed that these popover messages were an emergency "call
to arms", so to speak. He understood the situation to be that: Wikipedia
runs on a shoestring budget, and although it's managed in the past, it
is teetering on the edge of being unable to pay for
servers/bandwidth/sysadmin resources, to the extent where it may be at
risk of having to sell ad-banner space to keep the lights on. He was not
very happy when I let him know that the situation was not within several
orders of magnitude of being quite so dire...

-Mark

[sparkzilla]

I was able to get access to the WMF's fundraising images for next year...

Donate to Wikipedia or the puppy gets it.jpg

[The Joy]

Every time you criticize the WMF, Jimbo kills a kitten?

+

=

[SB_Johnny]

Every time you criticize the WMF, Jimbo kills a kitten?

Actually I'm wondering if this isn't an early sign that Jimmy just isn't involved at all any more. Avoiding any damage to the optics has always been his thing, and this fundraising drive definitely goes against that principle.

Unless, of course, this is just a set-up for the Jimmy-banners to return and save the day, and of course making Jimmy a hero is the most important thing for Jimmy.

[Zoloft]

Every time you criticize the WMF, Jimbo kills a kitten?

Actually I'm wondering if this isn't an early sign that Jimmy just isn't involved at all any more. Avoiding any damage to the optics has always been his thing, and this fundraising drive definitely goes against that principle.

Unless, of course, this is just a set-up for the Jimmy-banners to return and save the day, and of course making Jimmy a hero is the most important thing for Jimmy.

We don't have any sort of WP:BEANS (T-H-L) rule here, so we'll just point and laugh if they try to spin it that way.

[sparkzilla]

Also here: http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipe ... er-banner/

[EricBarbour]

Some of the most strident criticism of the organization's financial arrangements comes from Newslines' Mark Devlin. "The WMF spent almost $684,000 on furniture [last year], he writes. "That's almost $3,200 per employee. Your donations are going on golden chairs."

[Lukeno94]

$3,200 per employee for furniture? Did they just go and replace every single item they owned with new, diamond-encrusted models?