Fundraising 2009/Alternative banners

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Glacier Wolf in topic Mission Accomplished!

Please use this page to brainstorm alternative banners for the 2009-2010 fundraiser.

| content = 

Or, make your own design! Template:Banner-test-2 awaits you. --MZMcBride 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys, please let's drop the jokes and try to come up with something useful. Don't use this page to announce your displeasure at the current slogans with mock banners. That won't help anybody. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slogan ideas edit

  • wiki wanna live 4 eva
  • "Help Wikipedia last forever"
  • (from the initial banner design) "One entry became 13 million. One language became 270. Help protect what we’ve created."
  • Your help is [Wikiproject]'s future
  • [Wikiproject] always available
  • Sharing knowledge with [Wikiproject]
  • [Wikiproject]: sharing knowledge for all our futures
    Notice how "our" which is alienating in English as a first person plural in the formation "We think you suck" is replaced with a definite shared identity "all our [plural noun]"
  • u & [Wikiproject]: 2gether 4evah

Suggestion 1 edit

There, that's better already. Rd232 11:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems rather long Nil Einne 11:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it was knocked up in 60 seconds. Rd232 11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what she said. --Coffee (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did I really? 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is better than the current one. Thegreatdr 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 2 edit

Bit more layout and it would do. Course if you pay me $250,000, I may do better... Rd232 11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever the merits of the PR thing, I suspect they do know one thing and despite the fact I have very little knowledge or experience in these sorts of things, the little I do have tells me putting something that long is likely to be a good way to get readers to simply ignore it because it's too long. I'm pretty sure there's a well established principle in advertising that too much information or text is often a bad idea Nil Einne 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shorter is generally better, but it depends on other factors too, like the key words, how eye-catching, and how much it looks like a banner ad. Rd232 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, given the traffic volumes, there should be a big element of throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks. Serve some decent ideas to X visitors, then ditch or try variations. The returns from finding some really good ideas are high enough that it's worth testing quite a long tail of possibly-good ideas. Rd232 19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 3 edit

How about:
You can wire the $250,000 to my account in the Cayman Islands, please. Craig Franklin 11:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Yes, how could I have forgotten the all important Impact font. If it works for lolcat macros, it'll work for Wikipedia! How silly of me. Craig Franklin 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Even better, why not use cats? Everyone loves cats. the wub "?!" 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia needs YOU! Donate now.

$250,000 can go in unmarked bills in brown paper bags direct to my bank, thanks. Orderinchaos 11:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An alternative (I suggest finding a 12 year old with skills to improve my autogen effort:) [1] Orderinchaos 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an addendum, I actually did find a 12 year old, who provided this:

I like the cat better than the first couple ideas. Thegreatdr 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 4 edit

4B edit

Suggestion 5 edit

Should note that the phrasing is not my own, it came from Fundraising 2009/core messages/en#Notices. (I noted this in the #Slogan ideas section already, just want to be clear.) --MZMcBride 12:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • So do I, but remember that mellow is probably not the foundation's paramount intention this year, judging by the slogan they chose. Something that maintains some of that rallying cry aspect would probably be more likely used.

5B edit

"Protect" is now "preserve," I've removed the quotes, and the banner uses less whitespace and a slightly smaller font. --MZMcBride 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 6 edit

The "Help it stay that way." may not be the best, but it'll do. Plus it has the advantage of being able to stay the same between wikiprojects. ChrisDHDR 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, show me the knowledge and I'll show you the green

Suggestion 7 edit

based on Suggestion 4. --Novil Ariandis 14:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems a bit like Soviet Russia... –Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An ad that says it is ad free? Rich Farmbrough 07:00 13 November 2009 (GMT).

What is so damn good about begging for donations, which other charities could use, when we have in our own hands the means to make a fortune and really ensure the future of Wikipedia. Advertising before begging.--Richardb 03:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Begging pays more

Suggestion 8 edit

Simple but effective. Rd232 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really like this one. Dragons flight 15:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, looks good! Acer 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 9 edit

To not break the "Wikipedia Forever" branding thing, but to recast it in a light that doesn't make use look like an insane cult, a spin on #Suggestion 5.

9A edit

141,614/Meta obviously changes on a per project-basis. I'm using magic words. Headbomb 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

9B edit

A variant based on Rd232's suggestion. Headbomb 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the one entry / one language bit, and the magic words are helpful. But I just don't like "forever". At all. Hyperbole aside, how do donations today have a measurable effect on the very long term survival of Wikipedia? Even if there's an answer to that, it's probably too complex to explain in the banner, and hence to use the concept. So instead of "forever", have something like "Help X thrive", or something in that direction. Or perhaps "We're not done yet."? Rd232 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i.e. "One entry became 16,592. One language became 270. We're not done yet. Donate." Rd232 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is worth noting that magic words generally don't work in site notices. It could be prerendered for various languages and projects more or less by hand, but {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} can't be automatically filled in given the way site notices currently work. Dragons flight 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really like the 'we're not done yet'; it helps emphasize that Wikipedia is still a work in progress of sorts. Veinor 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same; that really struck a chord with me. Good :) NW (Talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "not done yet" variant is excellent. Happymelon 17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lord, yes. Light-years better than any variation of the current one (and much better than the "forever" one; it sounds arrogant/childish more than anything). -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seriously, why didn't they ask us for banner ideas? These are great. I'm sure if we had a month or two, we would have generate many more truly fantastic banners. Mahanga 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 10 edit

I know it's silly and aggressive, but I'm curious to see how David Gerard's #wikipediafundraising slogan would play in terms of attracting donors.--Ragesoss 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 11 edit

This one adapted from Nihiltres; I think it might work.--Ragesoss 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and Suggestion 12 should definitely be in heavy rotation for logged-in editors. They are cute, and a fine reminder about the fundraiser that hopefully won't incline them to turn the banners off. They also shouldn't be seeing the banners that provoked strong negative reactions by editors... Sj+ translate 12:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 12 edit

In a similar vein.--Ragesoss 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support... I assume non-editors who at least read WP on a regular basis would understand this, too. -- Mentifisto 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No clue what this means. Doesn't even make sense. His speech is too short, please edit it so it's both better and longer?

Suggestion 13 edit

Preferably in a smaller font. 17:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. I'd quite like to see that one tested, and see how the response is. Rd232 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
/me likes this! I do not, however, agree to make the font smaller. IMHO it is more effective to both see the large font and the whole blank space around--TankMiche 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that one should be tested. --Novil Ariandis 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aye, at least give it the ol' college try. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is even better than the "bandwidth isn't free" one, because this one makes donating feel good! (instead of just preventing you from feeling bad) --Lyc. cooperi 08:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion 14 edit

From the "let's intrigue them but hint at what's behind the door" school of thought.

Rd232 19:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note edit

I like a couple of the suggestions above, however they're very similar to previous years. Many people might not see this as a problem, since the previous years' banners were tasteful and appealed to established users. It's my understanding that Wikimedia hired a PR firm to hopefully make more money by appealing to Joe Internet User too, and for better or worse, Joe Internet User responds more to simple statements that elicit an emotion rather than the thought-provoking slogans that we would call tasteful.

It might be pertinent to keep this in mind when designing suggestions, and to try and make your slogans universally appealing in that way. Otherwise I don't think there's much chance they'd be used. A slogan that sounds just like previous years would defeat the purpose.

A link to previous years' slogans would be handy, if anyone has it. A link to any statistical analysis on success rates would also be cool. Rd232 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
here's 2007 & 2008 stats compared. The spike in '08 was due to that video from Jimmy, before which it was unclear if we would make the goal. Here's the raw stats from this year; looks like the first day of the fundraiser before the 'Wikipedia Forever' banner was pulled (around 18 hours, at night in the US) netted around $24K. -- phoebe 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fundraising_2008/core_messages/en. You can find other years' messages by heading to Fundraising_[year] and finding links to subpages named /core_messages and the like. There are performance analyses available on those pages. Basically many of those slogans sounded similar to the suggestions above, ie. somber and/or clever statements that show appreciation for the community, rather than being a simple two-word rallying cry as this year's was (is). The best proposal would be a compromise between the two, in my opinion.
There is something missing in the main slogan "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER": nothing indicates this words ask for a donation. A lot of readers might not understand we are asking for donations. Previous year's slogans contained "donate now", "donate today", etc. Whatever the message we choose, it should at least be clear that we are asking for donations. Yours, Dodoïste 15:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed - the 12-year-old I found seems to have realised that when he added in red "Please give us Money". Orderinchaos 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A look at some stats from last year suggests (to me anyway) that two slogans in particular were successful: "Wikipedia is a non-profit project: please donate today." and "Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you." If anything, the shorter messages did worse (contrary to what Eloquence said over at en.wp today). Rd232 17:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might want to take another look at those stats. "Wikipedia is a non-profit project: please donate today" was by far the worst slogan. All 4 were shown the same # of times, but that one generated only 994 donations versus 4444-5620 for the other slogans. The shortest - "Wikipedia: Making Life Easier" - did indeed perform the best, albeit only by a small margin. --ThaddeusB 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bad. I didn't read "% who donated" as a % of those who clicked through. Rd232 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Punchy banners seem do well. The appeal from Jimmy wasn't so "short" in terms of charaters but had an immediate impact. Hopefully we can get a much wider range of comparative statistics this year, also between different phrasings and presentations of the same messages -- we have enough visitors that even a % of a day's clickthrough traffic is enough to get statistically significant results. email campaigns to raise funds are able to get turnaround feedback within an hour on the most effective variant wording for a request for action by email; perhaps we can do the same with banners. Sj+ translate 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

donor comments edit

Everyone likes donor comments, and there are some good ones waiting to be used already from this year, e.g. [2] "After all it's given me I thought I'd give something back." -- phoebe 16:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought Rand Montoya specifically said that the donor quotes didn't really make a huge difference on the fundraiser drive last year and that's why they wanted to tone them back. If that's true, I'm a believer in toning them back this year too. Mike Halterman 17:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I thought"? Link and stats would be really helpful, because a lot of people like the donor comments. Rd232 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The donor comments didn't do extraordinarily well, but they would be an ok stopgap measure while we work out the others. They are set to run in Phase 4 anyway. another good one -- phoebe 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive me, we're not in court and I have other things to do in my day than go back through these conversations. Mike Halterman 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it would be really helpful to have details. Rd232 21:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See [3]. Relative to the 20% share of visitors it was given, the donor quotes presented last year did quite poorly compared to the other instruments running at the same time. That could be associated with the quotes chosen in some way, but you'd have to dig further to figure that out. Dragons flight 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this comment is rather interesting... --Chris 08:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorporating graphics edit

Thing probably needs a slightly different form of localisation for commons. Perhaps something with graphics?Geni 19:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beside project logos (which I think we should avoid), what kind of graphics do you think would be good? It obviously needs to be something tasteful, but I'm having trouble thinking of anything that would work internationally and somehow relate to Wikimedia / MediaWiki / free content. Got any ideas? :-) --MZMcBride 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gallery of 9 or so images scaled to 15*15 and rotated a lot. Work through the featured images intialy.Liveware problem 19:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Featured images are huge and often of random items, though.... Got a mockup? --MZMcBride 19:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graphics suggestion 1 edit

Not for actual use but rough dirrection:

      5.4 million images but we need your support      

Geni 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images can be made larger by going to to 4 but I'm not that much of a fan of the effect:

5.4 million images but we need your support

Geni 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be too hard or too illegible to do something clever like constructing the word "images" out of lots of tiny images? Rd232 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the size we plan to use it wouldn't really be practical.Geni 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know... speaking of cultural awareness, to many young Americans this slogan might remind them of a certain popular hip hop song... (I link to lyrics here because although the wikipedia page adequately illustrates the songs popularity, it strangely does not reference the obscenity for which the song is famous). The whole coincidence kind of funny... even sounds like it: "We got 5.4million images but" "we need your help"/"a... ain't one." Ah well, at least it may go "viral" as the "hip" thing to make fun of "ironically" among todays "kid" "crowd." :D --Lyc. cooperi 08:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary edit

How about some project specific banners?

--Yair rand 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Written by volunteers, supported by readers like you. edit

Generic enough to use the {{SITENAME}} parameter. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 to all of Mav's. :-) Cormaggio @ 10:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help us change the world edit

Another idea that can be used on any project. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this one. A perennial sort of banner we could run every year to see how its impact changes / as a control for other explorations. Sj+ translate
+1 Rd232 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this on too... It's short and the core value of Wikipedia. --Gmdahl 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are there for you edit

Another idea. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your home for free knowledge edit

Also uses the {{SITENAME}} parameter for project localization. My domestic partner came up with this one in less than 10 seconds this morning. Yet, I think it is much better than the WIKIPEDIA FOREVER theme that was paid for. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I SUPPORT Ads. I have Firefox so I can block them.

You depend on us, now we need your help edit

Another idea off the top of my head. Still using the project-neutral {{SITENAME}}. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good. IMO the second comma isn't necessary though. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really like this one and the four above it. Really makes people think of how much they depend on the projects and at the same time points out that the projects need money. --Yair rand 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comma fixed. Thanks for the feedback :) --Daniel Mayer (mav) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We blinded you with Science edit

All four en:Thomas Dolby fans would appreciate this. Backslash Forwardslash 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe they will, but nobody else will.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's cute...but you'd need to be in your 30s to appreciate it fully. Thegreatdr 16:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information should be free edit

It's been said that the campaign also should work for the longer-term idea about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. For longer term, it's important to think about which message to send. And in my opinion, the message to send about Wikipedia and the other projects is that they are free (as in speech), and that that is something worth preserving. It's also the kind of slogan that has the capability to be kept in use after the fundraise is over.

Possible problems I foresee is that it might be less useful on projects like wikisource, and that (like "Wikipedia forever" by the way) it is too unclear that it is a call for donations. I tried working with an undertext ("Help us keep it that way"), but that loses the succinctness, and might run into translation problems. As an alternative I might propose the following:

- Andre Engels 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

$100,000 worth of computer hardware edit

Replace $100,000 with either the estimated worth of the servers that are used for a typical request, or with the estimated worth of all the Wikimedia servers. Another idea would be to have a banner that shows the daily cost of bandwidth. RockMFR 12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like that. Give it a go. Rd232 16:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming the Foundation's physical assets consist mostly of computer hardware, then the appropriate number is approximately $500k (which is $1.25M in purchase value minus $750k in assumed depreciation as of the December 08 fiscal report). Dragons flight 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is absolutely brilliant; a real stop-and-think moment. Happymelon 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I myself respond really positively to this one, assuming that the numbers work out. To me this makes perfect sense-- you just spent money showing me a page, i should give you money to pay for the person after me. Great catch, RockMFR! --Alecmconroy 13:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The number: 1.2 million total for equipment. Technically. edit

Finding server equipment costs is rather specific data. Given the general lack of specificity of wikimedia financial data (given that they are independently audited and thus it is supposed that the data can be kept private) it is lucky we can find it at all. In any case, the route to find it from the wikimedia foundation page is rather circuitous and illogical: "wikimedia foundation" -> "financial reports" -> "Further Finance Related Information" ->"Archives 2004" (specifically 2004, that's the only one which has the link to) -> "Hardware order" -> wikitech.wikimedia -> the page we're looking for.
Incidentally, this page is accessible in one click from meta's sidebar on wikimedia.
Problem is the page didn't have any totals. So we go through each month, place the total on the page for that month, add up the totals for each year, add up all hardware expediture: $1.18 million dollars! that's a whole lot of cash! So that's for equipment alone.
Oh... what's that? we're fundraising for 7.5 million dollars? Oh... oh.... um... hm. Okay. And last year bandwidth cost 0.8 million? and capital expenditures (doesn't include bandwidth, includes some computer stuff) cost 0.9 million. And 2-3 million this fiscal year alone is going to sustaining 90k-120k+benefits salaries for the staff? (Well, keeping the best IT and finance shoes on board does cost that kind of money. I've seen the ads. I know. Though not everyone does, so I can see why Wikimedia might not want to go around waving their hands saying "pay for this guy's nice car!")
I admit: it may be disingenuous to be like "oh this is all for computer stuff" when really it's "donate money so we can spend a third of it on keeping high quality IT folks and Program Coordinators and Business and director and finance management type people to keep this running. Also a slightly smaller third (hard to be sure) of the total you donate is for computer stuff. And the rest is some tech contractors, paying for the building, utilities, janitors, legal team, travel expenses, fundraising, events, special programs, PR, staff training, wikimania..."
It's hard to be upfront about complicated stuff.
--Lyc. cooperi 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If wikipedia was so unstable that they needed a constant team of IT professionals... it's only proof that Wikipedia Forever will go the way of Duke Nukem Forever (whatever that means).

No, this is all about Jimmy needing a new manicure... has to buy a new company jet you see... so he can go to Taiwan to buy a saloon, to get a manicure.

Hell, if the members of the Pirate Bay can afford to be charged for a paultry 4 million, and then be REWARDED 7.7 million... wikimedia could learn a thing or two. How about torrenting Wikipedia? Free Bandwith, No Servers, ALL FREE! (Well, yes, kinda absurd, but asking for 7.5 million dollars is absurd as well. Cash Cow.

My proposal edit

Juliancolton | Talk 14:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I imagine {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} would be {{NUMBEROFFILES}} for Commons. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a new line after "growing"? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that works. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple edit

Why elaborate so much? AzaToth 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that simplicity is good, but this is rather dull and a bit poorly phrased. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Julian. It's not a bad slogan (certainly better than the stuff the PR team came up) but it's a bit oddly phrased. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this improve it? I like a handful of the ones on this page, simple, and they acknowledge the community that's doing the work, while appealing to what the encyclopedia has to offer the reader. --IP69.226.103.13 06:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, that's good, i like it. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, looks good to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Future? The future is BOOKS. Wikipedia brings on the dark ages where man is actually STUPIDER than before. I have argued with so many people from Textbook material... then someone pulls up Wikipedia and claims "Oh looki wikipedia says I'm right, okay thnx goodby (and on one occasion, the person in question actually "vandalized" wikipedia to "win")... then again, some of those were just Wikipedia not being able to actually EXPLAIN anything as much as it is a jiant clump of data (so people misinterpreted wikipedia instead of wikipedia being wrong... but on the same hand, wikipedia was open to misinterpreation thus is at even more fault for simply being wrong)

Wikipedia needs you edit

Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Works for meJuliancolton | Talk 15:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have translations for this from last year, and it's likely that we'll implement a version of this to test.--Eloquence 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a waste of time edit

I think its quite clear that none of these suggestions is going to be used. They're sticking to the campaign as it was designed (thought up in 5 minutes in the shitter?) by the PR firm (for the sum of $250,000 US, not kidding). Despite massive opposition the lame banners are now back up. The whole purpose of this page seems to have been to deflect criticism by having a fake venue for participation. Because thats all it is, an illusion. Anyone who's been following this for a while or who digs a little, will know that concerns have been raised regarding the current banners eversince they came up in October. Back then the criticism was met with boilerplate "we are taking all concerns into consideration" replies. Fastforward to November and ignoring everybody who had commented untill then (cuz not a single person who commented supported the darn things), they put the fundraiser into motion and the banners up. Whats the reaction? For the first time in god know how many years, the entire English Wikipedia agrees on something and demands that the banner be scrapped. And its not just the En wiki, the Germanrs and Russians didn't like it either and neither did Wikinews. Everybody wants to see the thing gone. At the same time, people come to this page and come up with much more sensible proposals. What does the Foundation do then? They ignore consensus (again), ignore the suggestions here and go ahead with the campaign as they had originanlly planned. All the while thanking us for our helpfull feedback. I'm baffled Acer 03:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I had the suspicion when it was created that this page was just a way to keep the complainers busy thinking they're doing something to affect a change. I chose to assume good faith at the time (pardon the project-specific term), but it turns out that was indeed the case. I've actually been considering retiring over this. I feel rather under-appreciated, as a community member, due to this whole situation. The foundation forgets who got them where there are.

I was just coming over here to start a thread on the talk page about figuring out a way to find consensus on some of these banners so that they can be incorporated into the live campaign. Not all of the banners on this page will (or should) be used. But some of them definitely will be used in the live campaign, of this we can be certain. The thread on the talk page is Talk:Fundraising 2009/Alternative banners#Choosing community-made banners for the live campaign. --MZMcBride 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For everyone edit

A tweak on the "forever" theme. Cormaggio @ 12:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This kind of reminds me of the Home Depot's "You can do it. We can help." slogan. --Yair rand 15:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like it.--Richardb 03:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't really flow well IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donation needed edit

Like 11 and 12, a nod to the community (or those who know us well). Cormaggio @ 12:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's very viable, but probably needs to link to a page that explains the nature of the fundraising drive. It has very a very high "eh?" factor, but won't attract donations in and of itself. If we can get people away from the article they're reading and onto a page explaining the fundraiser, though, we'd be laughing all the way to the bank. Happymelon 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another good thing about this is that it can easily be combined with other slogans, e.g. $100,000 worth of computer hardware was used to show this page to you [donation needed]. MER-C 13:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe, yes, I hadn't thought of that. :-) Cormaggio @ 14:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but would that translate well? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if they can deliver different ads to ip-vs-loggedin users. Have all the in-jokes we want for us without confusing the outlanders. --Alecmconroy 18:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's free for you... edit

By DaL33T 01:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Wikipedia had a negative profit... they'd keep it free. Wikipedia would make ZERO profit (emphasis, ZERO) if they dared to charge a single fee. 1cent to look at a page? Even 1 credit and you get credits for "spam editing?" NO WAY. Trust me, I know people.

ideas... edit

I don't have a Wikimedia account, but I thought I'd see what I can do. (And by the way, with all the comments about how juvenile the current banner is... I'm 14 and I think it's puerile too.)

This is kinda only relevant for Wikipedia unless modified.

(Encylopaedia/dictionary/quote books/newspapers/textbooks/etc)

That took me about five minutes in total, so they're not works of genius, but I reckon they're less of an eyesore than the current one.

I quite like c) here as it indicates a parity amongst editors and donators. It involves them as fully expressive members of the community. It also says, "Like us but don't have time?" 12:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, they're all good. I especially like C for the reasons the IP listed above. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I GAVE my time... I pushed, I shoved... and I became a bitter old man. Wikipedia, Donate to Senillity

'Let's Share What We Know' edit

The slogan "Let's Share What We Know" was used early on in the World Wide Web project, but seems to have dropped from usage. While it isn't Wikipedia-specific, it captures a lot of the appeal of Wikipedia, and of the Web at it's best. See also original graphics - postscript, GIF. Probably should check with TimBL and Robert Cailliau about the idea of using it here. -- 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia: "I use it all the time", "Largest Collection of Knowledge" and "Wikipedia as World Peace" edit

I'm not sure if this page is a play without an audience, but perhaps ideas placed here will find their way to where they need to get.

I have at times been known to dabble in donating to Wikimedia, and if I were to explain why, here's the three big reasons I would say I was moved to donate:

  1. I'm constantly educated by it, it's of great value to me, and I want to keep it up.
  2. It's idealistically awesome. For all intents and purposes, Wikipedia is the greatest single collection of knowledge in human history. It's our Library of Alexandria, it's our Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
  3. It actually makes the world a better place. Every kid can have a set of encyclopedias. It helps people all around the world learn and work together. It's our international space station, our CERN-- it's a librarian's cover of "We are the World".

If you squint, you can imagine where "Wikipedia Forever" came from. It combines a "Big-picture Wikipedia Awesomeness" idea with strong call to action "Sponsor a child". But it just seems off-key-- perhaps the idea of 'protecting' a fixed set of data 'forever' doesn't sound right somehow. It fire off all kinds of questions in my own mind-- Does wikipeda _need_ protecting? Is it really in danger? Is my money actually needed to keep the servers up or is there more involved?

Most of all, the "urgent call to action" clashes with the "Wikipedia Forever". If you need _my_ help, how can you say Wikipedia will be Forever? On the other hand, if Wikipedia Forever is true, why do you need my help? I personally can make sense of it all, but I worry many people can't. The proof will be in the pudding, I suppose.

Anyway, after searching my soul for what might make me most likely to donate, here are the things I personally would be most receptive to:

1. Wikipedia costs money to operate, so you should give us some. Many excellent instances above:

"[Project] is free. Our bandwidth isn't. Please donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you!"
"$100,000 worth of computer hardware was used to show this page to you."
"Wikipedia is always there when you need it. Now it needs you."

2. Wikipedia is huge, awesome, and you should help it. Good instances above, eg:

"One entry became 13 million. One language became 270."
along with the great: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

I also think a lot of untapped energy in the whole "Wikipedia makes the world better." Something like:

  • Profile interesting uses of Wikipedia around the world. There must be oodles of educators and such around the world use Wikimedia projects in interesting ways.
  • Profile the diversity of people who use wikipedia by using actual volunteers: "I'm _firstname_ from _place_, and Wikipedia helped me learn about x etc.
  • Profile the diverse backgrounds of our editors. I'm _firstname_ and I'm from _wherever_. .... I'm _someoneelse_ from _somewhere-else_. We worked together to help teach the world about _Featured Article_. etc. --Alecmconroy 20:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a superb comment, Alec, thank you.
We're testing ".. is there when you need it" now; it performed well last year and seems do be doing well so far, too. I like putting a price-tag on serving pages; we'll see if we can play with that idea. I think we'll save the "Imagine a world .." for Jimmy's personal message.
Regarding profiling and storytelling, yes, I absolutely want us to test this. I've started a very rough first storytelling page at foundation:Help Us Change the World/en. It still needs tightening, and it focuses on one particular aspect; I think we should try different stories and profiles here, especially if an improved version of this one performs well. And it's a great opportunity for community participation as well.--Eloquence 05:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How much is knowledge worth? edit

Ben Franklin quote edit

w:Benjamin Franklin, because most Wikipedia contributors edit from the United States. I'll improve this later, if I can. Intelligentsium 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good one, i like it and it is a good encouragement to donate. Perhaps we should attribute the quote though, just to be more clear? Tempodivalse [talk] 04:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it would be best to attribute the quote. This would also work quite well as a Wikiquote banner. (Oddly, q:Benjamin Franklin does not have this quote.) --Yair rand 04:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I like this; it feels like to me that Franklin would have meant personally-known knowledge ("his head") more than any source of knowledge in general (like Wikipedia). Maybe "our knowledge" or something along those lines. AySz88 06:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it. It's emotive without being pushy- and clever... to think that it wasn't written for this- 08:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Culturally specific. I find it offensive to describe my mind in terms of investment, interest, money. Fifelfoo 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, that ben meant "a man shouldn't spend his time gathering a fortune in gold, but a fortune in knowledge". Of course, since no one uses Wikipedia, and a good college will suit you better. Save your Money and Go to College to Get some Knowledge.
It's all about THINKING, not paying for wikipedia (I'm certain ben would be appalled at this suggestion)
Oh, and if you use English, purse means, well, testicles... and this says "a man should 'release' upon his head so no other man can take it from him"

I'm trying to Wikipedia edit

I really like here. Everyone must contribute. I wanted to help. --Goktr001 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]






I like number 4 best. I've rephrased 1 through to 4 in natural English (I hope) but have no clue what to do with 5. They're all pretty good, it was just the language barrier. Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia as a Gift?? (PDF) edit

  • Is it possible to give wikipedia when it's free?
  • It's soon christmas, and a lot of people is wondering what to give friends and family that have everything.

the idea edit

I want a automated PDF, that those who donates can print and give as a Christmas or birthday present? Or as xeno said it: providing an easy to print out certificate confirming a donation.

Sample document edit

I have some more ideas and thoughts on talk. pleace take a look. --Gmdahl (talk)

Idea: Hundreds of good Quotes edit

I believe we need as many banners as possible, ith a lot of quotes. If the banner is dynamic, (not the same 5 times in a row) more people lock at it, because it is interesting, or funny. If people like our message they'll more likely donate or contribute.

more ideas on Gmdahl (talk) --Gmdahl 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more thing: edit

I often see a lot of creativity killers all around. I understand that creative people can make a mess. Does Wikipedia have a place for people like me? A Open Yes Zone where All people can submit their ideas where no critic is allowed. The principle is to just pick the good ideas and forget the others until they can be used?? Where we can expand our horizon an and imaginary of how wikipedia can be, better. The ground principles of wikipedia is written in stone, but his is just a "Yes Wikiepdia Think Thank". or ( Maye this does not belong here so feel free to delete it.

Gmdahl (talk) --Gmdahl 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Wikipedia has no place fo you. Wikipedia only has a place for bullys, and people who like others to commit suicide "I.E. "

Yippie edit

A+ I have not been banned on Wikipedia, but i know many who have (for much less than complaining). I love this. 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mission Accomplished! edit

Worth a try using a meme to end the fundraiser on a humourous note. NEEDZ MOAR HUMOUR.   Glacier Wolf 04:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]