Talk:Fundraising 2009/core messages
I’d like to apply my donation to my local Wikipedia chapter
Is it intended so? Wikipedia chapter, not Wikimedia chapter? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 17:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't catch the meaning of these two sentences:
- "All gifts of $100 or more will be matched dollar for dollar. Limited time. To learn more, click here."
- “All gifts of $100 or more will be matched by the Omidyar Network for a limited time. To learn more, click here.”
- Yeah, those two are a bit confusing to non-native speakers – they're intended to be short and concise like that so that people feel rushed to donate, I think. "Matched dollar for dollar" refers to matching donations. When that message is shown, all donations of $100 or more will be matched by the Omidyar Network (i.e., for every dollar that you donate, Omidyar will donate a dollar too). Does that make more sense? Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Concerns about the appropriateness of these messagesEdit
For more concerns and complaints, see Talk:Fundraising_2009/Website_Design
- I moved my comments below about messages that concern me to that page, where they belong. Now that the fundraiser has launched, newer comments are also welcome at Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback. Sj+ translate 13:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Want to "protect" Wikipedia with the fundraising ?Edit
The Wikimedia Foundation wants to employ full-time sysops to fight agains vandalisme or what ? I don't get it. Surely, there is a need of money to maintain the servers, and to pay the developers, the bandwidth, the employees... But how do you plan to protect the encyclopedia ? Dodoïste 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, this was the only slogan I thought reflected our mission acceptably (I didn't see all of them). I think this angle will make a good PR strategy. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why would I contribute to a site that facilitates false information? If sources/information was frequently checked, I'd be much more apt to make a donation, but too many students are turning to wiki for information and coming back with false facts from "Joe Shmo" who wrote on wiki. Does anyone see where I'm coming from?
Hello. Wikimedia, Wikipedia and MediaWiki are Free Content- and Free Software-based projects, not Open Source (They follow the ideals of freedom and control as suggested by the Free Culture/Software Movements, not Open Source). When Jimmy speaks about Wikipedia, he says "free" instead of "open" (and yes, this makes a big difference). Therefore, I strongly recommend changing "OPEN SOURCE FOREVER" to "FREE SOFTWARE FOREVER", "FLOSS FOREVER" or, the one I don't like, "FREE AND OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE FOREVER".--OsamaK 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I second this. --Nemo 07:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right. I would say Free Knowledge rather than "Open Source" or "Free Software", since that's mainly what we are about. But if OsamaK is right that this was meant to refer to the software tools we use, then yes, Free Software would be more appropriate. At any rate, Open Source would be a misleading message. Sj+ translate 01:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- However, I think, the subject here is free content, not free software? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It means that Wikipedia will always run on top of free software (i.e. Mediawiki and Ubuntu). Who's in charge of changing this by the way?--OsamaK 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't really "free knowledge" as the core "rule" of wikipedia is "steal it from another site, but add a reference"
- Wiki-software is more "Community Content." Nothing really "free", just provided by others.
- And if it WAS about "free" then they wouldn't be asking for money from the people who use it... instead they should be raising money from people who don't use it, like selling "Page Locks" to Politians.
Questions from translatorsEdit
- Since these phrases will be used as shown in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:NoticeTemplate . Howcome there is no point "Our Goal" to be translated? These two words are in many of the sitenotices, should they not be translated? // Kjell Brel 23:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- At this time, we are not planning on having an overall goal banner or thermometer. That may change...this will be a flexible campaign. Though this is obviously a fundraising drive, we are trying to highlight ideas/concepts about Wikimedia beyond the money: the people, the languages, and the mission. Rand Montoya 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- “I believe us.” That means...? What kind of phrases would be similar? (or we just ignore it and makes something else up... "I believe in us" IMHO sounds better. // Kjell Brel 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- "This is where we protect Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by the people." What does "people" mean here. Aren't all encyclopaedias written by people? "Ordinary people"? "You and me"? // Kjell Brel 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but we're trying to highlight the group, collaborative editing process. It's very similar to the "I believe us." answer above. Rand Montoya 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Should the page in all languages contain boxes to tick, saying how many dollars you give? Quotes from donors - all English speaking - and donation specifically in dollars... feels a bit like this is an American thing, the rest of us are not really invited in the same way. // Kjell Brel 23:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- We are trying to find other donor comments in other languages and will be attempting have them ready for the launch of that phase. We agree, Kjell. Rand Montoya 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank You pageEdit
Other lines to translateEdit
- Just what policies do the word refer to? Kjell Brel 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just what benefactors are we talking about - donors in general, or something else? The meaning is clear, but not the nuance which means a lot when deciding on a synonym in the target language. Kjell Brel 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, I think the best campaign I've seen is from the 2007 Fundraiser that had a random quote from a donor. We shouldn't be telling people in huge letters to donate, we should use the same style of banners as 2007 with anonymous people telling others to donate. The quotes on Fundraising 2007/comments/en, sincere comments from readers, are a lot better than all this terrible bragging, capital letter, FOREVER stuff. Of the current proposals, use only the Phase 4 set of Fundraising 2009/core messages/en. As an active editor, I actually liked reading what our readers had to say, but with this, I'm just going to hide the banner. Reywas92 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
From discussion at Talk:Fundraising 2009/core messages/nl and the Dutch village pump it is clear that the Dutch prefer the slogans to not be in upper case. Are we allowed to change that? --Erwin 09:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- All of the donation banners have already been lowercased. You guys weren't the only ones who hated it. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know, if it is possible to lowercase "by hands"? In Russian, all-first-caps look quite wrong (i.e. "Wikipedia Forever" should be "Да здравствует Википедия", not "Да Здравствует Википедия"...) I added subsections "... - lowercased" there.
- P.S. Also, Casey, I've sent you an email... Could you please check? :-) Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Vladimir, Casey had fixed this already :) Pavel and I think that "Знание - Сила" and others may remain as is now. Lvova 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
What phase are we in now? The current banner does not belong to any of the phases. --Redaktor 13:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)