Talk:Fundraising 2010

Why November 7?

Where is the community consensus to start the fundraiser so early? --MZMcBride 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify (as apparently there has been some confusion), I'm not asking for community consensus to have a fundraiser. I'm asking why it's starting so early and if there's any basis in this decision (specifically community support to start so early and run for over two months). --MZMcBride 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure why you think it's particularly early? Last year it went up on 11/10. This year, 11/7. Seems about the same to me? Philippe (WMF) 06:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it's been this early in the past. I'm asking where the decision to run the (obnoxious) banners for two months came from. --MZMcBride 04:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

IMVVHO, it's a very bad idea also keeping that enormeus banner for over two months... Please consider also the idea to reduce its dimensions. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, 2 months is the estimation for how long it will take to meet the fundraising goal. I'm sure if we meet the target in the first month we won't have any reason to keep the banners up for longer. Kaldari 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's be careful saying that: we might, actually. For instance, what if the WMF has met its goal, but the chapters haven't? To pull down early would be reckless. I'm more comfortable saying that we will closely and carefully evaluate it. Philippe (WMF) 00:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

en passant

• we should keep the alternative banner-proposals 2009 in mind.

• maybe we should consider to develop a two-peak road for 2010/11 with messanges from Jimbo during the chrismas days or equal events and for the upcoming events on jan., 15. 2011

• "testing methodology" = earned money, clicks & criticism as a three ( evaluation of proposals by 1) interested community => 2) committee => 3) facts (earned money after publication of the banner) or a two (1&2 => 3) step model inside the "circle"?

• it seems to me that there is (for now) a relative lack of competence for three key markets; india, the arab world and south america, regards --Jan eissfeldt 10:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia blog: no post on 2010 fundraiser as yet

• The Wikimedia blog has a special fundraising category but the last post on the topic was back in February. Since preparation for the 2010 fundraiser is now in full swing I feel it would be useful if someone wrote up a post for the blog. --Bodnotbod 09:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/01/a-sneak-peek-at-the-2010-wikimedia-annual-fundraiser/ --Dgultekin 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comment from our donation logs

From the donation log:

 "Lisa Deutsch - You should not make it so hard to donate."
 - 01:28, 10 August 2010	USD 100.00

Is there a way to contact this person to find out what happened? --Bodnotbod 10:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, here's another user; he would like to give regularly but seems unable to at present.

 "Ronald Elling - Still waiting on a monthly banking or credit 
 card deduction option."  00:00, 3 August 2010	USD 50.0

--Bodnotbod 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a more specific instance of "hard to donate". This e-mail that I sent to donate@wikimedia.org - after I made a donation on 2010-11-13 - has the details:

“ I tried to donate to the Wikimedia foundation by credit card, but ran into some problems. Apparently the donation page (reached by clicking Donate from Wikipedia's "Main Page") doesn't work correctly with Internet Explorer 6. Specifically if fails to display the captcha characters that I need to type to prove I'm not a 'bot. It displays the prompt, but not the actual characters. I initially had Flash (version 10c) disabled, but I also tried with it enabled, but that didn't appear to fix the problem.

I know IE6 is old, but I like it - and it works quite well for reading and editing Wikipedia. I eventually made my donation by using Firefox Portable.
It would be nice if the donation page worked with IE6, but at the very least you should display an appropriate message so that the user knows what's going on. Less determined donors than I would have simply given up.

”

I did receive a reply saying "Thank you ... We will that into consideration". I don't know if the problem has been fixed. Mitch Ames 12:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

• Can we please have the fundraising pages and banners hosted locally, and, where possible built locally? If some of the larger wikis built and tested out some banners independently, exchanged ideas and statistics between them, improving upon each others work, I think it would be very helpful. Any chance of there being a widely distributed message to project discussion rooms, asking projects to build their own banners and donations pages and testing them?
• One thing I've noticed: The banners and donating pages never really say what the money is used for, or how much is needed for what. Why not have some landing pages explain some of the ways money is used? Show some statistics about how much money the servers and stuff need, or show some of the exciting projects or technical developments or outreach programs the WMF is paying for, or something (but not stated in a businesslike or boring way, more of an excited, we-need-this, look-how-much-your-donation-will-help kind of tone).
• The "Non-financial contributions" idea is very good, but I think all projects should have the fundraiser encouraging all kinds of help. Everyone has something they can contribute, and the fundraiser should highlight that. (Slightly related to this: It might be worth trying to get a meme related to the puzzle-ball analogy going around. "Do you hold a missing puzzle piece?", or something.) Encouraging using Wikimedia content in general can also be helpful. There are ways of increasing reach other than raising quality.
• Wikimedia's goals and accomplishments are huge, unique, and ridiculously inspiring when stated in the right way, and even better when its implied that the reader can share those goals, working off the massive existing accomplishments. Some banners should try to get as close as possible to the "inclusive we", and banners stating implying that the reader and Wikimedia community are separate is probably a bad idea.

--Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.

1. I'm not working on the technical side, but it's being worked on and tested for the next two months to finalize localization and geotargeting. So yes, there will be localization inviting discussion on local equivilants to Village Pumps. We are actively encouraging local push.
2. Good point, we'll discuss that.
3. We're considering these options. Naturally the fundraiser is intended to raise money, but even if you can't contribute financially it'd be nice to use the opportunity to raise volunteerism. The flip side of the coin is getting donations from those who don't volunteer.
4. Correct, we are the royal we and this should be encouraged.

Let me know any further thoughts, Yair. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 23:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ on the landing page does address where the donated money goes, who the Foundation is and what it supports here, but I agree that it could do a better job explaining how much it take to run the Foundation/servers and highlight that it is a fairly lean operation. Perhaps should look into making some visuals of where money is allotted etc. Dgultekin 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. We'll look into that. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 19:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually there are some links to the annual plan, if I remember correctly. --Nemo 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have some thoughts about how the donations were used specifically in the last year (in a nice donor-like form). I would guess that this year a lot of people might remember the last fundraiser and think "let me first see how they used the last donations before I donate"? Complementary, I would propose to show how we will use the donations next year; this would strenghten the call for action Till Mletzko (WMDE) 09:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, I'll look into it. We're working on redesigning the FAQ page with clearer and more concise information. If you have any more suggestions about the page, let me know. --Dgultekin 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fundraising 2009 report

Where is it? There isn't a link in wmf:Fundraising reports. --Nemo 08:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the closest thing we have so far. I'll link to it if we get more information from last year's fundraiser. --Dgultekin 23:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See also strategy:Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and Talk:Fundraising_2010/Messages#Best_Practice_last_Fundraiser. --Nemo 08:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why so early?

Above I saw that some of us are concerned why the fundraising starts so early this year, so I want to share my opinion and explaination that it's completely logical. So, giving money and donating "public service" projects (like Wiki) is a special kind of altruism. And as we now, most of us is not altruistic daily, therefore to get enough funds we need to make a call for them. And now question - when we are especially willingful to give our money away? Anwser (one of possible): when there is a proper atmosphere, mood around us to donate and give away. As statistics clearly show, peaks of donated money correalate with the Xmas/NY period. I assume that I don't have to explain why xmas/NY time makes a good atmosphere for sharing with others (at least in Western world + it's time of our home budgets estimations and finding some spare money). Therefore all our efforts should be focused to take advantage of this fact and concentrate our actions on December. However they cannot start in December, because it would be far too late. "Tension", if I can call it this way, needs to increase gradually to fit our mood, with a peak during xmas/NY. In US xmas fever begins as early as November (usually preceded by Halloween), therefore starting on early November is completely reasonable. Of course it means two full month of "Wikipedia-commercialization", but hey! these servers aren't running for free. And, having this one additional month, we can prepare better for the major fundraising period, which is December. Just by spreading the word about it, by placing it in peoples minds. Unfortunately, money and getting/giving them, is all about it. Masur 09:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Second thing that came to my mind is, that the fundraising should be culturally customized to meet differences in attitudes between different cultures. So, I believe that banners/slogans which would motivate americans aren't the best choice for, let's say, indian or chinese people. Also time tuning should be customized for each country, because the xmas/NY rule is general for Western countries, however in other cultures they are different, similar, "altruistish" periods. Masur 09:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to say that we are NOT starting early. What we are doing is very limited testing for one hour (at this point) per week. The fundraiser will start on November 8th, officially. Philippe (WMF) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"we are NOT starting early" UHM. Przykuta 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC), but November 8th is not attractive date, like 24 12 or 01 01 or 30 10. Early autumn is not good time for altruism behavior. Do we have events in November? Przykuta 23:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry - November ok ;) but think about culture_time events. Przykuta 05:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Involve local communities

Hi. I just tweaked some of the templates and Fundraising 2010/Messages/Language. Please report any issues with those modified templates.

I think we should focus more on getting people from local communities involved in the process. We already have enough slogans in English, but banners in other languages are still limited to German, Spanish, Polish and Russian. From my point of view, it's often much easier to create slogans in a language from scratch, rather than translating English slogans. Translation is a difficult process and often there's a loss in clarity, spirit and catchiness of the slogan.

So, what I think we should do, is encouraging users to create banners in their own language. In order to get them involved, we could write to translators-l and spam inform users via local village pumps. What do you think? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an outreach team who is engaging with different language communities to encourage people to create and comment on banners in their own language. Correct, direct translations from English don't necessarily have the same effect in other languages so it makes more sense to create banners that are relevant to specific languages and cultures, and test how successful those are. We've made a start here with a few languages but are certainly actively pushing for more language communities to get active - and creative! Megan Hernandez (WMF)

How can I get involved (in the outreach team)? :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, btw: seems like an excellent job for our Wiki ambassadors! They know their local community the best, and how to reach out to people --Church of emacs talk · contrib 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring here to the wikitech-ambassadors? While not strictly tech, I would agree that it would be a good idea to prod them about this opportunity.--Eloquence 23:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm refering to wikitech-ambassadors. I think we should consider using it more, both in term of traffic and broadness of topics (not just tech stuff, but everything where local communities are required) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 01:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We'd love to get more people involved in outreach, feel free to reach out to the WikiTech Ambassadors, to your communities, and Wikimedians you know. --Deniz (WMF) 21:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you plan to recognize which banners are OK to go and which should be tested if comments are in native languages? Should we flag banners/comments somehow? How will banners be chosen for the fundraising? Nux (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nux, all banners are being selected by community feedback, as we haven't had an overwhelming number submitted in languages other than English thus far, it has been fairly easy to point out which ones have the most support. However, we would love for banners selected by other language groups to be flagged for attention to be tested. We are currently running a 'beat Jimmy' banner challenge, so all banners that you think meet the guidelines our donor survey and focus group have given us should be submitted to the 'beat Jimmy' page here. These will be the tested on Tuesday, so bring your best messages forward! --Deniz (WMF) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian rupees

Can you please make sure there is an option to give in Indian rupees? We got piles of OTRS emails last year complaining that INR didn't appear in the available currencies. Stifle 09:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This may not be something the staff can solve. US payment processing systems tend to not accept rupees. At least last time I heard PayPal was still "working on it." It was helpful last year to send people wanting to pay in rupees through Moneybookers. Is that option still going to be available? Anya 18:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We now have a Wikimedia India, so who knows, maybe they'll be accepting donations by the time the fundraiser comes around and we can send people to them? Cbrown1023 talk 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Indian Chapter would be able to make this year's fundraiser, the chapter has not been approved yet which could take several weeks to have an official entity, hopefully it would be approved in the next 2 months. Even after that I doubt they would be operational in time to accept donations. --Theo10011 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I seem to recall that PayPal was converting currencies automatically from INR to dollars, so there should be an option.Theo10011 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has more information about this, I'm sure the fundraising team would appreciate it. Cause last time I checked about 6 months ago the PayPal rep said that INR was an option they were working on but wasn't currently available. But that was a while ago and maybe I was asking the wrong question...Anya 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that PayPal will process currency changes for people paying by bank card. But there is also a question of familiarity — some potential Indian donors may want certainty in their own heads as to the amount they are giving, and may not wish to donate in a foreign currency. Stifle 19:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WMF could create a temporary indian (or USA but in INR currency) PayPal account, but if I remember correctly PayPal doesn't allow account ownership transfers. --Nemo 06:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting post from Alertbox about advertising

Here is a post from Alertbox that has good things to keep in mind, even though it's not all completely relevent. As well as what users (from a 2004 survey) hated about ads, there is also this list of things that made up a "good" ad:

• indicates what will happen if people click on them
• relates to what people are doing online
• identifies itself as advertisements
• presents information about what they are advertising
• provides additional information without having to leave the page

Lexicografía 00:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a JS popup (as in Popups not a new window) with some small picture and some short info about the fundraising and a direct link to donation? --Nux (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the research indicates that popups are an extremely inefficient yield for the resources invested in them.  :( Philippe (WMF) 08:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the money going?

Is there any way we can add an option to the donate pages, so people have the option to choose what to donate for? Like, "Use this donation for: usability, software development, support a local chapter, server maintenance, don't care" etc.? By giving people the ability to choose where their money is going, some people may be more willing to donate. But I don't know if this is a viable option for the WMF?  fetchcomms☛ 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to add this to some kind of FAQ. Kaldari 20:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on the Fundraising staff, but I think this type of restricted donation is not something the Foundation really has shown interested in pursuing. It ends a ton of administrator overhead and paperwork, and just really complicates things in the long-run... basically wasting donor money because we need to spend more money to be able to accept these tiny restricted donations. Cbrown1023 talk 22:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 is right. The Foundation is moving away from restricted gifts. There are a few problems with that model - not the least of which is, for instance, nobody ever designates their gift to pay the trash pickup bill... Philippe (WMF) 08:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Donate now" button

Hey all. I noticed that testwiki has a "Donate now" box/button just below the site's logo on the left sidebar with an "x" so people can hide it in the future. I really like the way that looks (it's also less bothersome than a huge banner at the top of the page, but that's another story!). I'm assuming it was tested at testwiki, so my question is why was this never pursued for other wikis? Is it a possibility for this year's fundraiser? Killiondude 06:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We are going to use it. It's on the critical path list for next week. :). The issue Is that it was designed for mono book so needs a bit of updating and needs to be tested for internationalization. We also want to test whether it supresses donations through the banner (we know, for example, that putting a button on the banner itself actually hurts the yield. Since this is NEXT to the banner, we want to test). I think it's a good solution though, so it's on the tech priorities list. It's a nice answer for times when the banner itself isn't up, or during the "contribution" campaign, when we're suggesting people make their first edits, and so won't have a fundraising message up. Philippe (WMF) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Textual banners designs

Hello,
What do you think of the look of these banners ?

Admit it: without Wikipedia, you never could have finished that report.
Click here to keep Wikipedia free for future students.

Admit it: without Wikipedia, you never could have finished that report.
Click here to keep Wikipedia free for future students.

Admit it: without Wikipedia, you never could have finished that report.
Click here to keep Wikipedia free for future students.

--Lineplus 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

These would've been infinitely better than a massive, intrusive banner that shoves content down by miles. I actually want to help students (and Wikipedia), but I care not a job about Jimmy, and his huge mug combined with the desperation of the ads and the sheer size of them has 100% killed any desire I had to donate, or even use Wikipedia while they're up.--61.224.40.20

Are text community banners going to be used?

Hi all. I have read in the IRC channel (#wikimedia-fundraising) that the text community banners are not going to be used, because the Jimmy appeal banner and its variants are better. I hope you use the text community banners in some moments of the fundraising. If not, this is a shame and the same story of the past year. Regards. Emijrp 11:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please use the community-suggested banners. Lexicografía 13:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We've tested around 200 community suggested banners at this point. We'll be rotating some through to give Jimmy and the other banners a break, but generally speaking we need to do what performs best in order to meet our goals. It wouldn't make sense to use the community banners knowing we wouldn't make our goal, but it does make sense to use them to give some down-time to the other banners.

We will be using some of the community suggestions - for instance, Amgine and MZMcBride nearly simultaneously suggested using editors other than Jimmy in "appeal" messages. We're definitely testing that. So, we're definitely using community suggestions, but we need to maximize revenue too, so we can shut the campaign down and get rid of the big ol' banners. Philippe (WMF) 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish you a quick and successful campaign. Emijrp 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be really dissapointing to have the community put all that effort in designing banners, and then not using them, and I hope that a solution to take advantage of them is still found, but I understand that if a message is not effective, it shouldn't be use. Were there any tests with graphic banners including the community messages? GoEThe 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed disappointing that this approach to making messages "reflective of who we are" did not work out, but if the data shows the Jimmy appeal is what gets the job done then so be it. While my own suggestions never even made it into testing (some were lame, but some were well received by established community members), I take heart that my livelihood does not depend on marketing savvy. ~ Ningauble 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I had not read this before so I wrote a message about it elsewhere: We were already editing this fundraising, in case you didn't notice. --Elitre 14:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA requirements

See also Talk:Fundraising_2010/Graphic_Banners#Credits. How will we attribute the authors?  fetchcomms☛ 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If a banner we use does include images that require attribution, we will have to contact the creator of that content and ask if we can use it without attribution. If they agree, we can continue, otherwise we won't be able to use the image unfortunately as we cannot properly attribute them in the banner. If there is more than one author of an image due to multiple revisions, we will have to get approval from each author. -Deniz (WMF)

Does this (and wmf:Fundraiser photo credits) mean that all the photos used in this year's fundraising banners are under a CC license? Which one?

(I just noticed that you uploaded several of them to Commons, which is great, but what about these, for example: wmf:File:Vulpeto-normal.jpg, wmf:File:AbbasAppeal-normal.jpg, wmf:File:Lennart-normal.jpg wmf:File:MeesoAppeal.jpg, wmf:File:Liam-alt.jpg, wmf:File:Osama-normal.jpg?)

Regards, HaeB 17:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi HaeB, all of our banners, except one, are under CC-BY-SA, including the editor images on Foundation. The original editor images are all available on Commons under Category:Wikimedians and Category:Fundraising 2010. -- Deniz (WMF) 19:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about translation

I am from Latvina language Wikipedia and we already translated Wales letter, but where can I translate that "Please read: ..." message showing in banner on top of each page? Thanks. --Digital1 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Digital1, you can translate for us by going to our translation hub and here is the core messages section, if your language isn't already listed please add it by clicking the [+/-] at the top of the translations list! --Deniz (WMF) 19:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is page in latvian language (lv/Latviešu (published)) and it is marked as published, but in lv wiki message is still displaying in english. In Core_messages/lv unpublished banner text is under mark No. 4. --Digital1 19:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Banner message

I updated info, put it as (ready) and now it is showing as (published), but banner info IS STILL IN ENGLISH. Can someone tell me what is wrong? --Digital1 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Following fundraiser progress

Is there a graph, similar to previous years, that tracks progress compared to past fundraisers? Anya 18:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's being updated now. :) Philippe (WMF) 19:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

TA-DA! -Deniz (WMF) 00:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Make sure this is noted

• Use: a.cn-full-banner-click { text-decoration: none; } to avoid underlined "Please read" statement, on wiki's or personal settings where underlined links are forced.
• User overflow:hidden on .siteNoticePic and other divs with image background and fixed hide, to avoid bleeding into the content-effect on browsers with increased default font size. See example image with default font-size of 24 on Windows Firefox 3.6 nl:Bestand:Wat_is_die_fundraiser_verschrikkelijk_walgelijk_weer_en_technisch_ook_niet_in_orde.jpg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) .

Our tech team is looking at this now, thanks! --Deniz (WMF) 21:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Can the banners be shrunk any?

I don't want to hide this year's banners, but they are so large they are pushing all the content further down the page so that it takes a conscious scrolling effort to get to the stuff I actually want to read. Perhaps it is the point for them to be so large, but could the banners be just a tad smaller? Lexicografía 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The banners will be smaller as we get a little closer to our goal. I recognize that they are large, but we have an ambitious goal to reach! --Deniz (WMF) 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, they are painfully big. As someone who's mildly vision-impaired, I usually have my screen set on a rather low resolution; that combined with my usage of a netbook means I cannot see any content at all with the banner in place. (On Wikibooks, with their sitenotice in addition to the banner, I have to scroll down to even see the title.) The use of photographic banners now means they are striking (or distracting, depending how you want to look at it) enough without having to be that intrusive. I appreciate that I'm in a small minority for whom this happens, but I'm sure there's others with low-res or small screens. Perhaps something to consider? sonia 22:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate to imagine browsing from a netbook. They must have taken up the ENTIRE screen! --90.219.223.234 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bigger != Better. I would much rather give to a old lady smiling hopefully at her stand rather than a student actively trying to stop me on the pavement with a clipboard in their hand (who I would cross the street to avoid). Fæ 18:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So... was the goal to annoy the user, or...? --SamB 23:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you go to preferences yo can check a box to make the banner dissapear altogether68.118.25.214 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem for Swedish users

Hi there. We are having a major problem with this banner for Swedish users. When clicked it shows nothing whatsoever. I end up on this page: [1] Similar things happen when we click for instance the banner on the German or Norwegian Wikipedias. (when I click the German one I end up here: [2]) However if you change the country code in the URL from SE to DE or so on those Wikipedias, it works. Over here and on enwp it works as it is for some reason.

There is a discussion about it here (in Swedish) and it doesn't work for anyone. As it won't seem to fix itself, can someone please help or at least direct me to someone who knows how to fix these URL:s? Njaelkies Lea 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We're working on it now, thank you so much for alerting us to this issue-Deniz (WMF) 18:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We have fixed the issue, changes should be seen within the next 10 minutes. --Deniz (WMF) 18:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(sorry didn't realize I was edit conflicted by ms Deniz) This problem should now be fixed and actually should have showed instantly. Thank you very much for letting us know. I'm not at all sure why it wasn't at least sending you to the sv fallback page but it will now go to the Swedish chapter page as expected.Jalexander 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Anchor + banner == jumping pages

Because the banner is loaded after the page is opened, there are some side effects when you follow a link with an anchor. Example: en:WP:MOSQUOTE. After the page is loaded, the banner is loaded, and you are at the wrong position in the document. It has always been this way, but with the even larger banners this year, the effect has become even more noticeable. I know the WikiEditor repairs the scroll position of the window, perhaps similar code can be used for the centralnotice ? TheDJ 13:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statistics usability

Several people have complained that they thought Special:FundraiserStatistics was for the 2007 fundraiser. Might be handy to default the page to "today", and to add a note that you need to mouseover the graphbars to view the statistics. TheDJ 14:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sent this on to the person in charge of the Statistics page, thanks for alerting us. -Deniz (WMF) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, great call. I was also confused by the starting data being 2007. It took 3 or 4 separate page views until I realized what the chart was doing. Ocaasi 18:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Obnoxious banners and other donation issues

I really really want to donate to Wikipedia, which I love so much and use plenty. But I've been put off for years from donating because I feel not right donating following an obnoxious plea.

The banners get larger each year;

Jimmy Wales's face consistently plastered in such a large size for such a long period of time reeks of self-aggrandization. In previous years it was even worse when the letter emphasized his role as the creator ("I made this" kind of phrasing). I still don't understand why the active chairman of the foundation doesn't address the people. Wales does not have a celebrity status in the target audience, so what's the point? He only becomes a celebrity by being on those banners;

I know the current banner text is extremely effective, but it just doesn't feel right when you're being manipulated by marketing-speak: The "personal appeal" isn't personal by definition;

The banner is persistent. This hurts usability to the point of frustration, which is then aggravated by the long duration of the campaign;

An issue I'm ambivalent about is how Wikimedia spends the money. On the one hand, I don't think I know how to run a foundation like Wikimedia and I'm not really aware of the personnel needs of that kind of an organization. On the other hand, I feel like Wikimedia has grown too rapidly in employees because it could, and now it needs to run longer annoying donation campaigns to pay those employees;

Finally, a big issue: The donate button redirects me to a donation page for the Wikimedia foundation of my country (outside of the U.S.). I don't want to support them financially for various very good reasons. Why can't I donate to the foundation of the Wikipedia I do support? (Edit to clarify: I wanted to support the global Wikimedia foundation, not the local chapter.)

93.172.37.99 20:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, we understand the banners are big, but they are effective. In September we had 400,000,000 unique visitors, we have to sustain the infrastructure that makes serving all of those users possible. If the country you are in outside the U.S. has a chapter who is part of our fundraising agreement, you will be able to donate directly to them. Otherwise, donations come to the foundation, and we give grants to the chapters to take on projects that require more resources. --Deniz (WMF) 20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use boilerplate sounding responses. It's perfunctorily, excusatory, and dismissive. It makes me feel like I'm being actively ignored. If you have nothing to say, don't say it. 93.172.37.99 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you were being actively ignored, I wouldn't have responded :) I did have something to say, hopefully my response about chapter giving clarified that you can support your local group, but that there are different levels of chapter engagement in the fundraising process. -Deniz (WMF) 21:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My lashing out on you was uncalled for. You're just doing your job. I apologize.

I wasn't looking for a response or an explanation. I was trying to give feedback I think is important as most potential donors like myself who decide against donating rarely explain their decision. I know why Wikimedia does what it does and why it does it the way it does. I'm merely explaining the negative effects the current conduct has on usability and goodwill. These aspects may or may not have been discussed and taken into account. I'm just putting them out there in case they weren't. 93.172.37.99 21:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, we have listened to your concerns and feedback. And we agree, it is very important for us to hear donor's concerns, I really do appreciate you coming to us with it. Please do not hesitate to come to us again, we want to hear your thoughts. --Deniz (WMF) 22:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And really, we've been seeing a lot of this "no-Jimmy-appeals-please" sentiment on Twitter, and I understand that he gets pretty boring and that we need to change it up because people are tired of Jimbo (no offense to him!). And we're designing stuff now: Fundraising 2010/Graphic Banners/Proposals. I really would like to see more people commenting there, but everyone (including you, IP 93.172.37.99) who leaves suggestions and feedback influences how we do things, if not this week, next week; if not this year, next year.  fetchcomms☛ 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with 93.172.37.99 on both issues - the banner is emphasizing on Jimbo too much, and that i don't necessarily want to give money to my local chapter. Maybe it is more effective in general to have Jimbo's face, but it doesn't work for me who believe wp is a collaborative project and is only what it is because of all the work put in by mostly non-celebrities. I have been unhappy with the photo banner since the fundraiser started this year. Putting up with it, I continued to contribute some edits for days. But yesterday I made a different decision after I started loading a wp page as I was changing in my room. And there was Jimbo's image - it feels even more weird than having built-in cameras on the laptop. So that's it - I decided that there will be no wp for me so long as I am forced to load those images - even I only have to see them before I log in as an user. I have been using/contributing to wp and other projects for a long time and i don't know how successful this resolution will be, but I don't mind doing this as an experiment to see how long i can live without wp. I want to make it clear that I'm not a hater - quite the opposite, i like wp and other projects and i've been contributing to them and defending them. On twitter I see a lot of people showing their discontent about the banner - at the same time i also saw a lot of love for wp. People are saying - please donate generously to get rid of that photo. That's love, and I don't think the fundraiser should abuse this kind of love - at least not mine.

My 2 cents about the picture: it's getting good press and bad press. And since bad press is still press and most of the times it means funny mockery, I think we should accept it (or just close the banner if we don't like it). About not donating to the chapter, can you try and click here and tell me if this solves your problem? --Elitre 21:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the op. Ok, Jimmy's appeal worked last year (it gave the fundraising some degree of urgency) but that doesn't mean we should use it every year. At least it doesn't work for me this year. I prefer this bar which increases as we are donating towards the target. This encourages me more than seeing Jimmy's face and reading his appeal (again) (no offence).The real bicky 20:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia founder"

Couldn't the text in the Jimmy banners say "from Wikimedia founder Jimmy Wales" on the sister projects? --Yair rand 04:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

+1 ~ Ningauble 17:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps the text could tell the truth and call Jimbo "Wikipedia co-founder" instead of pandering to his constant, self-aggrandizing whitewashing of history.--61.224.46.12 03:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes... It's so annoying on sisterprojects. But I don't think that changing a letter is enough: when you arrive on wikimediafoundation.org, the appeal is only about Wikipedia; and that's obvious, because that's the only thing the WMF will invest on.

Moreover, even if WMF wasn't Wikipedia-centred, if you have a campaign centred on Jimbo, you necessarily have a campaign centred on Wikipedia, because that's what made him famous and hence supposedly useful for the fundraising (that's the whole reasoning); if we had a campaign with appeals from "core people" for their real role, we would have a banner from WMF chairman, one from the chairman emeritus (Jimbo) etc. Hopefully the fundraising team is quite aware of these issues, they're going to test community banners and so on. --Nemo 12:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

November 15 launch

I am surprised that since the fundraising drive was nominally launched yesterday I have yet to see fundraising banners at en.wikiquote, my home wiki, or even at en.wikipedia, the flagship, although I do see them regularly (100%) here at meta and some other sites such as en.wiktionary. Are they just being displayed at a very low rate, or are there some site-specific issues that need to be resolved? ~ Ningauble 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We are running at 100% on all projects. Is it possible that last year you turned on the gadget to hide the banners? If so, it'll be under Special:Preferences on those wikis... Philippe (WMF) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any of the currently available gadgets enabled on either site, and I don't even see banners when I am logged out. I do not recall whether I ever used the gadget in the past. Wikiquote did have a gadget for this during the 2008 fundraiser, but it was removed from the local MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition list in January 2009. I have removed the corresponding css page at Wikiquote and refreshed my cache, but I still don't get the banners. I do not know whether the current gadget at Wikipedia is the same one that was in place then. I'm not sure if this is the problem, because I definitely saw last year's banners, but could someone look into whether there are any lingering back-end problems with obsolete gadgets? ~ Ningauble 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I finally got it to work by (re-)enabling the gadget, then disabling it, and then completely purging my cache. ~ Ningauble 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

I worked a bunch on personal messages, and it was good, fun, and apparently ineffective. That's what stats are for. But stats can't do everything. Here are some concerns about this year's graphic-centric, Jimmy-centric appeal:

1. Visual desensitization. Last year it was simple text on a white background. It was smaller. This year it's larger text on a colored background with an image. Slippery slopes aren't always, but, this way *blinking* lies. Bigger will always test better, because of the shock and awe effect, but it might set a precedent that can only be beat with bigger again, until people just get fed up with the size and distraction.

• It's worth pointing out that we actually started big and reduced to almost exactly the same size and style banners as last year.  :) Philippe (WMF) 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Jimmy centralization. Stock market buffs talk about something called concentration risk. You may know it as the exhortation not to put all your eggs in one Tupperware container. It doesn't matter how good Goldman Sachs' stock or Jimmy Wales' donation magnetism is, there is an inherent risk from relying on only one figure. Wales' banners are very effective, but that consideration must be made in context of the broader campaign, and in light of possible black swan events related to the foundation. What if Wales is arrested (or framed!) for DUI (by some Citizendium-happy thug). Then our entire fundraising appeal is fronted by a criminal. It's not going to happen, and it's not the point, but where would the foundation be without the ability to rely on this image? Do we want to be like Wikileaks?

• Yep. It's a concern. We hope that this year's "many voices" approach may begin to mitigate that some, but the reality is: Jimmy's the thing that performs. Philippe (WMF) 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Community minimization. We tend to take kindly to the great man theory of history. It rewards our feelings of individualism, independence, the ability to craft our own destinies, the strength of fathers, the triumph of will over the bubbling masses--but Wikipedia is a gallant rebuttal to that whole meme. Wikipedia is the great community theory of history, and yet, our product is still represented by the single face of a single person. There's some inherent positive effect from having an identifiable face, a pseudo-celebrity represent the foundation, but it also misses out on the big picture of what this community is about. I founded Us. Does it work?

• Interesting perspective. I'll think on it. Philippe (WMF) 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Community is an "interesting perspective"? Gigs 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

4. Dollars over demographics. The banner (blue shirt on gray) looks vaguely corporate, though comfortingly so. It projects an image of Wales as a respectable entrepreneur instead of the pajama-wearing gnomes who piece together the encyclopedia. Corporate cleanliness appeals to corporate-style donors. But who isn't donating this year? Is this very effective campaign grabbing the big money but missing the long tail of potential future editors and Wiki-defenders?

• We're going to do exactly this type of analysis in our post-mortem. Philippe (WMF) 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

5. The look. The gaze of Jimmy is nothing overly harsh, but it does send a subtle 'do your share and save my baby' message. It's less aspirational, less humorous, less diverse, less collaborative, less Wiki than all of the 'crowdsourced' messages. Shouldn't the fundraiser, at least in part, be a bit of a celebration of the community's values, unique composition, and spirit?

• Again, interesting perspective. Thank you. Philippe (WMF) 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

6. Final thought. Just because something works this year, doesn't mean it won't shut off options for next year. Does this fundraiser's approach close any doors? Ocaasi 12:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I hope not. We've shown the ability to reinvent this thing a couple times - I think we could do it again. Philippe (WMF) 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I don't think this closes any doors in the near term; but you are right that relying exclusively on the appeal of a single personality is a risk to organizational continuity. For the long term, since I fully expect Wikimedia to outlive Jimbo, other approaches will eventually need to be found. If this year's attempt to craft banners "reflective of who we are"[3] could do no better than "we are friends of Jimmy," then we need to try harder. Overreliance on founders has caused many an otherwise viable organization to fail spectacularly.

I don't think the failure of this year's attempt at crowdsourcing means it can't be done. After all, who would have thought a bunch of (mostly) amateurs could write a useful encyclopedia!? But the sooner a more robust appeal is found, the better. If crowdsourcing can't achieve effective results then we will just have to call in some professionals, and we would be prudent to do it before disaster strikes. ~ Ningauble 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When are the editor appeals going to be tested? Are they going to be tested this year? I share the concerns of Occasi, but strangely, I haven't seen a lot of in-community annoyance with the banners, but the pt.wiki community has turned a bit apathetic recently, so don't know, GoEThe 19:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses. I think it's really important that we use at least the latter weeks of the fundraiser to test other graphic banners as well as text banners. At some point, I expect the Wales effect to wear off, and it might be better to mix it up before that happens. Also, the "I am Wikipedia" other-editor appeals makes a lot of sense. Finally, the individual text banners were really fun and hopefully can be scattered throughout or incorporated into graphics. I realize there is money at the center of all of this, but a little diversification of messages can add a lot to a campaign, and a community. Ocaasi 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really looking forward to seeing results from the editor appeals. Appeals from readers and editors potentially represent an infinitely scalable model of messaging from lots of individuals asking people to donate. The question is: Which effect is greater, the "founder" effect or the personal and compelling message? Even if the editor appeals are slightly less effective, this might offset fatigue we'll eventually see from the Jimmy appeal.--Eloquence 21:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

After phenomenal transparency with the banner testing and stats, it seems the foundation has gone dark a little. I know it's the first week and they have to establish a baseline, make sure the wheels dn't fall off etc., but it'd be great to see all of the same info as before--average donations, daily donations, which graphic jimmy ads are doing better, landing pages, localized data, total contributions etc. Without that, we can't have a sense of what's driving the decisions, namely not yet mixing up the banners.

I would be particularly curious to see when the Jimmy appeal starts to lose effectiveness. Maybe never... For me, as a regular user with the ad gadget still running, I've probably seen a few hundred banners. Which means I give an average user a few more weeks to acclimate and get either apathetic or irritated. The saving grace is the visual variety of the banners, which keeps an almost comical freshness to it. There might be 10 up and running and they're all exactly the same, but not quite.

So, what is the plan now that the fundraiser is up and running? Ocaasi 17:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I accept full responsibility for the fact that we didn't communicate our results as well as we should have. That's changing, immediately. Deniz has started to repost to the updates page on this wiki, and we're getting numbers out. Sorry about that. We'll do better. Philippe (WMF) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No doubt you've been swamped... It was just a bit of a downer to feel like things had been taken over by the big boys. You are doing an excellent job IMO, and the rollout of editor appeals makes an almost poetic statement about Wales' vision being carried by individuals from all over the globe. In other words, keep it up. Just let us know what's going on with numbers. I really think that the Fundraising_2010 page should include a link or transclusion of [4]. Those are the stats everyone wants to see, so why not put them on the fundraiser's communal homepage. Also, back burner question: In 2009 fundraising kicked up dramatically around today and continued through the holidays. We started strong but are now closer to 2009 levels. Though we had a great start, is there some concern for the case that the Wales' shock and awe attack really did overload the senses? Hopefully that's just a hypothetical, but I'm curious what tricks and detours you guys have in store should it look a little slower in the next two weeks. Not that you won't roll with it, just... well, curious. Ocaasi 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate them a lot, truly. As for what we have up our sleeve: We need to raise the sense of urgency, no question. Last year had the advantage of the fact that it was on the trail of what was widely viewed (incorrectly, in my opinion) as a disastrous campaign. By bringing in Jimmy, big and late in the year, they were able to raise the sense of urgency. We've got to do the same thing. Our week and a half of relatively low donations will help with that, I think.

To answer your question more specifically though, we introduced a trial run of recurring monthly giving this week. The hope was that booking that revenue for the year would be a solid bump. It turns out that it actually suppressed donations. We'll still use it, but not on landing pages. So that's one weapon out of our arsenal. We have three more: Sue, Jimmy, and the 10th Anniversary. We're running Sue now. She's performing about as well as we expected: we've finally gotten the knack of crafting these letters, I think. I think it goes without saying, though, that we'll have to bring Jimmy back. Nothing else we've tried - not the editor appeals, Sue, nothing - has performed even in the same ballpark. So, to make the goal, Jimmy's got to come back. We're going to reintroduce him in a much more spare way though. No crazy colored banners, I promise. :)

Then, after the 1st of the year, and the year end tax bump, we'll pump him away entirely, I hope. At that point, we'll begin to use 10th anniversary messaging, and focus on the contributions campaign (make your first edit). The messaging around the 10th will continue to support the fundraiser, and there will be explicit asks.

I hope that somewhat answers your question. I don't get here as much as I'd like, so if you do have a follow-up (and feel free!), I'm more likely to see it if you drop me a note on my meta userpage pointing me toward it. Then you won't wait a week for me to notice. :) Philippe (WMF) 03:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Jimmy should be used conservatively, but at this point, it's something of a phenomenon. If you can manage to make it on target through the new-year, he might be a kitchy send-off. You've already got the meme, you might as well use it. (Then again, the 10th birthday is a big event in itself. Along those lines, is it worth keeping that powder dry until next year?) Ocaasi 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for 'A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales'

This comment was pasted on the English Wikipedia help-desk here; I thought this was a better place for it, so I copied it over. Chzz 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, If I remember correctly, the donation-collection-appeal was done before also by wikipedia, not sure if that was global or not. There was a coloured bar graph used to show how much donation is collected and there was a target too.

My suggestion is to have a similar bar at the top, which motivates a lot, not only, for being part of it, but it gives a real sense of satisfaction that my help is making the difference making the bar go higher reaching towards the target. One might donate twice or thrice also, while the bar traverses the 1/3rd, 2/3rd and finally towards 100%.

Good luck to all and best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.79.207 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We're looking at how to integrate this into the banners this year, but we haven't yet come up with a good design. I agree that progress bars are useful and motivating.  fetchcomms☛ 02:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Progress bars will roll out shortly :) Philippe (WMF) 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Chrome Extension

Someone made a Chrome Extension to show Jimmy on every page :P . Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tax Deductiability

Moved from Talk:Fundraising 2007 --Kaganer 12:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tax Deductiability in Canada

I am surprised to see that so far there is no Wikimedia chapter in Canada and hence no non-profit status for tax deductions of donations. Has there been any attempts or is this in the works? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.94.194 (talk)

There is currently a proposed Canadian Chapter. According to their own page as of October the charity and incorporation documentation is complet and is now being circulated for approval by members if the steering committee. They expect to submit the paperwork to the Canadian gov. by the end of this year. --Deniz (WMF) 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tax Deductability in Belgium

If the Wikimedia foundation does its paperwork in Belgium and makes it tax-deductable there I will start donating 30 euros per year, promise! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.2.253 (talk)

Tax Deductability in Spain

Any way to get Tax Deductability on donations to Wikimedia Fundation recognized at Spanish Tax Agency? www.aeat.es

Thx and BR,

IA — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.198.151.37 (talk)

Advertising is Advertising: Jimmy Wales should not appear in the banner

I have begun a discussion on this topic in the policy section of the village pump. A respondent in that discussion suggested this location to pursue the issue. I believe that using Jimmy Wales' image and name in the banner is not merely a bad idea, regardless of whether it raises funds or not, but is a direct violation of the Wikipedia policy that advertising is not permitted. Many public figures use their names and images for commercial profit. The banner is one of the most valuable spaces on the internet. It must be kept free of any commercial overtones, certainly including Mr. Wales' self-promotion.MacRutchik 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The no advertising policy was created by Jimmy,[5] so its a bit of a stretch to use it against the Jimmy banners.Kaldari 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's not "against" Jimmy Wales. It's in favor of preserving what makes Wikipedia unique. I'd turn this around and say it's rather ironic that Mr. Wales stands out as an exception to the very policy he created. But if no one else is bothered by this approach to the use of banner space, I'll drop it and accept that Wikipedia is not so unique after all.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacRutchik (talk)

That seems a bit cynical. For example, even though the non-Jimmy banners are only bringing in half the money that the Jimmy banners were, we're still running the non-Jimmy banners for the time being. Although this is more to just give people a break from staring at Jimmy than because of any perceived conflict of interest. The truth is that Jimmy isn't using the fundraiser, the fundraiser is using Jimmy. If we could use anyone else as effectively, we would be happy to do so. We've tested over a hundred at this point and the Jimmy ones just work far far better than any others. Kaldari 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Because it works better" is a shitty reason to breach a policy.--61.224.40.26

Fundraising is not advertising. Advertising sells--fundraising begs. Wales is our cardboard sign. I think there's no comparison. Ocaasi 12:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Long-term fail

Ok guys. All the testing we have done is very short-term. So yes, the Jimbo message worked short-term. But people are getting sick of it, and it is loosing its effect (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics for details). I hope the people in charge of fundraising understand this, and take appropriate action soon. By being so monotonous we are potentially loosing a lot of people! 131.111.28.49 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You might have noticed that two weeks ago we began testing editor appeals... those are beginning to roll out now to combat exactly this fatigue. We're also testing an update from Sue shortly, and potentially some other messages. :) Philippe (WMF) 22:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any editor appeals... --Yair rand 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are you located Yair? They have only run and been tested on US projects so far - we have 3 different editors running currently. --Deniz (WMF) 23:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am located in Canada. The editor appeals are only shown to US readers? Why aren't the banners just divided by language? --Yair rand 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We are currently testing several versions of each letter; until we know which letter is the most effective we didn't want to build localized donation pages. As we finish testing for each letter we will get them up on all projects. There is currently a translation request out for the Kartika appeal. -- Deniz (WMF) 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(typical) e.g. language complaint

<An anonymous user> one question

<An anonymous user> there is this banner with jimmy walle's face

<An anonymous user> when i click on it it takes me to the german language donation page

<An anonymous user> now, i now i am in germany

<An anonymous user> but why am i not allowed to choose the language in which i see this page?

<a helper> because that's unfortunately how the fundraising staff organized things.

<An anonymous user> so, every time i click on that banner

<An anonymous user> it takes me here

<An anonymous user> https://spenden.wikimedia.de/spenden/?piwik_campaign=Kampagne2_Dez1&piwik_kwd=2010_JA1_Banner3_DE&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=Kampagne2_Dez1&utm_source=2010_JA1_Banner3_DE

<An anonymous user> how can i change that?

<An anonymous user> anyway, i guess there is nothing i can do

<An anonymous user> either i learn german

<An anonymous user> either i move from here

<An anonymous user> thanks for your help, have a nice day/evening/night/week-end

This has been anonymised from IRC, the #wikipedia-en-help channel, by Chzz 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As a person who also helps in that channel and as an OTRS member, we receive countless complaints about this. It's really your (Wikimedia's) loss! It also exasperates a group of the very people you're trying to reach (those who click the banners to go to the landing pages). The thought process behind this setup is mind boggling. Killiondude 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't begin to tell you the number of times I have requested that chapters create other language versions of their pages. However, we simply don't control their pages (and by the way - that wasn't the way "fundraising staff" organized things, that's a result of the joint fundraising agreement, which is binding upon us). I wish there were something I could do. It's enormously frustrating for me. --Philippe 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact you took the time to post here. If you could, could you please clarify what the "joint fundraising agreement" is? Are there online records? I mentioned on the IRC channel that one idea would be to require chapters to have their landing pages available in their regions' primary language as well as English or perhaps the top x (amount of) languages used in the country/region. Again, as I said on -fundraising, the fact that these sites don't have it in other languages actually not only affects the chapters' incomes, but affects how much money the WMF receives because they share the donation (I'm not sure on exact numbers, but I've gathered that's the relationship). So it's really a loss for both parties. Mainly the WMF in the case of English speaking people who would like English speaking landing pages, don't live in a country where English is the "lingua franca" (I've spoken with people from France, Germany, and other places where this scenario has happened), and don't know about the generic one on wmfwiki. Killiondude 08:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Joint Fundraising Agreement is a legal document between the Foundation and each chapter that engages in fundraising on its own through this program (that is, so-called "Tier 1" Chapters, or those Chapters that have the ability to accept donations on their own behalf using their own landing pages). While I don't know that the content is confidential, I also don't know that it's something I'm free to post - I'll certainly find out though. I'm sure you'll understand that because its not my own work, I'm hesitant to share it without checking to be sure. :)

I agree with your argument fully. It is an actual loss of income to the Foundation and the chapter both, since it directly impacts their revenue, and the share of the revenue that they provide to us as a result. I have suggested that for next year, the agreement be modified to represent exactly what you suggest: a requirement that the agreement include a section requiring a landing page be translated into English as well as the local language(s). Given the massive amount (proportionally) of traffic to the English Wikipedia, it seems very safe to assume that all chapters will have a share of that traffic directed to their own landing pages. Philippe (WMF) 20:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually WMF landing pages have no English text or links either. (Example - the two links and the logo take you to English text, but finding it is certainly not made easy; it is much worse if your language is other than English. Of course, MediaWiki's lack of multilanguage capabilities is no help.) I was under the impression that was done intentionally to maximize donation rates.

As for traffic, the chapter banners are shown based on location of the reader, so 1) enwiki traffic is not necessarily massive (see wikistats - e.g. there are roughly eight times as much dewiki page views from Germany as enwiki page views), 2) even for that enwiki traffic, the huge majority of it comes from local readers who are only using enwiki because it has more content and understand a landing page in the local language just fine. --Tgr 21:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Length of dismiss button effect

I've seen several complaints on enwiki about people getting annoyed that the banners keep reappearing after being dismissed. Currently the dismiss button causes banner to vanish for 1 week, but in a 2 month campaign they would reappear many times at that rate. I would like to suggest that the dismiss action be made more persistent. At least 2 weeks, and perhaps more like 4 weeks. Dragons flight 10:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If a user is logged in the banner shouldn't reappear for two weeks - and you can make this a permanent hide under your User Preferences. For logged out users, the banners will disappear until they restart their browser. -- Deniz (WMF) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

function toggleNoticeCookie(state) {
	var e = new Date();
	e.setTime( e.getTime() + (7*24*60*60*1000) ); // one week
	var work='hidesnmessage='+state+'; expires=' + e.toGMTString() + '; path=/';
	document.cookie = work;
}

For logged in users it is currently one week, not two. If you want / expect it to be two weeks, then you need to change the time offset in the banner controller. Dragons flight 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into that - It was my understanding that it was a two-week period. Thanks Dragons -- Deniz (WMF) 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's going to remain at one week - however I don't believe clicking the X button 8 times in a campaign is an unreasonable burden in the grand scheme of things. If you disagree, you can change your user preferences to have the banners permanently disabled. -- Deniz (WMF) 02:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I know how to deal with banners. I came here because it has been a frequent complaint at enwiki (one of relatively few during this campaign), and I tend to agree that making people click the button so many times is unnecessarily annoying. It seems unlikely that an editor who has already dismissed the banner three times is going to suddenly become a donor if presented with an appeal 5 more times. Anyway, I've said my peace. Dragons flight 07:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more annoying that it seems because you actually have to dismiss the centralnotice 8 times for every project you usually visit, i.e. dozens of times for me. I agree with Dragons flight for the rest. --Nemo 12:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll raise this with the team and relate the feedback from enwiki. Thanks Nemo & Dragons -- Deniz (WMF) 15:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lilaroja: Whose idea was this? Give him a medal.

I mean no disrespect at all to Jimbo—we all know we owe him greatly for the Wikimedia Foundation—but his stubbly-bearded mugshot did nothing to draw me in. Put a picture of a beautiful woman on the appeal for donations, though, and you've got a winner. My donation's on its way. Lexicon 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia

Not an ad for WMF. Please find other means to generate income/profit/whatever money related scheme you have going at WMF. 68.193.122.145 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely, the Red Cross can advertise for donors, even though they are a blood bank and a disaster response organization. We create an encyclopedia, but the WMF manages that operation. If you want the banners to go away, donate! Ocaasi 11:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't give money to an organization that is going all the way across the internet just to shove their begging bowl in my face. I'm not here to see Sue Gardner's face, or Jimmy whatever's face, or to read their sappy monologues about how they're such nice people. I am here for information. 68.193.122.145 03:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, how do you think the information gets there? All that bandwidth isn't free. Also, try to remember that although Wikipedia is well established in many parts of the world, there are countries where it is just beginning to be established. This requires a greater capital and operational investment. If you have a way for the foundation to raise 10-20 million dollars a year, without doing these banners, and without putting advertising on the site, we'd all like to know! Seriously! Also, clicking the dismiss button will briefly remove the banners, and getting an account will allow you to permanently turn them off in your preferences. So, it's that easy to make them go away. Ocaasi 10:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Have the gigantic banner go away when someone tells it to - forever. Why do they force me to make an account just to permanently get rid of a banner? I clicked the X, I don't want it there, ever. I have no reason presently to make an account since I'm not in the habbit of making edits or contributing things.

Again, have the gigantic banner go away when someone tells it to! If you ask someone for something and they tell you no, but you continue asking them repeatedly multiple times a day, that is called disrespect. 68.193.122.145 02:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So, let me give you another set of facts to weigh here: When you don't have an account, you are treated the same (anonymously) as anyone who may be sharing a computer. The current system is tailored for the standard use case: the shared computer. To personalize the experience you have to create an account. Most people who edit anonymously are in a computer lab, or at school, or in a library. For those people, closing the banners when the first person saw them actually would mean that the other people who share the computer don't have the opportunity to know we're doing a fundraiser. Your experience - a single person on a non-shared computer - is the exception, not the norm. We design to the norm. A customized experience requires an account. Philippe (WMF) 03:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, WMF is more worried about money and prospective customers than providing a clean and professional electronic encyclopedia. Thanks for clearing that up. And where is the data that supports these facts of yours? 68.193.122.145 05:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Test stats spreadsheet

I see that the test stats spreadsheet is no longer linked from anywhere: is it sill updated (I don't understand how old the last sheets are)? Where are the statistics currently being put (apart from Fundraising 2010/Updates, Fundraising 2010/Banner testing/Stats/Banner history and Fundraising 2010/Banner testing)? Thank you, Nemo 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

New Target

Initial press reports cited 16 million. The progress banner showed 14 million. Did something change? Ocaasi 11:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, they're fixed now. Maybe it was just a mistake.

We were experimenting with an "end of year" goal of 14Million - rather than an end of campaign goal. Didn't seem to work. :) Philippe (WMF) 16:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ask Copy

I'm wondering if the 'ask' on Sue Gardner's appeal, "Are you one of them?" is a bit confrontational. Maybe it would be better if it was, "Will you be one of them?" which has a hint of request and aspiration mixed in with the yes/no proposition. it might be worth testing. Ocaasi 15:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Stats

I'm looking for data (even old ones) about how much money is donated in each continent, possibly with money amount details about top donors (USA, Canada...). Is this available anywhere? The donor survey had a graph about it but it's not enough. --Elitre 13:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Email solicitation/privacy

Today I received an email from "Jimmy Wales", "email@wikimedia.org", addressing me by my real name ("Dear xxxxxx"), and sent to my personal "real name" email address. In four years of editing WP, I don't believe I've ever disclosed either piece of information to Wikimedia (having never donated, for one)--including the email-this-user option on the various wikis. How could this have occurred? Is Wikimedia resorting to spammish tactics or "borrowed a partner's database", and this email is simply a coincidence? Thunderbird tells me that the email may be a scam, but the URLs look legitimate. I am concerned for my privacy with regard to how WM acquired my information. It certainly does not encourage me to donate. Thanks, Riggr Mortis 00:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All emails and names were drawn from our donor database. That was the only source. If you would like to contact me privately I will happily tell you where we got whatever info we have on you, and arrange to have you unsubscribed. My email is Philippewikimedia.org. Philippe (WMF) 11:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I no longer see the mailing list opt-out that was on the landing page when I made my donation last month. Now there is just a link to the Donor Privacy Policy, which provides for using contact information to "inform donors about upcoming fundraising and other activities of The Foundation." Offering a mailing list opt-out is widely regarded as a best practice, and some people decline to participate where the option is not available up front. I am one of them, and I hope that my election not to receive such mailings at my real-life address will be respected even though the option is not currently being offered. I strongly encourage the Foundation to reinstate the option. ~ Ningauble 17:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I wrote too soon: Today, December 16, I received an email from "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia [email@wikimedia.org]" captioned "Urgent update about Wikipedia" addressed using my real name at my personal email address. To be clear, as mentioned above, on November 17 I unchecked the option to subscribe to Wikimedia mailings on the fundraising landing page before proceeding to the credit card payment screen. This was the only occasion on which I provided my real name and personal address to Wikimedia.

  I am always very circumspect about providing personal information on the web, and Wikimedia now has the ignominious distinction of being the first and only person or entity ever to have spammed me after I had expressly declined an offer to subscribe to its mailing list. Because I wholeheartedly support Wikimedia, because it is a preeminent force on the internet, and because I believe it can and should be an upstanding web citizen, I am deeply disappointed by the Wikimedia Foundation's breach of professional ethics. Be ashamed, be very ashamed, and discipline the individuals responsible. ~ Ningauble 17:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  If you unchecked the email option, we definitely want to figure out why you got an email. I'd be very happy to look into it, but it's difficult to do without knowing some more details. If you'd like to make contact me with (philippewikimedia.org) I'll trace it down, I assure you. We absolutely are not intentionally disregarding donor preferences. As you state, that would be unethical, and I would never support it, nor would any other member of our team. I think it's most likely that you've identified a system error, and I'd like to find it and fix it. Philippe (WMF) 10:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  There are several technical fault modes that could cause this, ranging from failure to capture the state of the checkbox for transmission to the CRM database, to failure to validate eligibility when generating the mailing. Operator error could contribute to the latter, but only if the underlying data safeguards are defective. Needless to say, the coding of facilities for transactions on customer data merits the closest scrutiny. (Oops, I said it anyway.) I can be reached confidentially via the pseudonymous email link on my userpage at my home wiki, but I doubt I can be of much help in debugging the systems involved.

  I notice that the opt-out has not been reinstated at wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/en/US (nor added to the linked PayflowProGateway), and wish to reiterate that it really is best practice to offer an opt-out at the point of entry of personal information. I would not have contributed had the option not been offered, because I do not consider it worth the effort to employ extrinsic means of anonymizing the transaction. I believe there are a significant number of people who follow similar basic internet hygiene practices. ~ Ningauble 18:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

wmf:Special:FundraiserStatistics

Page with stats don't works since ~8 am. Przykuta 14:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Przykuta 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we had a database server fail today.  :( Philippe (WMF) 03:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Lira

• There have been many people - anonymous users - from Turkey stating that they are interested in donating to Wikimedia Foundation on Village Pump or user talks or somewhere else on Turkish Wikipedia. These people have said that they want to donate, but they cannot because Turkish Lira is not in the avaliable currencies. If Turkish Lira is added to the currencies, we think that there will be many people donating from Turkey. Thanks. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş 14:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We are working on supporting more currencies. Currently, we are limited to what PayPal accepts as we process our donations through them. I would certainly like to see TRY be an available option in the future, and we are working towards it. Until then, please let Turkish users know that they can contribute through USD or other supported currencies if they have a credit or debit card that allows it. -- Deniz (WMF) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think fewer people will prefer it, but we will try to inform them about these details. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş 13:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I heart Editor Appeals

So, quick question: why so few editor appeals? I loved them, but there were only a tiny handful of them. Is there a bottleneck in getting editors to write good appeals? Or were the editor appeals, as a group, just not working out?

--Alecmconroy 08:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just find the best photo and try to write it. Przykuta 09:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Privacy / security

I don't consider Wiki*edia untrustworthy, however, I hesitate to provide it my credit card data.. common practice is to use external secure payment server.. Mykhal 08:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We use Paypal as an external secure payment server, all of our credit card transactions are processed through them. -- Deniz (WMF) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be true for the "Donate via Paypal" way, but I was addressing the fact, that when "Donate by Credit Card" is used, credit card data is sent to wikimedia server (Special:PayflowProGateway) (then might be redirected, but the usual secure way is to fill in the data after the redirection) Mykhal 23:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're both correct. :) Special:PayflowProGateway is an API that runs on our servers that submits the data to PayflowPro, which is the credit card processing arm of Paypal. We do not keep any of the information: it's written through the API. Philippe (WMF) 23:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you did not mean to imply that Wikimedia does not keep any of the information collected at Special:PayflowProGateway. As disclosed at Foundation:Donor Privacy Policy, some of that data is retained and used for various purposes. ~ Ningauble 18:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia 10

Wish Wikipedia a Happy 10th Birthday - Our 10th birthday wish, I think it's time to go with this kind of ads instead of the pleading ones. --Elitre 09:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Turn donation barometer into smile-o-meter

Approaching a goal of many millions of dollars calls not for Jimbo's usual benumbed look but for sheer childlike gaiety. Photoshopped if need be.

Here's how the current banner could obtain this improvement. As the bar moves rightward, Jimbo's face lights up by degrees, crow's feet rippling alongside his eyes, cheeks lifting, lips parting to reveal two impeccable gum lines, until around the 14 million mark you'd think he was in Disneyland after hours with a wisp of cotton candy in one hand and a nitrous oxide canister in the other.

Another idea is to run a spectrum of Jimbobbleheads like footlights along the barometer, each one smilier than the last. Tagfu 16:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why dontcha go ahead and mock that one up and we'll run it past the community?  :) While I appreciate the ideal, and the childlike gaiety, I don't think that would fly. Philippe (WMF) 02:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Errors in the banner ad

Not sure where else to post this - in the ten minutes or so since I've been on the English Wikipedia just now, I have seen banner ads on various pages with amounts raised of $10.3, $12.0, $12.5, and $12.9 million raised to date (with the appropriate amounts left to go). At least three of those have to be errors. Ruhrfisch 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. We had cacheing problems with all the sites on Christmas Day (which included the 00:54 time period on 12/26). You were seeing the slave servers attempting to catch up with the master. Philippe (WMF) 02:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is anyone here aware of just how intrusive and obnoxious the meter ad is? If everyone in the world donated, yes, your troubles would be over. But that is a fantasy, and you were supposed to learn as a child that fantasies don't come true, and grown adults shouldn't be acting like this. I've never in my life seen such an obnoxious plea for donations and I am deeply ashamed that WMF would stoop to this level after all these years (previous to the ads) that wikipedia has remained free without this non sense. I'm talking to everyone I know, and I've already managed to change the minds of three people who were going to donate! So there, you're $15 short of your fantasy world. 68.193.122.145 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know that the fundraiser has gone on every year for quite a lot of years, right? --Yair rand 17:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When was the decision made to be as obnoxious as possible and disrespect users as part of that fund raiser? 68.193.122.145 20:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That decision has not been made yet. We're going to hold off on it, since we like our users. Ocaasi 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello traveler, what universe are you from? 68.193.122.145 20:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not, these banners work. They've raised millions and millions of dollars over the years, from hundreds of thousands of people clicking on these very same banners. Regarding specific messages in the banners: yes, the "please, everyone donate $X" is rather annoying. Killiondude 21:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice on the fundraising chart what those banners did to the total number of contributors? It shot way up. Philippe (WMF) 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I love propaganda! 68.193.122.145 04:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the point of a fundraiser is to get people to donate. I'm wondering what exactly you would hope a fundraiser would be like. Do you have any opinions on this, or is your only opinion that all of Wikimedia should drop dead? --Yair rand 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's just one opinion of mine, but a more rational one would be that your fundraisers should be less intrusive. If wikimedia needs money, wikimedia is free to advertise all it wants but keep it off of this ENCYCLOPEDIA. I'm sick and tired of money being the one and only important thing in anyone's life even in a place like this. I am sick and tired of this asshole feeling so self important that he needs to stick his face on the top of every god damn page. If it's a fundraiser to keep wikipedia running then it's about wikipedia, not him! Not anyone! 68.193.122.145 15:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get what you're saying. Do you wan't Jimbo to go and say "I don't care if it'll lose Wikimedia millions of dollars in potential donations, I don't give permission for Wikimedia to use my face in the fundraiser"? And by "keep it off this encyclopedia", do you mean that it the fundraiser should only go on at other Wikimedia projects? By "advertise", you don't mean that the foundation should overrule the communities' decisions to keep Wikimedia free of commercial advertisements and try to force ads on the projects, do you? And about the last statement, yes, it is about Wikimedia, but having it come from Wikimedia or the Wikimedia community just isn't nearly as effective. It's annoying, but there's nothing that can be done about it. --Yair rand 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is, you can remove the advert (it's an advert banner not a fundraiser, let's not cut corners). But I see now that wikimedia only cares about money, so I will no longer bother trying to speak to you or your ilk. 68.193.122.145 21:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. You know the banners are down, right? Philippe (WMF) 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No they're not. "Thank you from Wikipedia Founder Jimmy wales" in big bold text in a box that doesn't go away with a "READ NOW" button. Wikimedia is now content to be an organization of liars, as well? 68.193.122.145 20:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tally discrepancy?

The banner slider currently has about $13.5 million with $2.5 to go. The fundraising stats page has only $12 million with about $4 to go. Are they pulling from different places? Ocaasi 04:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Special page does not include money raised during fundraiser testing, nor does it include a portion of the money raised by the chapters. All told, the two should always be about 1.5 apart. I stand corrected. The totals won't be quite that stable, because we're including in the meter the total for checks that we've received but not yet posted. Philippe (WMF) 07:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

TechCrunch article

Nice article with some questions over at TechCrunch. I pointed them to this page. Maybe someone from WMF wants to leave a note or explain any items with the blogger. Ocaasi 13:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary Reflections

Looks like 16 million is right around the corner, which is awesome. While I'm thinking about it, I wanted to jot down a few broader thoughts about the campaign.

1. People will tolerate banners, but they get tired of them over time. We might want to publicize that registering an account allows getting rid of them permanently, or even give an in-between option to ip's (someone who would click 'don't show me this again' probably won't donate anyway).
2. We need a quick and I think more prominent answer to two questions: 1) Where is this money going? (servers, staff, expenses, expansion, outreach, upgrades, innovation); and 2) Why not ad-sense? (independence, community, reader experience). These answers are out there, but I don't think readers should have to dig to get them.
3. I think that the underswell of irritation about the banners should caution against significantly expanding either the duration or the invasiveness. It's one thing to use banners, then banners with images, then bigger banners, then banners with moving graphics, then banners with moving graphics that fade into other banners... just be cautious that the increased effectiveness is not always free, and the more intense the ads eventually the bigger the backlash will be.
4. Mixing up the banners between the 'hard money' Jimbo asks and the softer/brighter/warmer editor appeals was a great way to stagger the intensity. Hopefully the 'happy birthday' January sendoff will wash away the aftertaste of the final banner-push.
5. The 5-year plan, strategic planning documents, global south, new interface, new hires... all of that stuff needs communication. Average readers see English Wikipedia, and only English Wikipedia, and they just know that they don't want it to disappear. But they don't know anything else about the scope, scale, or future of the project. That kind of simplicity is sometimes ok, but it can also create a disconnect between the perceived costs (moderate, and stable) and the actual costs (substantial, and growing). I feel like we're missing a small but important opportunity to educate people about the bigger picture in which Wikipedia is a part. Most readers don't want to know 'too much', but we could make it a little easier to peak through that crack.
6. Someone should briefly and declaratively respond to the incessant criticism of Wikipedia in blog comments by one persistent ex-user. He goes around to every single article that mentions Wikipedia and leaves the same hit-list (1 star charity rating, insider bids about rent and research, etc.). It doesn't look like particularly reliable criticism, but he puts it on every article, and I never see a detailed refutation. Maybe this is a Deny kind of situation, but I wish there was a short, simple response that could be linked to.

That's what I'm thinking. I'm curious what others' reflections are at this point. Ocaasi 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should remove the advert banners entirely. Not everyone tolerates the banners. If you're too greedy to remove them, than the next option is to give everyone the ability to completely and permanently dismiss the ads forever. If you're too greedy to consider even that than go jump off of a cliff. 68.193.122.145 21:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A big thanks

It seems like we have met our goal of US$16M just in time for the new year! I personally was glad to see the community play an important role in this year's fundraiser, and while I really wish that role could have been bigger, we've met our goal. Cheers,  fetchcomms☛ 05:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fetchcomms, it was a community effort. I am glad to be a part of that community.Theo10011 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo at the top of every single Wikimedia project, again

Okay. Did nobody listen to any of last years comments? Is there any chance at all that next year's fundraising period will go without plastering Wikipedia mentions and logos across all of Wikimedia? Is no one involved in fundraising even aware of the other Wikimedia projects?

...

--Yair rand 11:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yair:

Yeah, we screwed up. I'll take accountability. For some reason I never thought about it. In fact, none of us did. My team has been developing a new set of banners for use on the sister projects - they worked on it all day today.

Absolutely our fault, and as the person in charge of the fundraiser, I own it. Philippe (WMF) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Most Wiktionaries now have banners displaying the wrong logo, Meta has a banner using its logo with the color scheme upside down, Wikispecies has all of the logos shown, and all the banners still say "Wikipedia founder" and link to a page about Wikipedia and about Wikipedia's tenth anniversary. I do not consider that a fix. --Yair rand 12:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that the thank you page is all about Wikipedia. Looking at that page I see "Wikimedia Foundation", "Wikipedia and its sister sites", and "Wikimedia" scattered liberally throughout. But the Wikipedia 10th IS a big deal. And believe it or not, people reading the sister sites want to know about it. As for the rest of your concerns, I've pointed James to this page. Philippe (WMF) 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the immense size and popularity of the flagship project it is not really surprising that, when 'pedians are aware of the sister projects at all, it is only an afterthought. It is indeed frustrating that the sister projects are largely ignored by the foundation, but take heart: it could be worse, much worse. When the sister projects are discussed by the larger Wikimedia community, as often as not it is in the context of questioning their relevance or proposing to do away with them. (E.g., at the Strategic Planning wiki, where I was relieved that the task force assigned to the issue never got off the ground.) I do wish the Foundation would devote a little more attention to supporting and promoting the sister projects but, failing that, in a hostile environment a little benign neglect can be a Good Thing™. ~ Ningauble 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Yair, Sorry for the delay. After talking with Philippe we've actually pulled the logos completely from everywhere but Wikipedia (it may take a short bit before everyone sees the change) we hadn't fully seen the issue with the double branding (the logo on the banner being so close to the wiki logo). I'll still obviously try to answer all your questions so you understand what happened when I was setting things up last night let me know if I miss anything:

• The meta logo: This was a mistake. I was going through the svg logos on commons and used File:Meta-Wiki_logo.svg without thinking about it. I switched it briefly to the correct File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg but obviously that went down with them all before I finished writing this.
• The Wikipedia founder text: Unfortunately we are unable to cut this down easily to just 'Thank you from Jimmy Wales' or something else. Because of the speedy decision and realization that we could switch to thank you banners we reused many of the same translation as last year for the text. That means, however, that the text is lumped as a group and for many languages you can't separate it easily without a total re-translation. Obviously we don't want to use {{SITENAME}} or something like that since he is Wikipedia's founder not Wiktionaries.
• The Wiktionary logo: This was a judgement call on my part that I felt was the best move and didn't actually think would be problematic (and hence didn't even mention it to Philippe). It was the logo being used in the circle of logos and the other ones all included English text that I didn't think was appropriate. I know that a lot of Wiktionaries use different logos but without going through and finding out which language mapped to which logo (and creating all the different banners) I couldn't target specifically so thought this was the best for 'multi-language'. Please accept my apologizes if that was frustrating, it wasn't meant to be.
• Wiki-species: This was actually a bug. I made a banner with the wiki species logo ( you can see it here or here) and even targeted it to wikispecies through the central notice campaign but there was a bug in the project configuration that I wasn't able to fix. I filed a bugzilla bug for it so that hopefully we'll be able to target there correctly soon but it was getting what I had set up as 'Wikimedia General' (Supposed to be Strategy/Outreach etc) and I couldn't target it correctly without sending the wikispecies logo to those other sites.

Sorry again for the frustration, that's obviously not what any of us wanted to cause, let me/us know if you see anything else. Jalexander 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll fill you in on this. Unfortunately, wikimedia only cares about money and they no longer have any sense of community or loyalty (if they ever did) to the good people trying to use their information source, nor do they have the capacity to respect the wishes or opinions of their user base. They would spite their users in order to turn a profit. As long as they're making money they feel that everything is right in the world. You will continue to see the advertisement banners, and they will become even more threatening and insidious over the years. ("READ NOW" button, or the X that doesn't do anything at all are just some examples of wikimedia's current missteps in their "Fundraiser".)

It's sad. 68.193.122.145 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To....turn a profit? You realize we're a publicly supported non-profit, right? We absolutely don't turn a profit or make money. Philippe (WMF) 02:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to correct you there. Knowledge is our profit. And we are blessedly, filthy rich. For the ip, would changing cookie settings on the browser prevent having to repeatedly dismiss the banners? And a reminder, if you get an account (this is blackmail), you can dismiss them forever. Our users are not just readers who like or dislike banners, but also all of the people who won't have access to the encyclopedia at all (now or in the future) if funds aren't raised. We want to improve, but as is, the encyclopedia doesn't exist without 1-2 months of banners. I hope you keep using the site, despite this nuisance. Ocaasi 15:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely phillipe isn't lying, considering he's never lied previously on this exact same page, right? I think it's an understatement to say that you simply "screwed up". 68.193.122.145 21:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right.  :) I'm lying. We're actually a nameless, faceless for-profit corporation. Oops, we've been caught. :) Philippe (WMF) 21:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your photo album 68.193.122.145 03:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The noise to value ratio in your (Mr. IP's) posts have become shocking. Wikimedia is not your trolling platform, now go away. Killiondude 09:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove your advertisements and then maybe I'll think about it 65.40.197.16 16:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)