Talk:Fundraising/Archive 4

Keep Wikipedia thriving

Maybe saying that donations "keep Wikipedia thriving" was an attempt at replacing the "keep servers running" deceitful implications, but the new phrase is even worse. There are two possible ways this can be read:

• additional donations are a necessary condition – quite false statement, because we could have a surge in contributions for reasons independent from the WMF work;
• additional donations are a sufficient condition – disastrous defectionist statement which induces potential contributors to boycott our community by telling them that only money matters, not content contributions.

I wish Wikimedia Foundation stopped its anti-Wikipedia propaganda on Wikipedia. --Nemo 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The nagging is ridiculous

So I open wikipedia, see a banner on top. Shrugs, normal annoying donation thing, close the banner.

Go to another page, now there is a banner inline with the text. Oh come on. Block with element hiding.

And then on the next page there is another one on the left side. Seriously three??? Blocked again and now I'm angry.

How can you possibly think that nagging the user three times on three pages, when they explicitly closed the banner the first time, would be a good idea? How is it that somehow, Wikipedia has become more annoying than actual ads without getting any of the money from actual ads?

I don't mind the nagging. Indeed, I find it astonishing that Wikipedia works at all. Wikipedia is admirable. It needs money. I get it.

However, for information, I remain unlikely to donate. Wikipedia is culturally Progressive during an era in which Progressivism grows increasingly totalitarian. Wikipedia-style Progressivism is not particularly nasty, I'll admit; but it is pervasive—as many, many others, on and off Wikipedia, have long noted. I have no idea how the problem could be any further ameliorated than it already is, but to fund the project is just not something I care to do.

Whether I speak only for myself or for a substantial number of Wikipedia's users is something you'll have to judge; but few Progressives appreciate the depth and breadth of the loathing their ideology inspires—and they do not appreciate it because they do not truly know of it—and they do not truly know of it is because of the (decreasingly effective, but nevertheless entrenched) punishments totalitarian Progressivism metes to dissenters who dare to speak. Mandatory ideologies will be resisted. It's a dilemma.

I do not believe that Wikipedia itself is the problem—indeed, Progressive Wikipedians though sometimes insufferably impenetrable are usually polite—but Wikipedia is substantially compromised by the problem, isn't it? At any rate, no funds are to be expected from me. Good luck. Tbtkorg (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia (US) Fundraising Banner from 30 November 2017

Wikipedia (US) Fundraising Banner from 30 November 2017 example.

I want to share one (modest) donor's first reaction to the text in the Fundraising banner displayed in late November 2017. I understand the power of customizing web content for user patterns, and it is clearly a huge business opportunity today. I know that privacy is probably a quaint notion in my/our world, and that ironically though I value my privacy, here I am posting something which can only serve to reduce it.

Still, when I first saw this banner with the following text (bold is mine) - the first part of it caused me to wonder, and perhaps worry a little that I was being tracked by an organization I have a deep respect for and trust in...

Hi reader in the U.S., it seems you use Wikipedia a lot; I think that's great and hope you find it useful. It's a little awkward to ask, but this Thursday we need your help. We depend on donations averaging $15, but fewer than 1% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $3, you would help keep Wikipedia thriving for years. That's right, the price of your Thursday coffee is all I ask. Please take a minute to keep Wikipedia growing. Thank you. — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder

I last donated (an amount which is above average I see) about a year ago. A second thought was, these statements are true, and indicate some insight about me, but doesn't acknowledge that I happen to be part of the 1%. I don't know whether my info is coming from the client side, or being derived from IP address on the server, but it is a mild concern for me. This won't stop me from making a year-end donation as is our habit, but I can imagine it turning some potential donors off. Overall the rest of the message speaks to me and I empathize with the awkwardness (and humility) of the ask. One person's impression, for what it's worth. R.a.dilly (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Just saw a version of this banner on Wikipedia (NO) and found it creepy. Traditionally, privacy has been an important value at Wikipedia, so this banner just does not seem to come from the Wikipedia I know and the Wikipedia I value. Not to mention that the design and awkward placement of the box makes it look like my PC is infected with a nasty virus. Danmichaelo (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Donated, then account hacked 8 times

Donated to Wikimedia, CA on 1 Dec, 17. Account hacked 8 times in next 5 days from CA. Coincidence? Hmmmmm ...

Please rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation donation pages are extremely secure; all information is encrypted and handled following the highest standard of data protection. We would also like you to know that we neither process nor store credit card details or bank information. Instead, we work closely with third party payment processors affiliated with banks to process donations. If you have any unauthorized charges from the Wikimedia Foundation, please contact donate@wikimedia.org. If you want to contact Wikimedia Canada, please email info@wikimedia.ca MBeattie (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Banner Frequency

I think a balance needs to be struck between informing users and nagging them. For me, I know that the first banner I saw was very important since I didn't even know Wikipedia accepted donations. Whenever I see a banner now, I have two reactions: 1. "Oh yeah, that reminds me I wanted to give" and 2. "I don't like being bothered about it, so I'll give some time when they aren't running a banner." Because I can forget to give, I think quarterly reminders might be helpful. However, when I've decided to give or not give in a particular year, then banners are a nuisance. If banners are targeted to users, perhaps the option to set a time to be reminded (like next year) would be helpful. If not, I'd appreciate reduced frequency. Since I'm just one person, perhaps a poll should be set up to get the community opinion. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.26.190 (talk)

This makes sense. Many entities give an option for recurring donations and/or setting a preferred frequency of email updates. Nemo 08:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

PS I donate regularly

PS I donate regularly Bay Stevens (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Requests via email

A person I know just wrote me that in the last 5 days she received two email messages requesting a donation (Italy, she made a donation three years ago). Is this normal? Saturday I'm holding a workshop about Wikipedia, she will attend and I am quite sure she will say something about too many fundraising requests ;-) --Civvì (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing IBAN in wmf:Ways to Give

It's quite a bad service to donors that the WMF recommends ultra-expensive bank transfers to USA in this page and even in its localised versions. In wmf:Ways to Give/it, this seems to be a recently introduced error. I wonder how many Italian-speaking donors might be interested in an obscure USA bank account number, rather than in an easily and cheaply usable IBAN for a SEPA bank account. Is this page directed to the Italian diaspora in USA, or what? --Nemo 12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I'll take alook into it! Seddon (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Hey Nemo, A few months ago we closed our JP Morgan London account and unfortunately for the time being the international wire transfer (non SEPA) is our only current option for people wanting to donate via bank transfer. The requirements that we look for in our payment options like security, integration with our CRM, payment confirmation to donors, ease to donors, and efficiency just wasn't being met by the UK account. I'm personally away of the high fees banks can change, which is why we definitely recommend that donors check with their banks before choosing that method. We are always reviewing our payments options and hopefully this is something we can improve on in the future. Seddon (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not very useful. Certainly, when choosing a bank account, you also considered that you absolutely need a SEPA account and IBAN. Citibank of course provides such option. Intentionally downgrading the donors' experience from a SEPA account to a non-SEPA account as only option would be very inconsiderate and a spiteful behaviour against our donors. --Nemo 10:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hot potato and sidebar

Has the WMF considered whether placing ads/banners in the sidebar makes users more likely to not look at the sidebar any more? See https://www.nngroup.com/articles/banner-blindness-old-and-new-findings/ .

Such an effect would be rather dangerous, because interwiki links, what links here, permalinks etc. are tools we need users to learn using more and more. --Nemo 08:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

On begging Facebook and Google

The recent article on Wired is causing significant confusion. It was vastly perceived as a sign that "Wikipedia" (actually, the Wikimedia Foundation) wants to be yet another rentier with guaranteed incomes from the so called "over the tops", much like MPAA and friends. --Nemo 14:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Or should I say landlord? Nemo 10:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you calls for small donors

From https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-actblue-is-trying-to-turn-small-donations-into-a-blue-wave/ :

“It’s really hard for us to call everyone — we have a lot of small donors,” she said. “We try once a week to have him call anywhere between 25 and 100 people and thank them.”

Maybe it's easier for an outspoken politician like him, but could be something we can replicate in some places (maybe easier for a chapter with rather detailed contact information). --Nemo 10:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The price of coffee in Canada

Originally asked in Teahouse and was directed here.

The price of coffee in Canada seems to be somewhat different than prices in other countries. Coffee sold at places like Tim Hortons are usually less than $2, which is relevant because Tim Hortons claims to sell eight out of ten cups of coffee in Canada. A lot of people that don't buy fresh coffee at Tim Hortons buy their beans/grounds to make their own coffee at home (or just buy other brands to use at home since it's usually a lot cheaper to coffee that way).

Anyways, I'm not sure comparing the price of a cup of coffee to donating to Wikipedia is the best comparison, even if the price of the coffee is correct. I think that emphasizing the ease of access and reliable information that Wikipedia provides would likely be more effective, or even giving some sort of direct comparison to what their donation might actually do (like x minutes of server time or something). Clovermoss (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Small banner position on some pages

Hello, on pages with tables or very short initial section, the small version of the banner messes a bit with the layout. Examples: [1] and [2]. Users can always close the banner, but the close link is light gray and anyways the first impression on the page rendering is quite disappointing. Best, --Baruneju (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

wrong message

Why does WMF send to italian wikipedia user a mail message with this misunderstandig subject:Susanna - Ne ho abbastanza, that means:Susanna - I've had enough! It absolutely not the correct way to ask a contribution to Wikipedia.--Susanna Giaccai (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Nemo 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Donation requests as commercial use

Troubling arguments in Philpot v. Media Research Center Inc. (1:17-cv-00822): «MRC admits it may have received donation revenue from the Kid Rock Article. (Dkt. 26 at Statement of Indisputable Facts 56) Accordingly, a reasonable juror has more than a sufficient basis to find that MRC’s use of the Photographs was commercial.» [3] (Although the judge did not agree.) --Nemo 12:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Email Engagement Campaign Specialist

The job posting for a Email Engagement Campaign Specialist contains "Familiarity with, if not proficiency in, CSS and HTML for email" and the standard "Ability to work in an open, transparent and collaborative environment", but I'm surprised to see that the pluses do not contain experience with free/libre open source software.

As someone who has managed or worked with such persons in various Wikimedia entities, I can say that it's definitely better to have someone flexible enough to use various software and will not face a steep learning curve when faced with phpList, CiviCRM or other, rather than someone who has only ever worked with, say, some proprietary MailChimp or IBM integration.

I'm happy to see "Previous international or localization experience" though (that would have been a good place to add "with standard open formats and tools" or something, too). Nemo 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)