I'd like to precise because of my bad english that I don't how to handle
"polite" questioning without looking condescending or angry. I am
uttering my words with the most profound respect to Erik even if I
dissent about some topics with him.
Erik wrote:
>> I don't think any of the fundraising ban
Hi!
> I don't think any of the fundraising banners that ran made it
> substantially harder to access the information that people were coming
try reading text when you got subversively blinking banner at the top of it.
:-)
Domas
___
foundation-l maili
Hi,
Happy new year everyone :)
I'm not gonna answer all the points raised in this threads as I don't
have all the elements (I didn't enjoy the animated banner for
example).
But I'd like to comment two points :
I/ The urgency to raise at the end of the fundraising. While I do
agree it could be mi
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The recent extended unavailability of database dumps is an example of
> serious failure, but failures like this happen when an organization is
> understaffed/underresourced and only able to focus on the immediate,
> not the longer term. And whe
2011/1/3 Domas Mituzas :
> Thanks for greetings, and even more thanks for such an effort in trying to
> address the concerns.
Thanks for raising them. I'll pick and choose a bit in my responses or
this thread would expand fairly quickly into all different directions,
but let me know if you feel I
2011/1/2 Thomas Dalton :
> I'm familiar with the concept of trying to get people to donate
> immediately because they probably won't get around to donating at all
> otherwise. That isn't an excuse for lying, though. All the messages
> with the word "urgent" in were misleading. You received plenty o
Erik,
> happy new year to you and to everyone! :-)
Thanks for greetings, and even more thanks for such an effort in trying to
address the concerns.
> Asking a reader to make a donation is by definition a distraction from
> what they came to do.
Well, there's a single "maybe he will consider
Hello,
There is still a huge difference between "telling a lie" and "being
inaccurate", and I don't see something misleading. It is true that the
Wikipedia/Wikimedia is confusing to many people. It never happened to
me that people, to whom I explained about, had any problem with using
Wikipedia as
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2011/1/1 Stephen Bain :
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>
>>> But to suggest that the choice of such
>>> shorthand is tantamount to "lying to and misleading our donors" is,
>>> indeed, irresponsible hyperbole. It's cl
On 2 January 2011 01:56, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2011/1/1 Thomas Dalton :
>> That is the completely wrong attitude. If we cannot reach our target
>> with an honest campaign, we should accept that we cannot reach our
>> target and make do with less money. We should not lie to and mislead
>> our donor
I liked the idea of clearly indicating what the current amount of
funds would go for and what the next major funding milestones are.
(Sorry, whoever it was who posted this initially as an alternative to
things becoming "urgent" - I'd cite your post but I didn't find it
upon looking again!)
The thi
Perhaps you should work on establishing the Wikimedia brand...
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2011/1/1 Stephen Bain :
> > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Erik Moeller
> wrote:
> >>
> >> But to suggest that the choice of such
> >> shorthand is tantamount to "lying to and
2011/1/1 Stephen Bain :
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> But to suggest that the choice of such
>> shorthand is tantamount to "lying to and misleading our donors" is,
>> indeed, irresponsible hyperbole. It's clear that the choice was, in
>> fact, made to _reduce_ potent
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> But to suggest that the choice of such
> shorthand is tantamount to "lying to and misleading our donors" is,
> indeed, irresponsible hyperbole. It's clear that the choice was, in
> fact, made to _reduce_ potential confusion of donors about w
2011/1/1 Thomas Dalton :
> That is the completely wrong attitude. If we cannot reach our target
> with an honest campaign, we should accept that we cannot reach our
> target and make do with less money. We should not lie to and mislead
> our donors.
I fully understand the arguments not to use shor
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> But Wikimedia Foundation isn't (and has never been) purely a
> techno-organization, it's a global educational media organization and
> world-wide movement for free knowledge, which critically depends on
> technology to get its work done.
An
On 2 January 2011 00:15, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 January 2011 00:09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> I agree with the rest of your email, though. The WMF's increased
>> budget is justified. That money is going on worthwhile things. That
>> doesn't, however, mean that we should raise that money by wh
On 2 January 2011 00:09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I agree with the rest of your email, though. The WMF's increased
> budget is justified. That money is going on worthwhile things. That
> doesn't, however, mean that we should raise that money by whatever
> means necessary.
We are not within a thou
On 1 January 2011 23:50, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong at all with messages that signal increased
> urgency as the fundraiser draws to a close.
I do. When the fundraiser ends is a choice you make, not something
imposed upon you by external forces. Also, people can continue to
d
2011/1/1 Domas Mituzas :
> It is not obvious how much money is "urgent", more urgent than the need to
> read the article.
> It is not obvious how much money is so urgent that it needs to distract
> me from reading the article by blinking.
> It is not obvious how much money is urgent so we cou
On 1 January 2011 10:40, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> There is no reason that they would have to resort to seeking large donations
>> from
>> extremely wealthy private interests.
> They already do, don't they?
I understand that for the current fundraiser, it was in fact an
explicit goal to seek sm
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 1 January 2011 13:45, Stephen Bain wrote:
>> This puts a ceiling on 'urgent' costs at $8.8 M, or 43% of the budget
>> of $20.4 M. [3]
>
> This is a worthwhile analysis, but you have neglected the numerous
> expenses involved in supporting
On 1 January 2011 13:45, Stephen Bain wrote:
> This puts a ceiling on 'urgent' costs at $8.8 M, or 43% of the budget
> of $20.4 M. [3]
This is a worthwhile analysis, but you have neglected the numerous
expenses involved in supporting a large organisation. You can't have
an organisation with an $8
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
>> It's kind of obvious, isn't it?
>
> It is not obvious how much money is "urgent", more urgent than the need to
> read the article.
> It is not obvious how much money is so urgent that it needs to distract
> me from reading the article
Hi!
> I need not imply that the WMF depends on money.
Or rather, "certain parts of WMF depends on certain amounts of money".
> It's kind of obvious, isn't it?
It is not obvious how much money is "urgent", more urgent than the need to read
the article.
It is not obvious how much money is s
popups, lightboxes, talking jimbos: Fundraising 2011
Happy New Year everyone!
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:56 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Brian J Mingus wrote:
> > I guess nobody cares if you top post or bottom post here, but it does get
> > confusing when the two are mixed in the same thread.
>
> I ca
Brian J Mingus wrote:
> I guess nobody cares if you top post or bottom post here, but it does get
> confusing when the two are mixed in the same thread.
I care. You shouldn't be top-posting or bottom-posting. Use inline posting:
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Brian J Ming
Correction: So long as basic principles like not showing third party adverts
are not violated there is no reason to suspect that the readership of the
projects and thus the amount that can be collected from donations will
*not*continue to grow.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Brian wrote:
> I g
I guess nobody cares if you top post or bottom post here, but it does get
confusing when the two are mixed in the same thread.
I need not imply that the WMF depends on money. It's kind of obvious, isn't
it? The WMF relies primarily on donations from individuals, and to a lesser
extent on large gra
Banners have been turned off for logged-in users on en.wp (and maybe other
projects?) for quite some time now, since well before Christmas holiday break
for most people.
-Dan
On Dec 31, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mono mium wrote:
>
>> Awesome!
Are you saying that WMF has put itself in a huge dependence relationship
with money? That it could be forced to require third parties' help if
the donations are insufficient? That would be throwing itself into the
lion's den. What was worth risking so much its economical autonomy and
mission?
I hop
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mono mium wrote:
> Awesome!
>
> How about we add popups?
>
> Seriously, if you're going to do this, just add AdSense...it's a heck of a
> lot prettier.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:10 AM, K. Peachey
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Dom
Awesome!
How about we add popups?
Seriously, if you're going to do this, just add AdSense...it's a heck of a
lot prettier.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:10 AM, K. Peachey wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Domas Mituzas
> wrote:
> > now that we have blinking banners,
> > Domas
> Oh
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> now that we have blinking banners,
> Domas
Oh! Oh! can we have marquees as well... and those flashy "under
construction" gifs??
-Peachey
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.
Domas Mituzas wrote:
> now that we have blinking banners, I'm sure we should try out how full-screen
> banners work, with "click to go to wikipedia".
If you could convince the fundraising folks that it would generate enough
money to justify ignoring the complaints, I'm sure it could and would be
i
now that we have blinking banners, I'm sure we should try out how full-screen
banners work, with "click to go to wikipedia".
Domas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/f
36 matches
Mail list logo
