Thank you very much for this update, Caitlin. Yesterday I was thinking more about this issue, and today I was planning to append my earlier comments by saying that I realize that a fundraising appeal has some differences from an encyclopedia article in terms of writing style. Also, I realize that sometimes what seems good from one perspective is problematic from a different perspective.
Perhaps at a time when the Fundraising team is less busy, maybe in January, there could be an opportunity for a public discussion such as an IRC office hour, Hangouts meeting, and/or talk page discussion about how to incorporate community review of Fundraising messages prior to them going into production. Thanks again for the update, and thanks for listening. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 5:17 PM Caitlin Cogdill <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you for sharing your concerns. We hear them and we take them > seriously. *As of today, we have pulled this subject line from our testing > rotation.* > > On the Fundraising team, we pride ourselves on making data-driven > decisions, and there are many types of data inputs we process outside of > dollar amount raised. For example, how many people choose to unsubscribe > from our list or submit an abuse complaint when we send an email? Does a > certain subject line get very high opens but a low rate of donations per > open--indicating that it is more clickbait than effective content? How much > and what kind of feedback is our Donor Services team getting? > > We watched these inputs closely while sending this subject line to donors. > Our unsubscribe and abuse rates were low, the donation per open rate was > even higher than usual, and while our Donor Services team flagged some > negative responses from donors, they determined these comments were not in > a significant volume. > > That said, there is a final input which is harder to measure on a per-test > basis: how do we, our colleagues, and volunteers feel about our messaging? > This team cares deeply about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, and > about the mission we all work to achieve. We want to represent it > faithfully, and do so in a way our readers and donors can engage with and > understand. This balance can be really hard to strike and it will always be > an ongoing challenge in our work. > > We are grateful to be presented with this challenge and with the joy of > telling millions of people about this movement. Thank you for caring so > deeply, for all your contributions, and for keeping this feedback loop > alive. > > Sincerely, > Caitlin > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:47 PM Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Seddon, > > > > While the fundraising appeal may be successful, the problem that I have > > with this subject line is that it can mislead readers into thinking that > > someone with the ability to do so is seriously considering, or making an > > effort to, delete Wikipedia in entirety. I think that a subject line of > > "Block Wikipedia?" might be okay, and I am supportive of encouraging > people > > not to take Wikipedia for granted. But regarding "Delete Wikipedia?", as > > far as I know that generally misrepresents the current situation. I > believe > > that using "Delete Wikipedia?" as a subject line is inconsistent with > > Wikipedia's goals of providing neutral, verifiable, and reliable > > information. > > > > I am starting to think that if WMF wants to use the Wikipedia brand name > > for WMF fundraising then WMF should first publicly discuss its proposed > > uses of the Wikipedia brand name with Wikipedians. > > > > On a related issue, I don't know if it's happening this year, but in the > > past another concern that I've had is the conflation of donating to > > Wikipedia with donating to WMF. Wikipedia and WMF are related but there > is > > not a 1:1 relationship, and I hope that WMF makes that clear in its > > fundraising. The use of "Delete Wikipedia?" reminds me of these concerns. > > > > I would prefer to avoid diverting the community's limited time into > > reviewing WMF's choices, but unfortunately the issues are too significant > > to ignore. I don't know how many community members want to volunteer > their > > time to review fundraising appeals before they go into production, but I > > think that it would be good for WMF to ask. > > > > Pine > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > Caitlin Cogdill > Senior Fundraising Email Manager > Wikimedia Foundation > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in > the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! > > *https://donate.wikimedia.org <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>* > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
