The majority of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation comes from individual donors all around the world. These donations allow the Foundation to provide the world-class technology infrastructure that supports 15 billion monthly views to Wikipedia and its sister projects, protect free knowledge globally through legal and advocacy efforts, and support the incredible volunteer editors who have built 63 million articles across more than 300 languages. In the past year, the Foundation has been focusing heavily on improvements to our products and technology, particularly the needs of experienced editors, as was outlined in the FY 2023-2024 annual plan. Going forward into the FY 2024-2025 annual plan, the Foundation will continue this course by prioritizing maintenance and upgrades for technical infrastructure, such as MediaWiki core, data center operations, and site reliability engineering services. There are also key results around a number of issues discussed here over the past year, such as ways to help volunteers connect to others who share their interests, building newcomer edit workflows that reduce the burden on experienced editors, building a new community wishlist that better connects movement ideas to Foundation activities, and improving tools for editors with extended rights.
To fund these efforts, the Foundation’s fundraising team will run its annual English fundraising campaign (for non-logged in users) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Funds raised from these countries account for more than 50 percent of all funds per year and this is an important moment to invite readers to support Wikimedia's mission. To prepare for the campaign, the fundraising team will continue the yearly practice of running limited "pre-tests" between July and November, to ensure optimal systems and banners, in collaboration with volunteers, rolling into the usual end of year high-traffic banner campaign.
Collaborating on messaging with volunteer stakeholders is key to the fundraising team. We will start with a message directly adapted from the co-created banner message that ran in December 2023 to kick off the pre-tests and work together with volunteers on new ideas for this year's campaign.
Many ideas shared by volunteers on the English campaign co-creation page last year were incorporated into our fundraising. Such as:
Language around the role of Wikipedia in relation to AI was introduced to the banners
The concept of time sensitivity, to encourage readers to donate now rather than later, was further explained
Clarity that the messages come from the Wikimedia Foundation by adding the organizational logo to all banners was introduced
It was made easier for readers to stop seeing banners for example increasing the duration for which a reader could dismiss banners for
Improvements were made to the payment methods and options, including tests to simplify the Venmo checkout flow, and a major milestone of releasing in-app Apple Pay transactions with the Wikipedia Apps team.
Donors also saw an invitation to start editing on the Thank You page, after they donated. This led to 4,398 new account creations, and 441 of those accounts went on to constructively edit within 24 hours (a constructive edit means the edit wasn’t subsequently reverted within 48 hours). For more detail on the results, have a look at the Growth Team’s page.
Collaboration spaces
Based on collaboration on wiki and in person last year, the fundraising team wants to continue co-creating banner messaging and ideas with you. You can participate:
On wiki: Right here on this en.wiki collaboration page, or the fundraising Meta page. The team will share campaign insights, plans, and updates on this collaboration page. Updates will include message ideas for input, summaries on banner testing, changes to messaging over time, and space for new ideas and questions from volunteers. While we won't be able to test every single message idea shared here, we will build from the process in previous years to continue to try ideas shared in this collaboration space as well as other new spaces we're setting up this year.
In person: Members of the fundraising team will attend Wikimania, WikiConference North America, and other movement events for in-person conversations and collaboration.
Live conversations: Virtual conversation spaces for fundraising staff and volunteers to collaborate on fundraising. Is there an existing meeting you'd like us to attend? Please let us know!
Direct individual engagement: If you're interested in connecting directly, please email Julia Brungs at jbrungs at wikimedia dot org.
As is regular practice for the fundraising team, the first tests of the new fiscal year in July will be technical systems and payments tests. For these tests, last December's control messaging will be used. And to kick off new messaging, the team welcomes your ideas!
‘Current best’ banner from the last December campaign
Wikipedia still can't be sold.
June 17th: An important update for readers in the United States.
Please don't scroll past this 1-minute read. We're sorry to interrupt, but it's Monday, June 17th, and it will soon be too late to help us in our fundraiser.[under discussion] We ask you to reflect on the number of times you visited Wikipedia in the past year and if you're able to give $2.75 to the Wikimedia Foundation. If everyone reading this gave just $2.75, we'd hit our goal in a few hours.
In the age of AI, access to verifiable facts is crucial. Wikipedia is at the heart of online information, powering everything from your personal searches to emerging AI technologies. Your gift strengthens the knowledge of today and tomorrow.
If Wikipedia is one of the websites you use most and if the knowledge you gain here is valuable, please give $2.75. Every contribution helps: every edit, every gift counts.
Add your ideas here
Please share your ideas here! These can be iterations on the message above, new sentences, inspiring words, themes, or new concepts to try. We'd love to use this space to plan out the first message tests of the year together. Thank you for any ideas you'd like to share!
Question
It would be refreshing and in alignment with core values if you ran an unconventional call for funds. Taking inspiration from the editors here is a potential path; "Hi remember us? We are the thousands around the world ensuring information remains free and accessible? We need your help again and only... (continue with your messaging about the $2.75)." I have more but thought I'd test this out. Realizing it is not the major guilt trip the referenced one is (a subtler, gentler guilttrip) but believing it is a more authentic start to a conversation we've been having for 20 years or so. Wake them up with love and care
Question
Thanks for opening up this space again! Quick question - what messages were notably unsuccessful last year? Were there any other themes (besides the example given above) that stood out? —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that messages like that come across as deeply manipulative and that's not the image we want to portray. I also think the banners have been getting more and more intrusive in recent years, especially on mobile when they can take up the entire screen. How about something simple and retro like this chestnut from 2009?
WIKIPEDIAFOREVER
Otherwise, there are great simple and positive slogans that aren't obnoxiously long here. I'm partial to Written by volunteers, supported by readers like you. Donate today Of course, Give us the money or your homework gets it has a certain je ne sais quoi. The WordsmithTalk to me00:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this proposal is good and straightforward. We have had complaints about the obtrusiveness of the current ad campaign, so I think something smaller this year would really set the right tone from the WMF. I would show that they've listened to our concerns and readers' concerns, and acted instead of doubling down. Cremastra (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WIKIPEDIA FOREVER style banners were widely panned at the time, but nowadays we can look back fondly because we didn't realize how good we actually had it. The WMF fundraisers, like the state of web advertising in general, have just gotten so much worse. I think keeping it small, simple and with a positive message (instead of manipulation and guilt tripping) would be a breath of fresh air to readers who are constantly bombarded by ads that demand more and more of their attention. The WordsmithTalk to me05:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Community-established limits on banner language
A quick reminder that in in a 2022 RfC the community resoundingly agreed that "banners that state or imply any of the following are not considered appropriate on the English Wikipedia":
Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations
Donated funds are used primarily to support Wikipedia and/or its volunteer editors
Readers should feel obliged to donate regardless of their means ("guilt tripping")
As the person who closed that discussion, I'd also add that the clear wish of the majority of participants was that the fundraising team endeavour to reflect the spirit of these limits in their messaging, by prioritising honesty, accuracy, and respect for readers over maximising donation revenue. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore this banner is definitely not appropriate here. I hope the WMF is watching this page, and considering some of the alternatives provided. Cremastra (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe, I wonder how accurate you feel the "Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations" line is these days. Wikipedia's existence depends upon money; that money currently comes from smaller donations. If donations stopped, how do we imagine getting money without giving up independence (e.g., by running advertisements or having to please a major donor)?
I saw someone posting that the entire movement – WMF, WMDE, and all the other affiliates around the world, combined – spend less than Google paid their CEO. I have been wondering whether we could come up with comparisons that would be fun and a little less personal than pointing at an individual. Maybe something like "We need just five hours' of Google's annual revenue to run for the whole year"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that our existence is under threat. w:en:Internet censorship exists, and Wikipedia, especially the English Wikipedia, is not beloved by every politician in the world. However, these more immediate threats aren't primarily financial in nature.
There are long-term financial threats. For example, how do you get donors, if everyone gets Wiktionary definitions and Wikipedia information from their smart speakers, without ever visiting a WMF-hosted website?
Right now, though, I think the financial need is to get ahead of some of these problems (e.g., hiring more lawyers), and the financial threat is internal, primarily in the form of people who don't know what really needs to be done, and how much that really costs. I've asked people for years what they think should be cut from the WMF's budget, and the responses I've gotten tend to fall into three categories:
Ideas that don't hold up under any scrutiny: This tends to come in the form of saying that the WMF shouldn't give Google a voluntary choice between ordinary download rates and paying for high-speed connection and guaranteed tech support, because everyone knows that high-speed connections and tech support are basically free anyway, but it can also take other forms, e.g., saying that the software changes benefiting Group A should be canceled because I'm not in Group A, or saying self-contradictory things, like the WMF needs fewer employees, and also why aren't they doing more, like building tools to counter all that AI garbage?
Canceling programs that aren't run by the WMF: If I had a dollar for every time someone thought that the Wiki Education Foundation was part of the WMF...
Bad ideas: For example, hiring less competent staff or hiring only people from developing countries, because that would be cheaper ...but not necessarily less expensive in the long-run.
What I haven't ever heard is something like "Yeah, I actually know what the Legal team does, I can tell you the names of the multiple countries threatening legislation targeting Wikipedia specifically, and I think that they've hired too many lawyers" or "Yeah, I run a similarly high-volume website in my day job, and I totally think that 200 engineers is enough." Reddit has less traffic, lower technical needs (e.g., less video support), and three times as many employees. OpenAI (home of ChatGPT) has more than twice as many employees. At some point, you have to ask yourself whether all of these other organizations are run by stupid CEOs with pointlessly bloated payrolls, or if maybe the WMF actually needs the number of people it's employing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To connect that back more clearly: How does this show up? In the form of editors, most of whom have no relevant business experience (some of whom are just teenagers), claiming, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that there's no threat to Wikipedia's existence, that Wikipedia could remain independent without small donors, and that if the WMF can't raise enough money while telling people that their donations aren't actually needed, then they should just cut the budget.
Expect those people to be the first people to complain about "mismanagement" if the site goes down due to staffing cutbacks. The fact that the English Wikipedia didn't crash when Queen Elizabeth died is because the WMF spent many millions of dollars solving very boring technical problems and literally having engineers working round the clock. If they stop that kind of work, then the next big event will take the site down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually about to donate and only came here to 1) Give some feedback that I haven’t heard about this seemingly dire need to get donations until coming to the website and to suggest getting the word out since it reads as if these are literally the last hours before something catastrophic happens. 2)To double check if and what the problem is that’s so dire. What I found was that everyone is 100% correct in saying that it’s misleading and annoying and makes me not trust a source that has otherwise been reputable. People will give if you ask without lying that there is some foreboding problem. Maybe people arnt as giving as I think they would be but if that’s the case this still will have an even worse consequence when it looses people trust slowly but surely. Shame on whoever felt good about posting such a HUGE BOLD LIE on a site that is all about being credible and is cancerous on a page like this. That alone can cancel everything this site and people involved have build. I’m just a random mom that was looking something up and it eventually lead here so maybe my option doesn’t really matter because who am I but it’s also something to think about that if random nobody’s keep coming to my same conclusion over and over, that can’t end well for the site…
"This fundraiser will soon be over" is also annoying me endlessly and feels misleading because I've been seeing that phrase, and the large, full-screen banner, daily for months. It feels like it's been all year. When is soon? 2601:444:784:7B60:E0A5:7D56:92D2:2638 (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were some test runs of various lengths and frequencies during November, and the campaign officially launched on #GivingTuesday.
This fundraiser has run on the same pattern for well over a decade. It starts in November and runs until the budget set by the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has been met. That means that some years, it's turned off towards the middle-to-end of December, and other years it runs straight through. Even if the budget has been met early (unlikely this year: Thanksgiving was late, and most people feel like the economy is not great), because of US donor expectations around tax-deductible contributions, it'll get turned back on (though usually at a lower frequency) for a couple of days before New Year's, in case anyone's trying to get a last-minute tax deduction.
I like that banner too. Recent test banners I have seen when logged out seemed fine as well (even though they did not explicitly say Wikimedia was financially secure). AndreasJN46614:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall Jimmy and others made a similar argument during and after the 2022 RfC. The points of contention are basically the size of the WMF budget and the size of its reserves. I forget the exact figures (and probably they've changed in the last two years), but the point was made that if, hypothetically, all donation income ceased tomorrow, Wikipedia could still use its reserves to continue under its current budget for years to come. Or, if it scaled back to just essential maintenance, potentially indefinitely. Of course nobody seriously expects or wants something like that to happen, but it's why a lot of people were unhappy with language that strongly implied the project was under immediate threat or experiencing financial difficulties. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about suggestions of urgency and subtle threat in emails
For reference, there is similar language in the current English fundraising emails (Email 1, Email 2, Email 3, Email 4) as well. For example:
"I’m sorry to interrupt, but it's Friday, June 14, 2024, and time will soon run out to help us because the clock is ticking on this fundraiser." (Email 2)
"But time will soon run out for you to help us in this fundraiser, so if you've been holding off until “later”, this is your moment. We need you. Please, remain one of Wikipedia's rare supporters." (Email 3)
"I know I said I was done in my last email, but it's Friday, June 14, 2024, and we haven't reached our goal. There are only a few days left in this fundraiser to make a difference. You have shown with your last donation how committed you are to helping us sustain Wikipedia. Please, remain one of the 2% of supporters who propel this important mission forward. It matters. We need you. Please remain an active Wikipedia supporter." (Email 4)
What do people think about these wordings? Also, the font size in the sample emails linked on Meta and above is tiny. (I was only able to read the text after copying it out.) Julia, could this be fixed? In the past the sample emails were always legible right away. And note that the Jimbo pictures are gone, replaced by pictures of Lisa, the WMF fundraising chief and deputy CEO. That's a departure! Regards, --AndreasJN46617:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem like standard marketing tactics of guilt tripping and creating a false sense of urgency. Most of the message is fine, but I don't like the deceptive language that's being pushed with those lines. It also looks like the images of Lisa Seitz-Gruwell actually violate the terms of CC-BY, which is incredibly embarrassing for the WMF. Email 3 and 4 seem to use c:File:Lisa Seitz-Gruwell 008 - Wikimedia Foundation Oct11.jpg, and Email 1 uses a cropped version of this. CC-BY 3.0 Unported requires attribution in the form of the creator's name, title of the work and a hyperlink. All of this appears to be missing, and the hyperlink for "found on Wikimedia Commons" just goes to the Main Page. The image for Email 2 also claims to be from Commons, but I can't actually find it there. A reverse image search only turns up the profile picture on Lisa Seitz-Gruwell's Medium account (which also has no attribution). The WordsmithTalk to me17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible, but in that case the attribution probably wouldn't say CC-BY 3.0, found on Wikimedia Commons. It seems to clearly indicate that it's being used under the terms of CC-BY 3.0 Unported license which the image is licensed under on Commons. If the author signed some sort of release or license, then that licensing text wouldn't be necessary. The WordsmithTalk to me18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @The Wordsmith, thanks for the reminder to always provide accurate attribution. This image was created by a staff member and we’ll make sure any images we use under the terms of a CC license have accurate attribution before the campaign goes out. SPatton (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more quotes from the sample emails worth pondering:
"We don’t charge a subscription fee or run ads because we don’t want to put barriers between you and the knowledge you seek. In return, can we count on your support today?" (Email 1)
"Major websites have come and gone; new generations are growing up with no memory of a world without the connectivity and instant gratification of the internet. We owe it to them, in a world that is always changing, to keep Wikipedia free for everyone. Like it always was and always should be." (Email 2)
"This might be my last chance to request, so I want to make sure this third email reaches everyone who might donate. Right now, we're at a critical stage of our fundraiser." (Email 3)
"You have shown with your last donation how committed you are to helping us sustain Wikipedia. Please, remain one of the 2% of supporters who propel this important mission forward. It matters. [...] But I hope you'll agree that in a world where disinformation is everywhere, it is crucial that everyone has access to trustworthy information. We need our community of donors to help us reach our goal, and time will soon run out in this fundraiser." (Email 4)
The WMF doesn't charge subscription fees because not a single editor wants to be an unpaid sweatshop worker writing for a paywalled site more like. AryKun (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We apparently need to establish a Fundraising Ethics Advisory Panel with community volunteers on it, cos we don't want this rubbish coming back every year. It's hard enough, convincing newcomers that they have to be honest and truthful and neutral, even when we're NOT sending them branded communication that pretends there's a deadline to donate money.—S MarshallT/C22:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input and active conversation.
Cremastra, we are indeed actively reviewing feedback coming through this page. The sample banner shared was from the December campaign, which aimed to create a sense of urgency for the end of the year (December 31st). We appreciate your feedback that this urgency may not be appropriate at other times of the year. As we plan our testing priorities, we will take this sentiment into account and work on alternative messages. I’ll post back here with some suggestions and results from upcoming tests.
Joe, we appreciate your input regarding the 2022 RfC .The general use of urgency in messaging is an important and appropriate persuasion tool in nonprofit fundraising. It helps potential donors understand that their donation is necessary to advance a cause they care about. The 2022 RfC, as you pointed out, identifies specific messaging themes where urgency is inappropriate, and we intentionally avoid these in our banner appeals, though interpretation can vary and we are here for those discussions.
Andreas, I’ll look into the font size issue and ensure we post clearer samples. Thank you for pointing this out.
Next week we will run a brief benchmark test and then proceed with limited content and feature testing. Will share learnings from that in this space soon. Sheetal Puri (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would contest the view that it's appropriate and ethical to use urgency and deadlines in messaging at any time when the WMF is in absolutely no danger at all of running out of money.
We as a community insist on absolute truthfulness and utmost good faith in messaging. Everything that appears with Wikipedia or Wikipedia-adjacent branding must comply with every single one of Wikipedia's standards of accuracy, objectivity and neutrality.
If this impacts your ability to raise money, and I appreciate that it likely will, then we need to be speaking to the people who set the fundraising targets -- not the poor people who're trying to meet them.—S MarshallT/C07:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to be threatening the WMF with that. We're not at Defcon 2 here. They're engaging in perfectly reasonable discussion and are usually, if not always, compliant with sufficiently-clear guidance from the community on fundraising ethics.—S MarshallT/C07:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I'm certainly not proposing such an extreme step at this stage. (Sorry if that wasn't clear from my comment). Cremastra (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no subscription fee on Wikipedia, and the articles you read are free. We don’t profit from the knowledge you seek. In fact, we firmly believe that knowledge should exist outside of the realm of supply and demand. But that doesn’t mean we don't need support from our readers. We respectfully ask for just one donation this year so that Wikipedia may continue to expand to new corners of the world."
The proposed India email 1, scheduled for use from 22 July to 15 August, reads:
"We don’t charge a subscription fee or run ads because we don’t want to put barriers between you and the knowledge you seek. In return, can we count on your support today? No gift is too big or too small."
I find the South Africa wording okay, while the India wording is subtly threatening. Can you see the difference? What do other editors feel? --AndreasJN46612:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree. The specific problem with the India wording is "we don't want to" combined with "In return" which makes it seem too much like quid pro quo. Though I'm not an expert on Indian English, so it could just be an WP:ENGVAR issue on my end. I do think the South Africa messaging sounds good, focuses on our core goal and asks for help to achieve it. That's exactly the message I think Wikipedians should be sending to readers. The WordsmithTalk to me17:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is an ENGVAR issue, because I do not read it as quid pro quo (I'm an Indian). It feels like a fairly reasonable phrasing on this, equivalent to "We don't charge a fee. So can you support us?" Soni (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was interpreting it more like "We don't want to charge a subscription fee, but we will if we don't get enough money". If it reads differently to people in India, then I withdraw my concern about it. The WordsmithTalk to me18:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In past years, English wordings for India were much the same as what was sent out to the rest of the English-speaking world a few months later. I would be very surprised if Indian email recipients were singled out for more urgent-sounding appeals. That is not the case, User:SPuri-WMF, is it?
At any rate, The Wordsmith, you put your finger on exactly the same points in the wording that struck me. The South Africa wording in the old Jimbo emails is excellent, and far more in line with what was agreed in 2022. AndreasJN46607:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, SPuri-WMF. The samples provided on Meta-Wiki are just that – samples, provided with the understanding that you will try a number of variants in the course of a campaign. Can you give us an assurance that whatever agreements are made here concerning banner and email messages will also be observed in alternate email texts not provided on Meta-Wiki? --AndreasJN46612:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all from a constant user of Wiki. I just thought I'd throw out my thoughts to youall. AS a note, I've contributed in the past.
It seems this years banners asking for contributions ran waaaaaay to long! So long I got vexed and sent a trite msg back about the campaign being so long. Isn't it enough for just 1 month long campaign. If I access Wiki just once a day, that's 30 times a month it's in my face. Multiple that by 3 months and.....I got a nice reply but still saw the banners.
Now I'm getting an email from the Fund Raising Officer Lisa Seitz Gruwell. I just had to look it up.
The Financials says it all. Wiki is not floundering financially!
Thanks Ganesha811, for the question about last year’s themes. The team worked closely with volunteers last year and found for example that messaging around AI worked really well.
Some messages and themes stood out as unsuccessful last year. Headlines are particularly challenging to replace. We tested over 18 headlines on themes from AI (e.g., “Wikipedia is still human”), to free knowledge ( “Wikipedia is still free”) to the importance and usefulness of Wikipedia (e.g., “If Wikipedia is useful for you, read on”). However, these did not seem to resonate as well as our main headline, “Wikipedia is not for sale”.
We also tried to refresh the opening line of our banners, “Please don’t skip this one-minute read” with a variety of phrases that are close in context (“don’t skip today”, “don’t dismiss today”, “don’t jump past”) and completely refreshing with a new theme (“You’re here looking for information so we’ll keep it quick”, “Thank you for stopping”), and removal of the line altogether. “Please don’t skip this one-minute read” continues to be the opening line.
We also saw success by adding more educational value to our banners, explaining that Wikipedia is written by volunteers and hosted by a non-profit. We start some light pre-tests next week. Here are some ideas of themes we are thinking about trying.
Wikipedia as a place where people can get information they trust
Wikipedia as a place where the knowledge is trustworthy because humans create it
The work of the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain Wikipedia’s technology and protect people’s right to free knowledge around the world.
Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to reader privacy and never tracking or selling their information. To quote this new Wikiminute video, “in a world where personal data has become currency, privacy is worth every penny.”
Thanks for the details. I'll see (bearing in mind the discussion above) if there are some phrases or themes it might be interesting to try out. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful. While I'm not sure asking readers to "trust" Wikipedia is a winning strategy, I do appreciate the positive messaging and it seems like a step in the right direction. One thing that still seems unclear to several of us, though: what metrics are you using to define "success"? Is it purely click-through rate and donations, or are people giving qualitative feedback on the messages? If your test results are available on Wikipedia or Meta I'd be interested in taking a look. The WordsmithTalk to me22:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These look like better options. Have you considered testing something quote short; like one sentence and a button? People might be steered away by walls of text, because they're annoying, but more willing to donate if they perceive the requests as more gentle. Cremastra (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many donations we would get from something like this:
If you have found Wikipedia useful recently, please donate. [button]
It has been a few weeks and we wanted to give you all an update on what we have been testing, share our developing ideas with you, and recap how our session was at Wikimania.
Let’s start off with Wikimania. Both myself and Sam attended the conference and it was great seeing many volunteers there. We ran a banner fundraising messaging workshop (you can find the recording here). We had about 25 participants at the workshop and had a good conversation with them. We heard some new points which we would now like to bring to you all here, to hear what you think of them. Volunteers in the room suggested to:
Use more visuals in our banners, particularly photos of editors and other examples of “Wikimedians in action.”
Highlight the work of the community in the banners
Include a goal thermometer or other specifics on our targets for a given fundraising campaign
Personalize banner messaging more based on article category, geographic location, etc.
Encourage editing as a secondary call to action, which we already do on our Thank You page and can probably pull forward into the banner flow for non-donors.
Going forward from these suggestions, we wanted to share with you what our thinking was for our next phase of testing. We would like to:
Include more language in the banners which highlights the work of the community
Test new goal language
Experiment with increased personalization, such as references to article category or revisiting ideas around mentioning the number of fundraising appeals we’ve shown a given reader. We used to have a ‘seen count’ in our banners that indicated to a reader how often they were shown a fundraising appeal. This was removed due to feedback. We have now heard that people might find this useful after all, and we would like to discuss a revamped version with you here, perhaps limited to only referencing the first few times we ask and then disappearing on later impressions, as well as allowing readers to hide the “seen count”.
We would appreciate any reactions or suggestions from the people watching this page.
Finally, the Foundation is hoping to hear from volunteers about new fundraising approaches to potentially experiment with on the Wikipedia app. The Wikipedia app is a useful place to test new ideas as it is a much smaller audience than our desktop readers, and we’re hoping to hear suggestions for things to test as well as feedback on an early stage proposal for article badges. While this work is not directly connected to our upcoming English Fundraiser, your ideas and recommendations would be appreciated. This work is connected to our longer term goal of diversifying where our revenue streams come from, so that we have more sustainable funding as potential donors increasingly access Wikimedia content on other platforms.
What are your thoughts both on the outcomes of the Wikimania session and on our ideas going forward?
Comment I do like the the idea of using more visuals in the banners; I've seen banners using newer language/colours/visuals for the various Wiki Edit a Thons over the last few months and they seem nice. "Meet the editor" posts might be a good idea, putting a face to the message helps make it feel more human. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be worth trying a banner that consists of only one sentence and a donate button. Something that short might be able to pull more donations. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR and Oaktree b thank you for suggestions and support of the visual ideas. We will go back to the team and brainstorm more on this.
Alien333,the language in our banners is not intended to imply any immediate threat to Wikipedia’s existence. We use language that highlights the very time-limited nature of our fundraisers to help motivate readers to give, e.g. our fundraiser won’t last long or you only had a small chance of seeing this message.
Some of the language in the emails could be construed as suggesting urgency. (E.g.: "This might be my last chance to ask, so I want to make sure this third email reaches everyone who might give. Right now, we're at a critical stage of our fundraiser in France." [1]) AndreasJN46614:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBrungs (WMF):Thank you. That's the reason you are giving us, that may not be the reason internally. And even if it is, and that we acknowledge communication cannot be perfect, this still could however be better worded to convey 'your' intended meaning of very time-limited nature of our fundraisers. So it is not just about your (WM) intentions, it is about how it is conveyed! Regards, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!05:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the cliche, but an exciting and Think different style Apple Inc. visionary style messaging that inspired instead of scaring readers? e.g Wikipedia is one of the few sites that presents accurate information without ads. What if Wikipedia was more than that? Your donations would accelerate our mission to..." and example bold missions could be: combat disinformation, close knowledge gap, fight harmful AI, etc... ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include a goal thermometer or other specifics on our targets for a given fundraising campaign.
Yes out of any and all suggestions please add this. Its makes it far more clear what your doing. Maybe have another bar/indicator if you want of how long the banner has been up. so people can see how well the banner is being responded to. Honestly I see people on the street do a better job.. I see cardboard cut-outs that say what their deal is without emotive language and a pot with money in it (or not in it). Feyman Diagram (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the recent suggestions and engagement! We’ve got a bunch of interesting tests happening now and in the next few weeks:
Content centered around generosity: At its core, Wikipedia runs on generosity: the generous volunteers, readers, editors, and donors who find value in Wikipedia and want to give something back to it. Together, we've made this free encyclopedia into one of the most popular websites in the world.
New headlines focused on trustworthiness
Trialing a very short and simple banner with a single line of inspiring copy and perhaps using a visual, as suggested by various folks on this page
Fresh content helping to contextualize our fundraising goals, and potentially a retest of a progress bar or ‘goal thermometer.’ We have tried progress bars in the past like this example but never found a fully effective design. We have received feedback suggesting we provide more details around our goals and targets, and we will work towards this in a few ways: through more messaging about our goals and where donations go, as well as visual or graphical elements like progress bars.
I think generosity and trustworthiness are good frames. Could they be mixed with some of the successful AI language from last year? "Wikipedia is written by humans, not AI - humans generously giving up their own time to provide trustworthy information" - something along those lines. Looking forward to hearing how the tests go! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fundraiser updates
Today I wanted to update you all on some of our recent testing, share some ideas for input and development with you, introduce a couple of new fundraising streams we are testing, and talk briefly about an upcoming public awareness campaign.
Let’s start with the testing. Thank you for the many suggestions we’ve received. Over the last weeks we tested the following suggestions from volunteers and other stakeholders:
Mentioning the community in the banner. We saw a strong result from this copy inspired by all the encouragement, particularly at Wikimania, to talk more about the work of volunteers:
“Every day, countless volunteers work tirelessly to create and verify the pages you rely on. They ensure that the information you seek is accurate and accessible. Wikipedia thrives on human effort and collective agreement. Let's preserve this spirit together.”
We will take this learning forward as we work more on the banner content.
Educating donors about our model: We tested and adopted new ‘hidden paragraphs’ in our small banners that give donors much more insight into how the work happens behind the scenes. Our small banners don’t have much space, so we are happy to incorporate more educational content in this way:
“There are 60 million articles and counting on Wikipedia in different languages. It's the biggest free educational resource in human history. While Wikipedia is written by volunteers, hosting isn't free, and neither is all the other work we do to make sure Wikipedia continues growing for many years to come. We're building this not just for today, but for generations to come. That's why we're inviting you to support the not-for-profit organization that keeps Wikipedia online. Just 2% of Wikipedia readers donate each year. Join us, and support this free resource forever. Thank you.”
New headlines focused on trustworthiness: We tried many different headlines in recent weeks. Currently, we have not found a headline that performs better than our current headline, Wikipedia still can’t be sold but we have some interesting ideas for future testing. Some of the ideas we tried:
Wikipedia still fights against misinformation.
Wikipedia: For people, not profit.
Amid a crisis of trust, Wikipedia stays reliable
Wikipedia. Still not here to influence you.
Going forward into our next weeks of banner testing, I would love to hear your thoughts on:
Our simple ‘one line banner with a donate button’ : Many editors, most recently QuicoleJR on this page, have encouraged us to try a simple design with some inspirational text. What do you think of this concept?
Any suggestions?
Educational messaging: We’ve seen strong performance from a few different messaging ideas. Could you tell us which of these are your favorite, or suggest your own ‘hybrid’ by combining multiple elements?
Wikipedia is the only place online that transcends algorithms and carries a radical commitment to giving you the facts and nothing more. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's yours. And it takes all of us, working together, to keep free knowledge alive for the world.
Every day, countless volunteers work tirelessly to create and verify the pages you rely on. They ensure that the information you seek is accurate and accessible. Wikipedia thrives on human effort and collective agreement. Let's preserve this spirit together.
Other updates
In order to build a long-term sustainable revenue model, we are looking to diversify our fundraising channels. This year, in the U.S., we are launching two new ways for people to give, SMS donations and direct mail. Both channels are common and widespread fundraising methods in the U.S and help us serve different audiences. New formats –like mail– will also allow us to bring broader awareness to our nonprofit mission.
Finally, the Communications Department is planning to launch a new communications campaign designed to increase trust and support for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. This builds on our Knowledge Is Human campaign last year. The project page contains the published results of the 2023 campaign, and describes the plans for the 2024 campaign, which will go live in late October. Communications staff will be at Wikiconference North America to answer questions from volunteers in person, or, per usual, on the project talk page.
I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback. And if you are at Wikiconference North America this week, I am hosting a fundraising lunch table on Saturday October 5th. I would be happy to brainstorm with to you in person about our fundraising efforts.
End-of-year campaign update: November highlights and next steps
Dear All,
As we approach the launch of our end-of-year campaign on December 2, preparations are in full swing. This week, we’ll conduct a 24-hour stress test of our payment processors to ensure everything is ready for a smooth campaign start.
We’ve also been running some exciting tests and want to share updates with you. As always, your feedback is invaluable. If you have ideas for improving banner copy, design, or any other elements, now’s a great time to contribute!
Recent Test Highlights
1. New Headline: “The Internet We Were Promised”
After years of “Wikipedia still can’t be sold” dominating, this fresh headline has shown promise globally, including in France, where it performed exceptionally well.
This headline captures how Wikipedia fulfills the internet’s original vision: a free, open, and collaborative source of knowledge. Paired with a banner that explains our volunteer-driven model, it resonates with readers and communicates Wikipedia’s importance clearly.
Here’s the new banner for reference:
The internet we were promised
November 20: an important update for readers in the United States
You deserve an explanation, so please don't skip this 1-minute read. It's Wednesday, November 20, and this message will be up only briefly. Please reflect on how often you've visited Wikipedia this year and if you're able to give $2.75 to the Wikimedia Foundation. If everyone reading this gave $2.75, we'd hit our goal in a few hours.
The internet we were promised—a place of free, collaborative, and accessible knowledge—is under constant threat. On Wikipedia, volunteers work together to create and verify the pages you rely on, supported by tools that undo vandalism within minutes, ensuring the information you seek is trustworthy.
Just 2% of our readers donate, so if you have given in the past and Wikipedia still provides you with $2.75 worth of knowledge, donate today. If you are undecided, remember any contribution helps, whether it's $2.75 or $25.
Question: How does it land with you, and how does it compare to “Wikipedia still can’t be sold?” Do you have any riffs or copy ideas?
2. We began integrating “annual recurring” as an option in our fundraising flows
Responding to a steady drumbeat of donor requests, we’ve introduced an annual recurring donation option alongside monthly recurring options. This addition provides flexibility for donors and supports greater engagement and retention.
3. We tested “a simple banner with a donate button”
We tested a minimalist banner featuring only a donate button, often suggested by community members.
The results? A dramatic 95% drop in donation rates compared to our control banners, which feature bold designs and detailed copy.
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of control, left, vs. the simple banner on the right:
It’s possible that small tweaks (a background color, different messaging, etc.) could increase the performance. We are glad to have this in our inventory of banners and would be curious what you make of the results.
New test concepts for feedback
Multimedia in banners > video concept
This idea comes up often, with numerous participants in our Wikimania feedback session earlier this year suggesting that we do more with video, photographs, etc. A challenge we face is past test results indicating that the more prominently we feature an image (whether it’s a face, or a coffee cup) the more we distract readers from actually donating.
Inspired by this feedback, we’re experimenting with adding links to WikiMinute videos in banner footers. These videos will open directly on the site with a simple donation call-to-action.
Question: Are there other multimedia ideas you’d suggest testing in banners?
Revisiting nudging readers by mentioning how many banners they’ve seen
Now for something completely different: we plan to revisit the concept of dynamically mentioning how many banners a given reader has seen in a campaign. In the past, we learned that this can significantly increase the likelihood of a given reader donating, particularly on later impressions; but we also recognize that our earlier implementations could be improved, particularly:
Capping visibility: We didn’t have a maximum we’d mention, so if a reader saw 6/7/8 banners, they’d see this is the 6th/7th/8th time we asked, and so on. This time, we will only include the count in the first 1 to 5 impressions a reader sees, then hide it from their future impressions.
Adding opt-in controls: Previously, readers couldn’t opt-out of the feature. This time, we’ll attach opt-in controls to the count copy, and respect reader choices on future impressions; here’s a screenshot of the concept, though the final language may change:
We’re excited to revisit this and approach it with care, because it was one of our biggest performance improvements in earlier years.
Question: Any feedback on this concept?
What’s Next
Fundraising Report: The 2023/24 Fundraising Report is now live, detailing revenue streams, donor feedback, and technical highlights from last fiscal year.
Wikipedia Year in Review: Soon, readers will enjoy a look back at the year, both as a micro site and within the IOS app. There will be a donation ask included in the experience.
We’re excited to hear your feedback and will continue to be available through this page through early January.
I'll also say that I'm not surprised the simple banner resulted in lower fundraising - the techniques that fundraising professionals use definitely work - but they may also leave readers feeling manipulated or guilty. Does the foundation do testing to see how readers are affected emotionally by donation banners of various types? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit late to this conversation. I don't know if you've posted it to the WMF village pump, but if not, that might get more response. I hope any comments unusable this year will keep until next, and feel free to ping me then. I have no expertise in this area, so I'll be giving my reactions and wild ideas, and a few bits of context, not well-informed professional assessments. Apologies for the dislike of the ads pervading this text; it's not a dislike of their authors.
Q1.
I quite like the "Internet we were promised" messaging. Modern online ads are a core part of the Other Internet (the one we weren't promised and never wanted, where surveillance, manipulative microtargetting, autocratic monopolies, and ruthlessly unethical profit-maximization are commonplace). Fundraising ads always feel a bit like that world intruding on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to feel that way about your work, I know money is necessary, but it's possible that this feeling, which surely isn't unique to me, is why that phrasing got a good response.
I also like it because I worry that the "Wikipedia still can't be sold" messaging might have been creating false impressions. The impression that Wikipedia has trouble keeping the lights on is fairly common, in my limited, biassed recent experience. This is, of course, after-the-fact feedback, and probably affected by more years than the most recent.
Could explicit countermessaging, saying Wikimedia is in a good financial situation, and then explaining why funds are still needed, reduce long-term risk of people deciding that Wikimedia is crying wolf? I don't know, something like "Thank you, you've supported us well this year, but unfortunately it's December again and we need support for next year"? Or "We want to build up our endowment enough that we won't need annual banners"? Graduated thermometers/progress bars seem like a good idea for showing people that others are donating. Is "Others donate [don't you want to join us?]" much less effective than "Most don't donate [please be the exception]"?
I'm a bit nervous about talking about antivandalism tools in such a high-profile way; did your test show any increase in vandalism? A single circumventor can waste a lot of volunteer time.[0] I suppose the "defending against enemies" vibe might be what you are after; maybe LLMs producing unsafe text, much more subtly dangerous than a satnav instructing you to drive into a lake? (I came across a page that instructed me to mend a synthetic textile with spackle and fiberglass mesh, not neglecting to carefully level the spackle before it dries, then bake the garment at 200 degrees[2] for ten minutes).
There are six second-person pronouns in this text, strongly pushing the reader to imagine themselves as a reader and donor. The editors, on the other hand, are very third-person and remote.
Q2.
Recurring donations seem like a good idea. Long-term, Liberapay might be worth consideration as a very mission-aligned platform for recurring donations; it could bring in new donors, since people browse it. Finding a donation request when you are looking for one isn't annoying.
Q3.
I do find the standard banners extremely annoying. I'll try to figure out why. They interrupt me when I am trying to do something else. They are wordy, but convey little information (repetitive, telling me the date, etc.); they catch my attention but don't repay it. The language always sounds unnatural, and also often feels a little like dark patterns in software design, calculatedly manipulative, as if it's been through extensive A/B testing, which I realize it has. I'm not sure if nagging at people's attention is a major factor in effectiveness, or if there is any way to reduce the annoyance without reducing effectiveness; I suspect the former, as I can't imagine you are gratuitously annoying people. That would imply a trade off between showing more annoying banners for a shorter time and less-annoying ones for longer. Reducing annoyance to avoid losing goodwill seems like a long-term strategy, which might not be caught in short-term A/B testing. Would more info reduce burnout?
I read the large-banner text and I want to copyedit it into something even more impracticably concise than the simple banner, like a link that says "We're fundraising". But we already have a sidebar "Donate" link.
The simple banner would be far less annoying, as I'd ignore it out of banner blindness. Presumably this is also why it's ineffective.
I really like the "every edit" content. I'd be really interested in the results (on all forms of engagement) of presenting contributions of Commons media (even just as open-license-tagging work you post on other platforms) and textual edits (even just simple copyedits) as the primary way of giving back, with donations if you can comfortably contribute money; I've seen a similar approach work well elsewhere.[3] The ads sometimes make people feel guilty for using Wikipedia without donating, and some actually partly avoid using it in consequence, which really goes against our mission.
Q4.
"Proud host of Wikipedia and its sister sites" really feels like "sister sites" should be a link. Yeah, I'm a Wikipedia editor.
"host" severely undersells the WMF, but I can't fault it for concision.
I realize this isn't universal, but I generally have low patience for videos, and dislike getting info through them. They are just so much slower than reading. I get that feeling more intensely than usual from the Wikiminute films, which I did watch; there is nothing I can see in the content that wouldn't work better as text; the artist has done their best, but the visual elements are, as far as conveying information goes, gratuitous. The "Do you have a minute" lede, which takes as long as ten seconds, is annoying in the same way that a "We value your time" on hold is annoying. The readers-like-you language is also annoying (in the text ads, too), because it feels a bit like "this is a story about a little baby just like you".
I also have some minor content concerns with the videos. Again, I'm provisionally uneasy about publicizing antivandalism. I'd prefer saying that the WMF supports the sister wikis more than it makes them possible; it's vital support, but it goes well beyond making the wikis possible. "Expert or beginner, anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as the information is well-sourced and has a neutral point of view" is not totally inaccurate but contrary to the strong en-wiki consensus that the information must be sourcable, but needn't be sourced.
Other ideas: I'd suggest (possibly interactive) infographics about how the WMF spends money, stuff that benefits from a visual format and communicates novel information, would be a good use of multimedia. While they are a biassed sample, I know a lot of people who won't donate to anything without looking that sort of information up.
I don't know if using images to counter stereotypes about Wikipedia editors would help. I liked those shots of local editing groups, where editors each made an overlapping-VV "W" with their thumbs crossed at right angles and forefingers extended; a unified gesture made by varied, ordinary-looking people. It seemed appropriately symbolic, somehow.
Q5.
The option to opt out of just the count on the banners seems like it would be utterly infuriating. It says that someone has put in the effort to program an option (and is tracking me), but won't let me opt out of the whole banner, just control a tiny digit. I think it would make conspicuous ads, which always feels a bit coercive, feel more coercive. I mean, it might be more effective, and it's less objectionable than some of the other effective things. But it screams that the UI is being controlled by someone with goals opposed to mine, which feels hostile.
I would also appreciate information on fundraising goals, quantitative and qualitative. It would help make more concrete suggestions; the "Internet we were promised" is much more concrete about what people are doing than many previous messages, and I'm wondering if that's the appeal. HLHJ (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our December fundraising goal for the English banner campaign is 25 million USD. You also asked if the foundation does testing to see how readers are affected emotionally by donation banners of various types. At the Foundation, we approach testing with care. While we analyze donation rates to understand effectiveness, we also rely on ethical guardrails, informed by reader research and discussions with volunteers about the content, for example here, on our community collaboration page. The banners are displayed publicly without collecting personal data or requiring user participation, and no identifying information is gathered.
Thanks for your thorough thoughts on the campaign. We did post an announcement of the collaboration page launch both on the WMF VP and in the Signpost. I’ll address your key points here:
Question 1: Great to hear that ‘The Internet you were promised’ resonated with you. This headline has also resonated strongly with readers, and we’re pleased with its reception. We’ve tested several alternatives over the years, including more positive or optimistic spins, but they haven’t performed as effectively. We are continuing to test into headline options during December.
While Wikimedia’s financial health relies on ongoing donations, we aim to balance transparency with compelling messaging. Your suggestion of goal thermometers aligns with our plans—we’re working to integrate them into banners in future campaigns.
Regarding the language on vandalism and the positioning of editors in the text, your perspective is appreciated.
Question 2: Recurring donations are an important part of our financial sustainability strategy. This year, we’ve introduced annual recurring options alongside monthly ones to make giving even more accessible. Thank you for suggesting Liberapay; we’ll explore its potential alignment with our mission.
Question 3: Our research shows that many readers are unaware Wikipedia is supported by a nonprofit. For this reason, the banners serve not only as fundraising tools but also as educational opportunities. We strive to explain the Wikimedia model clearly, even if it requires longer text. We recognize the challenge of balancing brevity and detail and appreciate your feedback.
The “make an edit” messaging is designed to inspire users to become editors. After a donation, our Thank You page invites donors to create an account and start contributing. You can find results of related experiments on the Growth Team Mediawiki page.
Question 4: This is very useful feedback on individual features and language here, thank you. We are trying to service a very large number of readers so it's helpful to hear what would resonate with different people. We will take your infographic idea away as well and give this some thought.
Question 5: Thank you for your take on the new “seen count” opt-out feature. It’s good to hear how this feature is perceived, and we’ll factor your feedback into future iterations.
For more information on fundraising goals, you can refer to the Annual Plan, and our 2023–24 Fundraising Report offers insights into how the program performed last year. Each year, the WMF needs to fundraise the full costs for its annual plan across the various campaigns that take place around the world throughout the year. One reason we run pre-testing and try out so many versions of banner language is that we are hoping to meet our target for the shortest time possible in order to minimize disruption to readers.
Thank you again for your engagement here and I am happy to help with any follow up suggestions or feedback.
Thanks for sharing the dollar goal. How is it going? When do you anticipate the campaign ending? I'm not sure your response really answered my question very clearly. Is the answer "No, we don't do testing on the emotional impact of our campaigns."? It's not a trick question, I understand that that might be a very tricky thing to do accurately, just curious about the Foundation's approach to balancing Wikipedia's financial health with our reputation among readers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your publicity in early July seems to have gotten a lot of feedback, but I was thinking of response to your feedback request in late November. Posting to a relevant well-frequented noticeboard each time you request feedback is fairly essential if you actually want any feedback . Thank you for the metafeedback, and sorry my feedback contains so much dumping on your work.
Transparency
I'm not sure one can balance transparency with compelling messaging. It sounds like balancing action on climate change with the economy; the language implies an assumption that the goals are incompatible. Obviously one can't fit all possible info into an ad, but one can link from the ad such that an interested party can easily find almost any info related to the ad which they are looking for. If making this information more accessible makes the message less compelling, then the message is deceptive.
In this particular case, it seems that even quite oblique suggestions that Wikipedia is in financial crisis are enough to get attention, even if donors don't, on reflection, credit them. That's a good reason not to use crisis messaging unless we are in crisis. It means people care, which makes misleading them a worse betrayal which they will resent more.
The "This is what we're up against" titles seem like non-praecedits, and so attention-baiting; this sort of rhetoric is usually used for situations more dramatic than an annual fundraising drive. A kid prefacing a request for pocket money with that phrase would probably get criticized for it. I can't imagine wholehearted support for such ads except is the case of an emergency of the sort some of these negative ads seem to be mimicking.
The editing community really cares about giving accurate, neutral information to readers. Fundraising focusses on getting money. This seems to be the core of the ad conflict. Can you make messages that are compelling without using deception as a source of compulsion? You want to compel attention to the ads, specifically the attention of Wikipedia readers; would giving interesting information compel repeated attention by rewarding it? Is that what the "supported by tools" messaging is doing? Could mentioning reasons why or ways in which Wikipedia is the internet we were promised, and much of the internet conspicuously isn't, be transparency that would help fundraise? Would neutral, factual stories about specific uses of funds help? We could write some.
Details
The infographics in the Fundraising Report sometimes lack information on their units of measurement or keys to abbreviations. This is a mistake I've made; if you are so familiar with some data that it's obvious, it's easy to overlook.
I'm glad to hear of progress on a progress bar. I like it largely because it is transparent, neutral information (please do put units on it). A static timestamp-captioned thermometer file, updated at whatever intervals fit the pace at which you get the data, would really be fine; please don't worry about software elaboration. Will there be data that would allow correlations between vandalism and vandalism-related messaging to be measured? Are the messages, for instance, only going up on some days?
Anecdotally, people report avoiding Wikipedia when the banner ads are up. Is this visible in pageviews? Did the unobtrusive banner have a lesser effect? Wikipedia is becoming easier to avoid, so I'm concerned that this effect may strengthen.
I should mention, especially re your response to question 3, that I do think ads with the WMF logo, and explicit mentions of the WMF, are helpful. It makes a lot of conversations easier when you don't have to start them by explaining that the WMF exists.
Recruitment
On reflection, I think the last point I made on Q4 was stupid. I should tell you what I'm trying to say, and let the professionals figure out how to say it. The people I know who edited very rarely, or are hesitating over editing, are often hesitant out of an excessive respect for Wikipedia. They are terrified of adding content that isn't perfect. The hesitate even to fix obvious typos or errors of fact -- surely if it's on Wikipedia it must be there for a reason? The most useful message I've found are progress, not perfection messages, like "Will your edit make it better?" and "~7 million articles weren't written in a single edit." Emphasizing the ease and minimality of edits which were still useful also helps. Encouraging people to copyedit or be gnomes or categorize Commons images is a good introduction.
So, I'm not sure those images would have the same effect on the people who don't yet edit as they do on me. To me, the effect is to identify with all of the people depicted, because they are editors, like me. Therefore they are like me. To someone who isn't an editor, they are going to see lots of varied people to whom they have no such tie. It seems unlikely that they would identify with them, or see them as "like me". And I always really hate seeing editor names at the bottom of the mobile view, especially my name. I think focussing on the editing work rather than editors would be more effective. I'm not keen on trying to present editing as some sort of aspirational lifestyle brand. More like donating blood; it's easy and effective. I guess I'm asking for something that will cause the readers to vividly imagine themselves as editors, making small, simple, useful contributions when they feel like it, just like everyone else, instead of seeing others as editors, tirelessly managing miracles as they work together in some shadowy massive cathedral of an organizational structure. I have no idea how to do this.
I don't know if you have stats on this, but it seems to me that knowing an editor socially is a big factor in donating, and a bigger factor in repeated donations. It humanizes the project. Admittedly I have many other reasons for wanting more editor recruitment, but it might also be the best thing for fundraising.
Discussion
I was initially startled to get a response from JBrungs (WMF) ("Lead Community Relations Specialist") after replying to Sheetal Puri (WMF) ("Senior Director, Digital Fundraising"). But it makes sense. I may still have the wrong of it here, but reading over this conversation, I realize that it's not really what I expected. I'm a volunteer editor, and can give my opinions freely; you are employees with, from the report provided, an average tenure of 4.5 years (which I'm hoping doesn't say anything too terrible about the workplace environment), and you are being judged on your replies according to some standard I am not familiar with, but apparently a risk-adverse one. Messing up, for me, means an apology and embarrassment; for you, it could have career consequences. You are also being judged by your actions, and in fundraising presumably by the short-term effectiveness of your ad campaign, if not by the WMF then by your next employer. Trying to argue with you about the ethics of the grading rubric to which you are subject is unkind and unproductive.
Your replies are less personal views than organizational statements. This limits our interactions. I can provide you with information, which is at least potentially useful despite my ignorance of what info you may unknowingly need. I can also praise you or berate you. I really can't have a discussion with you. If I convince someone of something I'll never know, and you are seriously handicapped in any attempt to persuade me. I'm afraid I noticed via resemblances to some offwiki occasions when some idiot has tried to have a political debate with people from an authoritarian country. In this case, I'm the idiot. I'm not sure how to ease this conflict, but at this point I'm fairly convinced that this method isn't very productive.
Onwiki, if there are problems, the obvious first step is to discuss it frankly with the people doing the work. I think some of the hostility WMF employees often face on-wiki is because they are unwittingly implicitly entering into a discussion, but actually issuing press releases in a thoroughly awkward format. Of course, the hostility makes it harder for WMF employees to engage as individuals, and if you're only around for a few years it can't make it easier. I'm sorry you are in this nasty social situation, and I'll try to figure out something more useful to do about it, if not for you at least for your successors. HLHJ (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOREVER
. Thank you for the metafeedback, and sorry my feedback contains so much dumping on your work.