FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
"Jimmy fatigue" -
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> "Jimmy fatigue"
thekohser
post
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911



Even the Foundation recognizes "Jimmy fatigue" (page 13).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
SB_Johnny
post
Post #2


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 19th July 2011, 1:50pm) *

Even the Foundation recognizes "Jimmy fatigue" (page 13).

Mind just quoting the relevant part for us Greg?

(I assume I'm not the only one who doesn't particularly want to download a pdf full of hot air and wet dreams, which given the source it almost surely is....)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post
Post #3


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 19th July 2011, 5:58pm) *
Mind just quoting the relevant part for us Greg?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
QUOTE
The 2010 WMF fundraiser was our shortest and most successful to date, raising $15 million (up 72% from 2009's $8.7 million) in 50 days (25% fewer than 2009's 67 days). If you include the $6.5 million received by 12 chapters which acted as payment processors in 2010, the total raised by the movement was $21.5 million.
In 2010-11, the WMF refocused from a mixed revenue model towards a primary focus on the fundraiser. That paid off. Other revenue sources dropped by about a quarter, but community giving is up strongly. In part due to increased community involvement, (including experimentation with appeals from community members), the campaign was much less unpopular with the Wikimedia community than in the past.

That said, in 2010 we began to see indicators of banner and Jimmy fatigue expressed in mainstream and social media. We interpret this as a warning: we expect donations to continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.


And that's nothing. Start reading at slide 17. Let me summarize:
QUOTE
1) Editor decline is an intractable problem.
2) Escalating movement tensions distract from program work.
3) Readership begins to flatten or decline.
4) External events distract from programmatic work.
5) Revenue targets are not met.
6) Revenue targets are met, but at the cost of significant goodwill.
7) Openness about editor decline makes the problem worse.
8) International expansion results in unacceptable legal risk.
9) A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff.
11) Wikimedia's ability to implement positive change is constrained by actual or perceived lack of community acceptance.


Point 7 is absolutely right---they are learning to cover up statistics about new-editor decline, because it harms the thing's public image. And it's only getting started.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post



Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now:
 
     
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)