QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 16th November 2011, 7:46pm)
Just thought I'd point out that (as of this morning), more than once every 3 minutes (on average) someone new is visiting the "
Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia" page.
They're coming from Germany, the Czech Republic, India, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Australia, the United States, and Pakistan -- and that's just a sample of the most recent 20 visitors.
They're searching Google for things like:
- is it correct to donate money for wikipedia? (Google India, #5 result)
- wikipedia donation statistics (Google, #2 result)
- donating to wikipedia (Google UK, #7 result)
- how much money did wikipedia received from donations (Google, #4 result)
- how many people donate to wikipedia (Google Sweden, #1 result)
- donations to wikipedia (Google Singapore, #2 result)
With this much traffic and search engine exposure, do we think it would be worth improving on the landing page? How so?
Yes I notice if you google 'donate to Wikipedia' or similar, that page and a number of other 'anti' pages come up. I'll try a few linking experiments this weekend.
QUOTE
With this much traffic and search engine exposure, do we think it would be worth improving on the landing page? How so?
I read it again and some of it (particularly the stuff lower down, e.g. the picture of the magician holding the tied up girl) is a bit strident. At least to my conservative English tastes. We have argued about this before, I know.
QUOTE
This page is viewed by 25 different people per hour, on average, during the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising season. Thanks to excellent search engine rankings for the page, it is hoped that at least some of the readers who visit will be dissuaded from adding their donation to the Wikimedia money machine.
Why do people who have landed on this page need to know that 24 other people have landed that hour? 'The Wikipedia money machine' is crass and over the top.
QUOTE
Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect
That whole section is great. However, you are not hitting those who are landing on the page with the key point that 'wikipedia' (P) is different from wikimedia' (M). Might be worth pointing that out. Also, there are many people on the net who are inherently suspicious of phishing sites which exploit naming ambiguities. Simply pointing out that the two enterprises are different will engage that suspicion.
QUOTE
Wikipedia has too much power.
That's a good point, may be lost on the general populace. Needs an example or a word picture.
QUOTE
Your donation will indirectly fund Wikia, Inc., which is not a charity.
The section makes a good point, but somewhat wordy. From then on, it's just too many words. I would suggest shortening it and addressing the key points.
This page is an important weapon in the armoury. Too good to be wasted. Well done.
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: 
2011 appeals for money
thekohser 2011 appeals for money 
