Fundraising Survey (2009) Options Rating

[thekohser]

Get your comments in now!

(As this email may enact changes that affect the total Wikimedia
community, please feel free to forward or post this email on any and all
applicable lists. We would like as much feedback as possible.)

Wikimedians--

In advance of our Annual Fundraiser (starting in November), Wikimedia is
undertaking a survey of donors and potential donors in order to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of fundraising efforts of the Wikimedia
Foundation. The results from this survey will help us to better
understand donors and potential donors, and ultimately, will help to
increase donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. There are several basic
questions the survey is intended to answer:

* Who donates to the Wikimedia Foundation? What characteristics do
donors to the Wikimedia Foundation share?
* Are there different types of donors that can be segmented by common
characteristics?
* What motivates individuals to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation?
* What expectations do donors have about how their donations are used?
* What would (or how can Wikimedia) motivate current donors to increase
their contributions?
* Why don't more individuals donate to the Wikimedia Foundation?
* What is likely to motivate non-donors to become donors?

You can find the survey process, timeline, methodology, & questions
here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_Survey_2009

We would appreciate your input on the questions and how to make this
survey as effective as possible.

-Rand

--
Rand Montoya
Head of Community Giving
Wikimedia Foundation
www.wikimedia.org
Email: rand at wikimedia.org
Phone: 415.839.6885 x615
Fax: 415.882.0495
Cell: 510.685.7030

[thekohser]

What a complete mess.

[Somey]

What a complete mess.

Yeah, but your suggestions sound like... you know, work.

Wikipedia is supposed to be fun!

Fun fun fun! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Honestly, this looks like someone read a magazine article that said that they should have a donor survey, and so they threw one together after following directions they got out of a Crackerjack box.

[MZMcBride]

Is there some sort requirement that pages at Meta be overly long, sporadically boldfaced, and entirely unreadable? Good grief.

[EricBarbour]

Well, Brother McBride, why don't you call up one of the Golden Shower Experts
in the San Francisco office (specifically Mr. Montoya), and see if you can get
some coherent explanation? Report back if it makes a drop of sense.

Good luck, you'll need it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

And as Greg pointed out to the only person who responded (a Twinkle-running vandal fairy)--
the whole idea is already a failure, because the only commentor was Greg.
And the response?

I wouldn't say that community input has failed, merely that meta is a small wiki with a small community; many of whom might simply be uninterested in this topic. I'd still advise that if you think the process needs help to offer it. What's two hours in the grand scheme of the universe after all? It wouldn't be time wasted anyway; it might serve as a starting point for discussions on the next iteration of the survey. I agree that a scientific methodology would certainly lead to results that are unimpeachable. Personally, my expertise in survey design and statistics is medically based, not fund-raising. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) fr33kman t - c 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You interfered with his Jimbo-chant, Greg. Boo hoo.

[thekohser]

Well, Brother McBride, why don't you call up one of the Golden Shower Experts
in the San Francisco office (specifically Mr. Montoya)...

I already left a voicemail message for Montoya yesterday afternoon, so we'll see if he's responsive to my offer to help or not.

Greg

[thekohser]

I think that I've about wrapped up my work on restructuring the survey so that it will most meaningfully capture data that informs the Wikimedia Foundation about its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the contribution fundraising category.

A wiki is a horrible way to collaboratively design a survey questionnaire. If there had been other participants working as frequently as I in this process, we would have had edit conflicts galore, and there would not be the sense of continuity (of wording, of scales, etc.) that is so helpful for a respondent taking a survey. Fortunately, though, I was virtually a lone voice acting on this task -- despite trying to publicize it here, here, and here, a fruitless salvo. Now that I'm mentioning it here, though, I imagine my hard work will get the work-over and be torn to shreds.

I hope that you all will appreciate my "in-survey quiz" about the personnel of the WMF. It's not a joke -- rather, my attempt to gauge just how "in tune" is the Wikimedia project "community" with who actually runs the joint. I suspect the majority will think that Jimmy Wales or "Don't know" are the Executive Director and Chair of the Board of Trustees.

[Kelly Martin]

A wiki is a horrible way to collaboratively design a survey questionnaire.

A wiki is a horrible way to collaboratively design anything.

I suspect that wikis have about run their useful life. They work ok when you have an already close-knit group of people who already have internalized conflict management strategies. If you don't have such strategies in your working group, though, a wiki will just amplify those conflicts, without providing any sort of framework to focus such conflicts toward resolution.

Most successful wikis, from what I've seen, allow editing only by people who are already a part of the working group, and that working group already has a track record of successful collaboration. Either that, or they're just being used as a content engine, a role for which any number of other products would do just as well.

[thekohser]

This weekend, Jeff Pilisuk ("Marketing guru, eco-entrepreneur, social media junkie, health fanatic, coffee addict, and all around good-guy", according to his Twitter page), using an IP address, accepted and (presumably) copied as "final" about 90% of my version of the Fundraising Survey.

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[MBisanz]

This weekend, Jeff Pilisuk ("Marketing guru, eco-entrepreneur, social media junkie, health fanatic, coffee addict, and all around good-guy", according to his Twitter page), using an IP address, accepted and (presumably) copied as "final" about 90% of my version of the Fundraising Survey.

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!

So, in other words, they used your valuable knowledge about marketing and business to get a professional survey for free.

[Kelly Martin]

So, in other words, they used your valuable knowledge about marketing and business to get a professional survey for free.

Well, there's some small hope that a properly-written survey will convince them that they have to do something about the cesspit that is Wikipedia if they want to see an increase in donations.

[thekohser]

So, in other words, they used your valuable knowledge about marketing and business to get a professional survey for free.

Well, there's some small hope that a properly-written survey will convince them that they have to do something about the cesspit that is Wikipedia if they want to see an increase in donations.

Yes, and bigger yes.

[dtobias]

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!

The input of critics can be extremely useful in such a project, where the aim is to try to appeal to people outside their normal circles.

[thekohser]

Until today, I didn't know that Henrik's Traffic-o-Meter tool was able to measure within the Meta project space.

So, it's rather interesting to see the June 2009 traffic and the July 2009 traffic (especially after July 6th, when I discovered the Fundraising Survey page and announced it here).

In a nutshell, this is what it looks like when one paid WMF Staff member and one non-paid WMF volunteer "coordinator" get together and launch and barely promote the fact that a should-be-important survey about fundraising characteristics is about to take place. Then, post July 6th, you see the impact of one non-paid agitator/expert calling attention to the discussion and practically single-handedly re-designing and re-writing it.

Kind of makes me wonder.

[thekohser]

For 2010, it looks like Rand Montoya tried a new approach to survey design:

Let a consultancy called SeaChange work behind the scenes, write the whole thing offline, then get a lackey to paste it into Meta, a fait accompli, with no significant discussion (one ignored suggestion), since you've banned all of those who are interested in its content.

[thekohser]

Maybe Rand Montoya would still have a job if he would have worked a little harder and listened to me a lot more.

[Zoloft]

Maybe Rand Montoya would still have a job if he would have worked a little harder and listened to me a lot more.

Looks more like 'rat-leaving-sinking-ship' rather than a dismissal.

[thekohser]

Kind of amusing how my well-wishes for Rand didn't draw a single comment from the Hive members. I guess they're learning not to poke.

[MZMcBride]

Kind of amusing how my well-wishes for Rand didn't draw a single comment from the Hive members. I guess they're learning not to poke.

That thread is eerily quiet; there are only two replies to the announcement total. That, combined with the message of the announcement, probably says something about someone.

[thekohser]

Kind of amusing how my well-wishes for Rand didn't draw a single comment from the Hive members. I guess they're learning not to poke.

That thread is eerily quiet; there are only two replies to the announcement total. That, combined with the message of the announcement, probably says something about someone.

It's that moment of quiet fear and flight of calm in the guts of Wikipediots, as they realize "Hey, it looks like Kohs was right about this after all..."

[thekohser]

It didn't take SpiderHands Sue (assuming the buck stopped with her) very long to do what probably should have been done in the first place -- farm out the survey to a professional research company.

Except, in typical Wikimedia fashion, they gave it to an outfit that nobody's ever heard of: Tulsa-based Q2 Consulting, LLC.

Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.

Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[EricBarbour]

Except, in typical Wikimedia fashion, they gave it to an outfit that nobody's ever heard of: Tulsa-based Q2 Consulting, LLC.
Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.
Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

Dunno, but Philippe has some kind of personal connection to Q2 Consulting partner Nelly Vanzetti.

Their names are listed together here.

Ah! According to LinkedIn, he used to be a....."Research Associate at Q2 Consulting, LLC".
What a coinkydink! (You need a LinkedIn account to see that.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Somey]

Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.

Even so, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, or even predict. In addition to the self-selection bias, there's the inherent assumption that genuine concerns about Wikipedia's irresponsibility (and relationship to society in general) are not to be mentioned, in favor of the usual claptrap:

• That Wikipedia will be forced to sell advertising to maintain itself
• That the volunteers who contribute the vast majority of Wikipedia's content will lose interest over time and Wikipedia will become out-of-date
• That Wikipedia will include information that is incomplete, distorted, or wrong
• That Wikipedia will be forced to charge money for access
• That major corporations or other interested parties will influence Wikipedia's content and priorities

In other words, the only hint that real issues are even being considered here is the single word "distort," and even that's mostly self-serving. And obviously at no point do they mention the concern that money being donated isn't actually being used for anything, other than maybe a war-chest to defend against future lawsuits.

Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

I'd say the chances of that being purely a coincidence are less than 10 percent.

(Edit - Eric B. beat me to the punch there!)

[thekohser]

We'll see how the Foundation-l mailing list responds to this request:

Gregory Kohs thekohser at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 12:18:42 UTC 2010

Philippe Beaudette recently mentioned the final report from a donors survey
recently completed by Q2 Consulting, LLC. I'd like to congratulate the
Foundation for getting this independent research project completed. (I had
participated extensively in the design of the 2009 survey that never came to
pass, prior to Rand Montoya's departure from the Foundation.)

I am wondering if Philippe could share with us the "request for proposal"
that went out to the various vendors who surely bid on this 2010 donors
survey? Also, if we could see the list of research firms that presented
proposals, and the criteria by which Q2 Consulting was selected, I would be
very pleased.

Kindly,

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
Contact: 484-NEW-WIKI

[thekohser]

Since they wouldn't respond intelligently on the Foundation-l mailing list, the national news media had to get involved. It doesn't look very good for Mssrs. Beaudette and Montoya, as the piece pulls no punches.

[jayvdb]

Since they wouldn't respond intelligently on the Foundation-l mailing list, the national news media had to get involved. It doesn't look very good for Mssrs. Beaudette and Montoya, as the piece pulls no punches.

Your piece in examiner.com is national news media, and the BayNewser blog is mainstream media? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Other than that, nice work.

[thekohser]

Your piece in examiner.com is national news media, and the BayNewser blog is mainstream media? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Other than that, nice work.

Examiner.com is the #30 news site on the Internet, according to Alexa. It ranks higher in online reach than Business Week, Time Magazine, or CBS News. My articles have received over 3,400 page views in the less than three months since I began writing for Examiner. I don't know what more you want from me than that.

As for the MediaBistro / BayNewser description as "mainstream media", I suppose I could change that in my article. MediaBistro.com is dedicated to anyone who creates or works with content, or who is a non-creative professional working in a content/creative industry. That includes editors, writers, producers, graphic designers, book publishers, and others in industries including magazines, television, film, radio, newspapers, book publishing, online media, advertising, PR, and design. The property was sold in 2007 to Jupitermedia for $27 million, according to Wikipedia. That's only 1/20th of what the Philadelphia Inquirer sold for in the previous year. You got me on that one -- sorry.

Thank you for the compliment on the rest of the article.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

I want to say another thing about the quality of the Q2 Consulting LLC reports.

In the short report, they call out: "Note high % of retired participating". Some 12.3% of the survey participants reported that they were retired. Well, guess what? According to the United States census figures, about 13.2% of people over the age of 16 in the United States are over the age of 65 and not in the labor force nor formally identified as "unemployed" -- in other words, "retired". So, really, there was not a "high % of retired participating"; it was an appropriately expected percentage of retired participating.

A similar gaffe is found in the long report. Q2 Consulting says about the respondents to its survey, "notably, 63% are not living with children". Guess what? The U.S. census tells us that 68.2% of households have no children under 18 present in them. So, why is it "notable" that 63% of the respondents to a donors survey about Wikipedia would not be living with children?

These strike me as comments made by a consulting firm that doesn't really do a lot of population surveys.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Jon Awbrey]

These strike me as comments made by a consulting firm that doesn't really do a lot of population surveys.

Or just φudged their data from the Census Report …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[jayvdb]

Your piece in examiner.com is national news media, and the BayNewser blog is mainstream media? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Other than that, nice work.

Examiner.com is the #30 news site on the Internet, according to Alexa. It ranks higher in online reach than Business Week, Time Magazine, or CBS News. My articles have received over 3,400 page views in the less than three months since I began writing for Examiner. I don't know what more you want from me than that.

Colour me surprised. It's Alexa ranking (524) is a lot higher than I expected.

Is examiner.com solely 'citizen' contributed stories, or does it syndicate content as well?

Is 3,400 page views the combined total across all your articles, or an average for each article?

[thekohser]

Colour me surprised. It's Alexa ranking (524) is a lot higher than I expected.

Is examiner.com solely 'citizen' contributed stories, or does it syndicate content as well?

Is 3,400 page views the combined total across all your articles, or an average for each article?

You mean "Its". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

My understanding is that the content is 100% generated by "citizen" reporters; but, keep in mind, that there is an application process, a background check, a fairly substantial training process, and ongoing service forums and tutorials, to help these citizens perform more like "professional" journalists. We are all paid for our articles, based on a proprietary algorithm of page views, length of time on page, comments, etc. It's not a way of living by any means (I've made about $25 so far), but it is a bit of a motivation that separates the task from other "free culture" scams. I suppose someone who really churned out a couple of articles per day on popular (celebrities, UFO's, sports) topics, could probably pay for their household's groceries each month.

The 3,400 page views is the combined total across all of my articles thus far. It's up to 3,560 today.

P.S. If anyone is interested in becoming an Examiner, please sign up by claiming me as a referral. I'll get $50 once you're an established reporter, and I'll share half of that with you.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

Kudos to Jayvdb... but how long before he too is "moderated" on the Foundation-l list?

Also, it looks like Geni is jealous of my role as Wikimedia critic, but John Vandy put her (?) in her place.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

Seems that nobody at Q2 Consulting is answering their phones today. Likewise, they weren't responding to their "Contact Us" web form yesterday.

[Cedric]

Kudos to Jayvdb... but how long before he too is "moderated" on the Foundation-l list?

Also, it looks like Geni is jealous of my role as Wikimedia critic, but John Vandy put her (?) in her place.

Tsk, tsk! John is forgetting the Foundation's motto:

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/356048119v2_480x480_crop.jpg)

[thekohser]

This is really getting out of hand.

The Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is now advising that questions about competitive bidding and possible violation of WMF's own internal policies on purchasing and disbursements should be suppressed on the Foundation's public mailing list, and shunted off to an even more inaccessible place and time, like "IRC Office Hours".

Is it just me, or have I really hit on a nerve here, that this much under-the-rug sweeping is being carried out?

[thekohser]

Uh oh, looks like Birgitte might be headed for Blocksville.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Jon Awbrey]

This is really getting out of hand.

The Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is now advising that questions about competitive bidding and possible violation of WMF's own internal policies on purchasing and disbursements should be suppressed on the Foundation's public mailing list, and shunted off to an even more inaccessible place and time, like "IRC Office Hours".

Is it just me, or have I really hit on a nerve here, that this much under-the-rug sweeping is being carried out?

One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that we do all of our work publicly and in the open. And the kinds of disagreements and tussles and struggles within the community that would normally, at The Encyclopedia Britannica, go on behind closed doors, we do in public, because that's the way we do our work.

— Jimmy Wales, “Debate : The Internet and Democracy”, Miller Center of Public Affairs, 18 May 2010.

Is there a transcript for the debate that I can cite? — I can't imagine ever having the stomach to sit through that whole video.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Okay, I found the PDF transcript.

Jimbo's remark is at the top of page 17.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

This is really getting out of hand.

The Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is now advising that questions about competitive bidding and possible violation of WMF's own internal policies on purchasing and disbursements should be suppressed on the Foundation's public mailing list, and shunted off to an even more inaccessible place and time, like "IRC Office Hours".

Is it just me, or have I really hit on a nerve here, that this much under-the-rug sweeping is being carried out?

One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that we do all of our work publicly and in the open. And the kinds of disagreements and tussles and struggles within the community that would normally, at The Encyclopedia Britannica, go on behind closed doors, we do in public, because that's the way we do our work.

— Jimmy Wales, “Debate : The Internet and Democracy”, Miller Center of Public Affairs, 18 May 2010.

Is there a transcript for the debate that I can cite? — I can't imagine ever having the stomach to sit through that whole video.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Okay, I found the PDF transcript.

Jimbo's remark is at the top of page 17.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

That stuff on the mailing list is just embarrassing. Moulton would probably point out that every role in the "lunatic drama" was played perfectly! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Epic win, Greg. I suppose it would be naive to think this might portend a change of tides, but the levee seems to be developing noticeable cracks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

[thekohser]

Sue Gardner will take office hours on IRC tomorrow. It's at a time when I can't possibly participate, so will someone please ask her about how the Q2 Consulting research project was awarded?