| |
|
  |
 2011 appeals for money |
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 3:37pm)  I see that the newest WMF appeal is an attempt to appeal to wankers by illustrating the thoughts of a jagoff. No mention of the fact that 53 cents of every donated dollar will go to things other than the Foundation's mission-fulfilling program services. QUOTE
Where your donation goes
Technology: Servers, bandwidth, maintenance, development. Wikipedia is the #5 website in the world, and it runs on a fraction of what other top websites spend
People: The other top 10 websites have thousands of employees. We have fewer than 100, making your donation a great investment in a highly-efficient not-for-profit organization
Fraudulent misrepresentation? In the UK, to make an misleading statement with the intent to obtain money is a criminal offence. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 14th October 2011, 10:47am) QUOTE
...it runs on a fraction of what other top websites spend
People: The other top 10 websites have thousands of employees. We have fewer than 100...
Fraudulent misrepresentation? In the UK, to make an misleading statement with the intent to obtain money is a criminal offence. "Other" top 10 websites also generate tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars for shareholders each year. The Wikimedia Foundation generates a few million dollars to pay this lucky staff that largely sits back while volunteers do most of the work that brings Wikipedia its value. Here is a similar and factual statement: Wikipedia Review has one part-time owner-employee. Its website runs on $480 per year. The site serves over 30,000 unique visitors every month. Valero has 20,000 employees. It spends over $250 million per month to operate. Yet, its Valero.com website receives far fewer visitors than does Wikipedia Review.com. Therefore, your contribution to Wikipedia Review is a great investment in a highly-efficient for-profit organization. |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 6:51pm) QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 14th October 2011, 10:47am) QUOTE
...it runs on a fraction of what other top websites spend
People: The other top 10 websites have thousands of employees. We have fewer than 100...
Fraudulent misrepresentation? In the UK, to make an misleading statement with the intent to obtain money is a criminal offence. "Other" top 10 websites also generate tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars for shareholders each year. The Wikimedia Foundation generates a few million dollars to pay this lucky staff that largely sits back while volunteers do most of the work that brings Wikipedia its value. Here is a similar and factual statement: Wikipedia Review has one part-time owner-employee. Its website runs on $480 per year. The site serves over 30,000 unique visitors every month. Valero has 20,000 employees. It spends over $250 million per month to operate. Yet, its Valero.com website receives far fewer visitors than does Wikipedia Review.com. Therefore, your contribution to Wikipedia Review is a great investment in a highly-efficient for-profit organization. Except one would argue that Valero achieves more than your website does, because Valero is not primarily a web-based company. Efficiency isn't everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 2:37pm) I see that the newest WMF appeal is an attempt to appeal to wankers by illustrating the thoughts of a jagoff. No mention of the fact that 53 cents of every donated dollar will go to things other than the Foundation's mission-fulfilling program services. is actually quite disgusting.To me it just does not sound right. I am surprised it was allowed at all. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) QUOTE Wikipedia’s corporate office is located in Jimmy Wales’ basement, right next to an over-sized water heater. They keep one of the most important ventures in the world running every day and night, besides Thursdays, because that’s when Jimmy’s roommate, Big Mike, has poker night.
Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but not a huge one. Wikipedia is an impossibly small operation performing an impossibly large job.
Did you know that fewer people work at Wikipedia than Google has at their Saint-Ghislain data center alone? What Google and its employees have to do with Wikipedia? Google does not ask for the donations, Google provides employment for thousands. BTW could you please tell me, where this data comes from, I mean this 53 cents number. Also do we know how much money WMF employees make. How much money are spent to pay they travel expenses. I mean we know that Steve Jobs was making $1 per year, what about WMF employees. This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
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? This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 17th November 2011, 7:54pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 17th November 2011, 1:51pm) Somebody's on the fast track to Bannsville: QUOTE Jorm, you are traveling to India? May I please ask you, who pays for your travel expenses, and how necessarily it is to travel to India versus having a conference via internet communications?
One more question. In your appeal for donations you have never mentioned thousands upon thousands of volunteers, who make wikipedia possible. Why? Thanks.--Mbz1 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Not yet banned, but got a scream (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) from WMF employee: QUOTE Mbz1, I can't begin to relate to why you would make this kind of absurd insinuation. Or why you would feel it's OK to do so from behind a veil of anonymity. I also can't imagine what would make you voluntarily request that your account be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and yet return to Meta to stir shit up about Wikipedia.
Maybe there are good reasons for all of that, but you know what? I don't care. I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels like that. -Pete F 03:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC) One is left to wonder, if this guy realizes that his response to my so called "absurd insinuation" stirs shit up about Wikipedia" ten times more that all my questions combined. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) I was also going to ask who's going to pay for Jimbo's every fortnight flights to Florida to see his daughter from his second marriage", but now I believe I am going to miss on this one. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) In any case WMF would probably save some money, if this third marriage of Jimbo would be the happy last one. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bambi |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 127
Joined:
Member No.: 6,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
