The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 2011 appeals for money
thekohser
post Fri 14th October 2011, 2:37pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Fri 14th October 2011, 2:47pm
Post #2


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 14th October 2011, 6:51pm
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 15th October 2011, 7:41am
Post #4


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:51am) *

"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.

Insane and idiotic volunteers. Some of whom use bots to generate fake "content".....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Sat 15th October 2011, 8:44pm
Post #5


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sat 15th October 2011, 10:06pm
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
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.


This particular appeal is actually quite disgusting.To me it just does not sound right. I am surprised it was allowed at all. 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: Sun 16th October 2011, 4:06pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Looch
post Sun 16th October 2011, 6:42am
Post #7


JB196
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri 6th Apr 2007, 5:02pm
Member No.: 1,247

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 15th October 2011, 10:06pm) *
could you please tell me, where this data comes from, I mean this 53 cents number.


Seconded. I'm not saying I don't believe it. I'm just wondering where it comes from.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
powercorrupts
post Sat 12th November 2011, 9:20pm
Post #8


.
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined: Fri 27th Jun 2008, 10:27pm
Member No.: 6,776



I'm not happy with them asking for £2/3/5/10-plus bank card monlthly Direct Debits, especially as the 'default' setting, while you are asked to a box to make the "one off donation". Charities essentially compete for people's DD money in the UK (they all ask for a few quid a month - and of course most of those who do it will only do one or two), and it really feels like the WMF are competing for our money now. How are they a bloody charity other than as a tax loophole? It's just so dodgy.

Incidentally I haven't seen any banner ads this year, at least in the UK. I know they had criticism last year for over-exposing his alpha 'look at me' face, but Wales has spun that around as him being told by his staff that they make more money when his image is up there (ie they talked him into doing it). If his face really is the reason for increased donating (and it doesn't necessarily follow that it is) - it is scary in many ways of course.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Sat 12th November 2011, 9:25pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 16th November 2011, 7:46pm
Post #9


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
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: Wed 16th November 2011, 7:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 16th November 2011, 10:09pm
Post #10


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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: Wed 16th November 2011, 10:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 16th November 2011, 11:20pm
Post #11


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I would tend to agree with Peter, that page is valuable, and the easier it is to read and understand,
the more impact it will have. I'd be happy to provide some quotes if you wish.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 17th November 2011, 2:36pm
Post #12


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



The "10 Reasons Not" page is now up to 50 unique visitors per hour, which is about double yesterday's traffic.

I see that some of it is due to a Reddit post. Upvote time!

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 17th November 2011, 2:44pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 17th November 2011, 5:37pm
Post #13


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation ever considered keeping the appeals off of certain pages, or would that be the dreaded censorship?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Thu 17th November 2011, 6:51pm
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



Here's is an interesting thread from Meta
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 17th November 2011, 7:54pm
Post #15


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 18th November 2011, 5:11am
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
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 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. 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. biggrin.gif
In any case WMF would probably save some money, if this third marriage of Jimbo would be the happy last one. smile.gif

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 18th November 2011, 5:52am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alison
post Fri 18th November 2011, 5:21am
Post #17


Skinny Cow!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined: Tue 26th Jun 2007, 8:08pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806



Then there's this, from The Oatmeal blink.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 18th November 2011, 9:07am
Post #18


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 17th November 2011, 9:21pm) *
Then there's this, from The Oatmeal blink.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

There was a similar thread on /b/ the other day.

All this adds up to one thing: Wikipedia isn't as "magical" as it used to be. The more they beg
pathetically for donations, the more people dislike them--and Wales.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bambi
post Fri 18th November 2011, 8:26pm
Post #19


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon 23rd Jun 2008, 12:55am
Member No.: 6,712



More crowdsourcing: Narcissistic, greedy: What Wikipedia says about its appeal
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 19th November 2011, 5:53am
Post #20


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



In case you missed it: Sergey Brin and wife
just gave them $500,000.

(Read the comments below that story. Seems to be typical nowadays.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 19th November 2011, 5:54am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
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: 20th 10 17, 11:20pm