Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Wikimedia Foundation _ A Personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

Posted by: powercorrupts

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/GB&utm_source=2010_JA1_Banner2&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fridayOpening&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGene_Kelly_filmography

QUOTE
Please read this appeal from our founder and then donate to Wikimedia UK using the form opposite. Your donation will go towards supporting the global projects as well as activities in the UK.

I got a lot of funny looks ten years ago when I started talking to people about Wikipedia.

Let’s just say some of the business types were skeptical of the notion that volunteers from all across the world could come together to create a remarkable pool of human knowledge – all for the simple purpose of sharing.

No ads. No profits. No agenda.

A decade after its founding, more than 380 million people use Wikipedia and its sister sites every month - almost a third of the Internet-connected world.

It is the 5th most popular website in the world. The other four have been built and maintained with billions of dollars in investment, huge corporate staffs and relentless marketing.

But, Wikipedia isn’t anything like a commercial website. It is a community creation, written by volunteers making one entry at a time. You are part of our community. And I’m writing today to ask you to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

Together, we can keep it free of charge and free of advertising. We can keep it open – you can use the information in Wikipedia any way you want. We can keep it growing – spreading knowledge everywhere, and inviting participation from everyone.

Each year at this time, we reach out to ask you and others all across the Wikimedia community to help sustain our joint enterprise with a modest donation of $20, $35, $50 or more.

If you value Wikipedia as a source of information – and a source of inspiration – I hope you’ll choose to act right now.

All the best,

Jimmy Wales

Founder, Wikipedia

P.S. Wikipedia is about the power of people like us to do extraordinary things. People like us write Wikipedia, one word at a time. People like us fund it, one donation at a time. It's proof of our collective potential to change the world.

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827.
The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom
.


I can't quite believe he's simply going for the cash this time (and didn't we have a donation push just a while back?) - unless he's worried about someone pulling a plug somewhere. This partly looks like a propaganda campaign to me. Either way, I reckon he's a worried man. He must know the flak he will get. I mean, apart from all the bullshit, asking for £100, £50, £30 or £20? Pound sterling for Christ's sake? Has he been over here lately? And "If you value Wikipedia as a source of information – and a source of inspiration – I hope you’ll choose to act right now." - it's a bit damn pushy.

And what are the "activities in the.. UK"? The bloody dodgy-as-Hell nationalistic 'Chapters', that's what. "It's proof of our collective potential to change the world."

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 12:31pm) *

I can't quite believe he's simply going for the cash this time (and didn't we have a donation push just a while back?)

You must be new to Wikipedia. There was indeed a donation push a while back -- one year ago. And the year before that. And the one before that.

It started a couple of weeks early this year, I think. But nothing really earthshattering to see this now. Really, I view it as the standard fare. Why do you seem so perplexed about it?

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 12th November 2010, 6:01pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 12:31pm) *

I can't quite believe he's simply going for the cash this time (and didn't we have a donation push just a while back?)

You must be new to Wikipedia. There was indeed a donation push a while back -- one year ago. And the year before that. And the one before that.

It started a couple of weeks early this year, I think. But nothing really earthshattering to see this now. Really, I view it as the standard fare. Why do you seem so perplexed about it?


The size of the Watchlist advert caught my eye initially - it's huge. And the photoshoot I suppose. And of course the 'Big Project' language - though I haven't perhaps examined all that to quite such a degree in previous pushes (I've been on and off WP for a few years). I can't ever remembering him ask for a hundred quid for sure - even when it wasn't such a rude sum to people. He may as well ask for a grand right now over here they way people are feeling right now. The Conservative Party HQ in London was bust into and taken over by students the other day. Why's he aiming so high? It's interesting that the dollar amounts in his text are a fraction of the sterling figures in the UK donation box. But is clueless when it comes to the UK anyway, I'll concede that.

You say it started earlier this year - is it more of a sustained one this year, or has he suddenly decided to up the anti mid-campaign? It looks to me like he's suddenly changed tack and gone for a bigger hit. Perhaps that creased blue shirt is telling after all?

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 6:27pm) *
You say it started earlier this year - is it more of a sustained one this year, or has he suddenly decided to up the anti mid-campaign? It looks to me like he's suddenly changed tack and gone for a bigger hit.

The Foundation's plan is to go for $16 million this time around, up from $10.6 million last year, $7.4 million the year before that, and $4.6 million the year before that. This isn't exactly hugely groundbreaking news.

As far as size of banner ads go, this doesn't look that much bigger than usual. Perhaps it is the increased use of images, or using the Jimmy banner ads earlier? In years past, they haven't run the Jimmy banner ad + letter until later in the fundraising drive, even though it generally does much better than any other banner. Perhaps they are trying a different tactic this year, now that they are aiming for a ~50% increase in revenue?

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 12th November 2010, 2:28pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 6:27pm) *
You say it started earlier this year - is it more of a sustained one this year, or has he suddenly decided to up the anti mid-campaign? It looks to me like he's suddenly changed tack and gone for a bigger hit.

The Foundation's plan is to go for $16 million this time around, up from $10.6 million last year, $7.4 million the year before that, and $4.6 million the year before that. This isn't exactly hugely groundbreaking news.

As far as size of banner ads go, this doesn't look that much bigger than usual. Perhaps it is the increased use of images, or using the Jimmy banner ads earlier? In years past, they haven't run the Jimmy banner ad + letter until later in the fundraising drive, even though it generally does much better than any other banner. Perhaps they are trying a different tactic this year, now that they are aiming for a ~50% increase in revenue?

The more money they collect, the more attractive Wiki media org is to sue and the more likely Wiki media org will be sued.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Fri 12th November 2010, 8:41pm) *
The money they collect, the more attractive Wiki media org is to sue and the more likely Wiki media org will be sued.

Probably true.

Just out of curiosity, the money the WMF has on hand at any given time ranges from what to what, 2 to 10 million? More? Less?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 12th November 2010, 1:28pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 6:27pm) *
You say it started earlier this year - is it more of a sustained one this year, or has he suddenly decided to up the anti mid-campaign? It looks to me like he's suddenly changed tack and gone for a bigger hit.

The Foundation's plan is to go for $16 million this time around, up from $10.6 million last year, $7.4 million the year before that, and $4.6 million the year before that. This isn't exactly hugely groundbreaking news.

As far as size of banner ads go, this doesn't look that much bigger than usual. Perhaps it is the increased use of images, or using the Jimmy banner ads earlier? In years past, they haven't run the Jimmy banner ad + letter until later in the fundraising drive, even though it generally does much better than any other banner. Perhaps they are trying a different tactic this year, now that they are aiming for a ~50% increase in revenue?

If YOU were constructing a Banner Ad, would you have nothing but some background and Jimbo's beautific face on it? blink.gif

How about a line or two of text meant to hook the reader and drive them to click on the thing to read the rest and see what it says?

When several years ago the Wikipedia Foundation found that its new Chief Operating Officer had just been arrested again for a drunk driving offence that wasn't her first, and that she'd used her foundation credit card without permission to make bail on a weekend before hurredly paying the money back, we were concerned. Also, she violated a previous parole by going to Wikimedia in Europe. As The Sole Founder of Wikipedia, I had moral concerns that ranged across the project, particularly as people were trying to get this information into her biography on Wikipedia. It was all a matter of integrity. What would I do?

[Click for a personal donation appeal from Jimmy Wales...]

Damn, that would reel 'em in. I could write this stuff for them. But would they ask me? Nah. hrmph.gif

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 12th November 2010, 8:28pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 6:27pm) *
You say it started earlier this year - is it more of a sustained one this year, or has he suddenly decided to up the anti mid-campaign? It looks to me like he's suddenly changed tack and gone for a bigger hit.

The Foundation's plan is to go for $16 million this time around, up from $10.6 million last year, $7.4 million the year before that, and $4.6 million the year before that. This isn't exactly hugely groundbreaking news.

As far as size of banner ads go, this doesn't look that much bigger than usual. Perhaps it is the increased use of images, or using the Jimmy banner ads earlier? In years past, they haven't run the Jimmy banner ad + letter until later in the fundraising drive, even though it generally does much better than any other banner. Perhaps they are trying a different tactic this year, now that they are aiming for a ~50% increase in revenue?


But why do they need such an increase? Don't they have a tidy nest egg anyway? What they are asking for from the UK is crazy money right now (and a lot anyway - do the dollar conversion). There is the philosophy of aiming high, but it looks ignorant, greedy, and frankly, needy.

There's no question the adverts have got slicker this year - I wish I could copy the adds and post them here. I've seen 3 now - the blue-eyed 'trust me' close-up, the casual bank manager in the bright blue shirt, and the down an dirty 'loading bay' style snap (still posey and casual). They are tall adds to get those images in. It's a politician's slickness, and I've not seen him go for the personality cult so obviously before.

These are as slick as car ads.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

More surprisingly — why does someone going under the moniker of “powercorrupts” even have to ask these questions?

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 10:27pm) *

There's no question the adverts have got slicker this year - I wish I could copy the adds and post them here. I've seen 3 now - the blue-eyed 'trust me' close-up, the casual bank manager in the bright blue shirt, and the down an dirty 'loading bay' style snap (still posey and casual). They are tall adds to get those images in. It's a politician's slickness, and I've not seen him go for the personality cult so obviously before.

These are as slick as car ads.

The full set to be used in this campaign are http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2010_Fundraiser_Banners. I agree that compared to the risible http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Website_Design#Sample_Banners_.282d_round.29 drive last year, this is at a whole new level.

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 12th November 2010, 9:34pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 10:27pm) *

There's no question the adverts have got slicker this year - I wish I could copy the adds and post them here. I've seen 3 now - the blue-eyed 'trust me' close-up, the casual bank manager in the bright blue shirt, and the down an dirty 'loading bay' style snap (still posey and casual). They are tall adds to get those images in. It's a politician's slickness, and I've not seen him go for the personality cult so obviously before.

These are as slick as car ads.

The full set to be used in this campaign are http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2010_Fundraiser_Banners. I agree that compared to the risible http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Website_Design#Sample_Banners_.282d_round.29 drive last year, this is at a whole new level.


None of them are in those 39 - believe it or not, they are even slicker than those. I'll see if I can do a screen grab and host them on that site (I've forgotten which it is now). I'm guessing that these are just targetting the UK at the moment.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Nah, the fundraiser is on worldwide, they just have national-specific message depending on where your IP geolocates to. I've already been glurged two or three times by the handful of Wikifaithful I still allow to remain on my Facebook friends list.

It looks like Jimmy may yet get his castle.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 12th November 2010, 9:44pm) *

Nah, the fundraiser is on worldwide, they just have national-specific message depending on where your IP geolocates to. I've already been glurged two or three times by the handful of Wikifaithful I still allow to remain on my Facebook friends list.

It looks like Jimmy may yet get his castle.


I just tried it through Germany, the UK and the US.
The banner was turned off in the UK.

They're using http://geoiplookup.wikimedia.org/ to determine your location. Clicking on that link will return your supposed city, country, latitude, longitude, IP address and netmask.

If you want to get rid of the banner, block
meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BannerLoader*


Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 12th November 2010, 9:44pm) *

Nah, the fundraiser is on worldwide, they just have national-specific message depending on where your IP geolocates to. I've already been glurged two or three times by the handful of Wikifaithful I still allow to remain on my Facebook friends list.

It looks like Jimmy may yet get his castle.


So what kind of money are they asking from the US? Does it start around $160 USD?


Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE
But why do they need such an increase? Don't they have a tidy nest egg anyway?

Hell if I know. Server space costs, I think about 30% of the WMF's annual budget these days. Greg Kohs could probably tell you more.

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 10:20pm) *
So what kind of money are they asking from the US? Does it start around $160 USD?

Same as for you, except in dollars. The money might be funneled through Wikimedia UK, and I think they get a cut for their GLAM Wiki events and suh.

Posted by: powercorrupts

Image

Image

Image



Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 4:20pm) *
So what kind of money are they asking from the US? Does it start around $160 USD?
I've no idea. I don't read their twaddle.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 11:48pm) *
<images>


Is that a very old version of Firefox, or just some strange skin?

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 12th November 2010, 10:37pm) *

QUOTE
But why do they need such an increase? Don't they have a tidy nest egg anyway?

Hell if I know. Server space costs, I think about 30% of the WMF's annual budget these days. Greg Kohs could probably tell you more.

I was wrong. http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=24 is the WMF's budget plan for July 2010-June 2011.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2010&oldid=2202922#Can_the_banners_be_shrunk_any.3F

I don't want to hide this year's banners, but they are so large they are pushing all the content further down the page so that it takes a conscious scrolling effort to get to the stuff I actually want to read. Perhaps it is the point for them to be so large, but could the banners be just a tad smaller? Lexicografía 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The banners will be smaller as we get a little closer to our goal. I recognize that they are large, but we have an ambitious goal to reach! --http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dgultekin 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the explanation, http://twitter.com/denizgultekin! In honor of your effort, I propose that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DGultekin_april_2010_wikimedia_03_10_201.jpg be adorned with one thousand white penises from the collection at commons and be distributed randomly about the internet.
Image

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE
The banners will be smaller as we get a little closer to our goal. I recognize that they are large, but we have an ambitious goal to reach! --http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dgultekin 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)



Posted by: Somey

If any post ever deserved to be featured on the top of the home page, it's that one.

laugh.gif

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 13th November 2010, 1:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 11:48pm) *
<images>


Is that a very old version of Firefox, or just some strange skin?


It's the latest Firefox without a skin. I think they expect you to use one these days.

Posted by: Peter Damian

The plan is here

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf

It's important to concentrate on the absolute numbers rather than percentages, as percentages disguise the high level of dollar increases. The main increases are on slide 30.

There is an increase of $3.8m to fund a new datacentre. $2.6m for 'other staffing and stakeholder database' - what on earth is this? $1.3m for 'additional office space and support staff'. $1.1m for 'community outreach' - mostly travel expense. A million dollars for travel expenses? $400k for 'chapter development'. Chapters are essentially organisations of cultists in different countries.

Why are people donating money for this? How is this going to bring the sum of human knowledge to everyone on the planet? Why don't they spend some money on correcting the distortions and errors in their encyclopedia?

There's another page of this but I gave up. Page 44 has the total breakdown - is there any way of copying tables onto this site? For 91 staff the total salary of about $9m comes to about $100k per staff. Does US salary cost include employer contributions to pension, health and tax? Typically you would have to subtract 10-20% to get the actual salary received. And the average tells us nothing about the distribution. What was the lowest paid? What was the highest?

Note this does not include $2m on 'exernal contractors'. Developers? Consultants?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 12th November 2010, 9:18pm) *

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 12th November 2010, 10:37pm) *

QUOTE
But why do they need such an increase? Don't they have a tidy nest egg anyway?

Hell if I know. Server space costs, I think about 30% of the WMF's annual budget these days. Greg Kohs could probably tell you more.

I was wrong. http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=24 is the WMF's budget plan for July 2010-June 2011.

Does "technology" only mean server space, or does it include Jimbo's smartphone? laugh.gif

Posted by: thekohser

Just to clear up about the earlier concern about how much money the donation pages "suggested" you contribute... those were being varied, to test which brought in the best take-rate by average amount donated. (Imagine that, they actually implemented some optimization research.)

Rand Montoya should have been doing that last year. Then he left the WMF. If you read between the lines, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=396514918#fund_raising that they weren't so pleased with Rand's performance.

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 6:48pm) *

Image

Image

Image


LOLOLOL WUTS WITH THE PICTURE OF RLEVSE??????????

I THOT HE TOOK ALL HIS DOX DOWN????????

UR BAD!

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 13th November 2010, 12:04am) *

QUOTE
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2010&oldid=2202922#Can_the_banners_be_shrunk_any.3F

I don't want to hide this year's banners, but they are so large they are pushing all the content further down the page so that it takes a conscious scrolling effort to get to the stuff I actually want to read. Perhaps it is the point for them to be so large, but could the banners be just a tad smaller? Lexicografía 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The banners will be smaller as we get a little closer to our goal. I recognize that they are large, but we have an ambitious goal to reach! --http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dgultekin 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the explanation, http://twitter.com/denizgultekin! In honor of your effort, I propose that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DGultekin_april_2010_wikimedia_03_10_201.jpg be adorned with one thousand white penises from the collection at commons and be distributed randomly about the internet.
Image



she is not very hot and, unfortunately for her, i do not wish to date her. i like that other lady with the red hair, i forget her name, but she is married to some creep from australia

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 13th November 2010, 12:15pm) *

The plan is here

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf

It's important to concentrate on the absolute numbers rather than percentages, as percentages disguise the high level of dollar increases. The main increases are on slide 30.

There is an increase of $3.8m to fund a new datacentre. $2.6m for 'other staffing and stakeholder database' - what on earth is this? $1.3m for 'additional office space and support staff'. $1.1m for 'community outreach' - mostly travel expense. A million dollars for travel expenses? $400k for 'chapter development'. Chapters are essentially organisations of cultists in different countries.

Why are people donating money for this? How is this going to bring the sum of human knowledge to everyone on the planet? Why don't they spend some money on correcting the distortions and errors in their encyclopedia?

There's another page of this but I gave up. Page 44 has the total breakdown - is there any way of copying tables onto this site? For 91 staff the total salary of about $9m comes to about $100k per staff. Does US salary cost include employer contributions to pension, health and tax? Typically you would have to subtract 10-20% to get the actual salary received. And the average tells us nothing about the distribution. What was the lowest paid? What was the highest?

Note this does not include $2m on 'exernal contractors'. Developers? Consultants?


Image

Image

Image

Image

Who ever heard of a Total given as a division of 1,000, honestly. They must be embarrassed by their (predicted) riches.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 13th November 2010, 10:08pm) *

Who ever heard of a Total given as a division of 1,000, honestly.


*http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ANSW*

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Obesity @ Sat 13th November 2010, 3:21pm) *


LOLOLOL WUTS WITH THE PICTURE OF RLEVSE??????????

I THOT HE TOOK ALL HIS DOX DOWN????????

UR BAD!



Picture re-used, with a special thanks to Rlevse.

Image

Is that you in the middle?

Posted by: Gruntled

QUOTE(Obesity @ Sat 13th November 2010, 3:21pm) *

she is not very hot and, unfortunately for her, i do not wish to date her

Oh! Someone hide this quick before the poor girl sees it and dies of a broken heart or something!
QUOTE
i like that other lady with the red hair

This gets worse. We have a Moulton sympathiser. ohmy.gif

Posted by: The Wordsmith

I'll just leave these here...

Image


Image

Posted by: powercorrupts

Is he asking for different money from different places?

I hope he isn't just changing the monetary symbols. I read somewhere he wants $150, $50, $20 etc (same as sterling). Those figures aint the same in UK money.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 17th November 2010, 6:56am) *

Is he asking for different money from different places?

I hope he isn't just changing the monetary symbols. I read somewhere he wants $150, $50, $20 etc (same as sterling). Those figures aint the same in UK money.

Maybe we should all donate 20 yen. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Crestatus

QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 12th November 2010, 6:19pm) *

They're using http://geoiplookup.wikimedia.org/ to determine your location. Clicking on that link will return your supposed city, country, latitude, longitude, IP address and netmask.



They have me 4.4 miles away from where I actually am, in the next city over. biggrin.gif

Posted by: powercorrupts

Campaign stage three, I think, of the extra push;

Image

Image

Image

Posted by: WikiWatch

Jimmy Wales appeal is now an iTunes download:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-appeal/id405852286?i=405852287&ign-mpt=uo%3D4


Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 13th November 2010, 1:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 11:48pm) *
<images>


Is that a very old version of Firefox, or just some strange skin?

Yeah, I think it's called Vector. sick.gif

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 27th November 2010, 10:18am) *

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 13th November 2010, 1:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 11:48pm) *
<images>


Is that a very old version of Firefox, or just some strange skin?

Yeah, I think it's called Vector. sick.gif


I don't want people seeing my backdrop thank you very much.

Posted by: thekohser



Cute video -- but even better commentary at the end... and in his Comments box.

Posted by: Tarc

Speaking of personal appeals, who the hell is this "Kartika" that is on the latest banner? There is a User:Kartika (T-H-L-K-D) that was just deleted, presumably an imposter took the unused username. If so, why is there no connection made to the girl and the actual account she loves to edit with? Certainly such a fan should love the ensuing adulation.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 9:29am) *

Speaking of personal appeals, who the hell is this "Kartika" that is on the latest banner? There is a User:Kartika (T-H-L-K-D) that was just deleted, presumably an imposter took the unused username. If so, why is there no connection made to the girl and the actual account she loves to edit with? Certainly such a fan should love the ensuing adulation.


That would be stalking and harassment, according to the Wikipediot Law.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 12th November 2010, 12:31pm) *

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/GB&utm_source=2010_JA1_Banner2&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fridayOpening&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGene_Kelly_filmography


Personally, he doesn't appeal to me. yecch.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 9:58am) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 9:29am) *

Speaking of personal appeals, who the hell is this "Kartika" that is on the latest banner? There is a User:Kartika (T-H-L-K-D) that was just deleted, presumably an imposter took the unused username. If so, why is there no connection made to the girl and the actual account she loves to edit with? Certainly such a fan should love the ensuing adulation.


That would be stalking and harassment, according to the Wikipediot Law.


I http://stats.grok.se/en/201011/User%3AKartika -- 230 stalkers are snooping on her now.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 5:14pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 9:58am) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 9:29am) *

Speaking of personal appeals, who the hell is this "Kartika" that is on the latest banner? There is a User:Kartika (T-H-L-K-D) that was just deleted, presumably an imposter took the unused username. If so, why is there no connection made to the girl and the actual account she loves to edit with? Certainly such a fan should love the ensuing adulation.


That would be stalking and harassment, according to the Wikipediot Law.


I http://stats.grok.se/en/201011/User%3AKartika -- 230 stalkers are snooping on her now.

Does that only happen to the female personal appealers?

I can't imagine the foundation people didn't realize the inevitability of that. I wonder if the young ladies were warned.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 6:28pm) *

Does that only happen to the female personal appealers?

I can't imagine the foundation people didn't realize the inevitability of that. I wonder if the young ladies were warned.


Another http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/User%3ALilaroja on the more hot one.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 2nd December 2010, 5:28pm) *
I can't imagine the foundation people didn't realize the inevitability of that. I wonder if the young ladies were warned.
Of course not. There is no need to warn Wikipedians of the risks of editing Wikipedia. Besides, Wikipedia policy prohibits harassing editors or making any effort to identify the real identity of an anonymous editor, so of course it won't happen.

Posted by: powercorrupts

I'm not getting these latest banners where I am. Can someone post screen grabs?

Posted by: thekohser

We'll want to http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/User%3AAbbas for the next 24 to 48 hours, to see how much stalking goes on when the WMF puts its one token black guy, "Abbas", in front of millions of banner readers.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 3rd December 2010, 1:36pm) *

I'm not getting these latest banners where I am. Can someone post screen grabs?


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 3rd December 2010, 1:36pm) *

I'm not getting these latest banners where I am. Can someone post screen grabs?


Thanks but I wish I didn't ask sick.gif It's like the beginning of the apalling Independence Day - fondent-box multinational harmony. Or one of the seriously ill-judged Microsoft "I'm a PC" ads we get in the UK. Funny how the baby was looking at a book - if it was a laptop screen (and hense WIkipedia) kiddy porn would instantly come to mind.

Posted by: thekohser

Dad and baby is none other than Sage Ross, Wikimedia Foundation staff member.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 4th December 2010, 2:41am) *

Dad and baby is none other than Sage Ross, Wikimedia Foundation staff member.



"Author" must be a word they reserve for fundraisers.

Posted by: Versa

There is now a Google Chrome extension that: "Adds a nice Wikipedia donation banner to every single web page."

http://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjkdkiimioljbloddpl




Comments:
rubyruy17 hours ago
The most innovative addition to web technologies since HTML4

anonymous18 hours ago
brilliant

Winter18 hours ago
I got my Jimmy Wales web page ad extension. Woot!

MrBillyWhite1 day ago
This is brilliant. On websites where it looks a little out of place, though, it'd be nice to have a little button to close the "ad".

anonymous1 day ago
This is the best thing since sliced toast

AIand01 day ago
DàI!


Epic @white_eagle: As Web 3.0 as it gets!

anonymous1 day ago
cancer.

anonymous1 day ago
lol. rated 5 cuz i'm p sure this is a joke. love wiki but i'm sick of seeing jimmy wales' face everywhere.


Posted by: thekohser

I don't want to speak too soon, but this year's fundraiser (recall in past years, the "Jimmy Wales appeal" is reserved for the home stretch) could be the textbook case of "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics" too early.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 6th December 2010, 1:30pm) *
I don't want to speak too soon, but this year's fundraiser (recall in past years, the "Jimmy Wales appeal" is reserved for the home stretch) could be the textbook case of "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics" too early.

So, the total take is running behind last year's. (Good.)

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 6th December 2010, 9:30pm) *

I don't want to speak too soon, but this year's fundraiser (recall in past years, the "Jimmy Wales appeal" is reserved for the home stretch) could be the textbook case of "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics" too early.


Apparently in Sweden you can get arrested for that.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 6th December 2010, 9:30pm) *

I don't want to speak too soon, but this year's fundraiser (recall in past years, the "Jimmy Wales appeal" is reserved for the home stretch) could be the textbook case of "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics" too early.

All jizzed up and nowhere to go.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 6th December 2010, 4:30pm) *

I don't want to speak too soon, but this year's fundraiser (recall in past years, the "Jimmy Wales appeal" is reserved for the home stretch) could be the textbook case of "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics" too early.

Yesterday (Day 26 of the campaign) was the lowest revenue yet, less than half of the previous day's intake.

With about 40% of the campaign calendar gone, and only about 41% of the target level met ($16 million in "small" contributions), and the big punch of Jimbo's appeal already shot, it looks very likely (unless the WMF and Beaudette have a secret weapon up their sleeve -- Silvia Saint?) that the fundraising campaign is going to come up very, very short. Perhaps $6 million short.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th December 2010, 1:41pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 6th December 2010, 4:30pm) *

I don't want to speak too soon, but this year's fundraiser (recall in past years, the "Jimmy Wales appeal" is reserved for the home stretch) could be the textbook case of "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics" too early.

Yesterday (Day 26 of the campaign) was the lowest revenue yet, less than half of the previous day's intake.

With about 40% of the campaign calendar gone, and only about 41% of the target level met ($16 million in "small" contributions), and the big punch of Jimbo's appeal already shot, it looks very likely (unless the WMF and Beaudette have a secret weapon up their sleeve -- Silvia Saint?) that the fundraising campaign is going to come up very, very short. Perhaps $6 million short.

The question is: will that be interpreted to mean that Jimmy is their only hope (Jimbo-juice glass half full), or that Jimmy's appeal only goes so far and might actually repel others (Jimbo-juice glass half empty)?

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 4th December 2010, 2:41am) *

Dad and baby is none other than Sage Ross, Wikimedia Foundation staff member.

Does he look awfully young, or am I just getting awfully old?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th December 2010, 1:41pm) *

Yesterday (Day 26 of the campaign) was the lowest revenue yet, less than half of the previous day's intake.

Apparently, the WMF tricked me into making a mistake. They post partial daily data, as the day progresses. So, when I looked at Day 26, it was much worse that how it ended up at the end of the day. It still doesn't look good for the WMF. I'm predicting that by January 5, they'll be at a cumulative total of $9.5 million, which will be well below their goal.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 8th December 2010, 9:51am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th December 2010, 1:41pm) *

Yesterday (Day 26 of the campaign) was the lowest revenue yet, less than half of the previous day's intake.

Apparently, the WMF tricked me into making a mistake. They post partial daily data, as the day progresses. So, when I looked at Day 26, it was much worse that how it ended up at the end of the day. It still doesn't look good for the WMF. I'm predicting that by January 5, they'll be at a cumulative total of $9.5 million, which will be well below their goal.

The downward trend is still quite strong though. If they don't hit the goal in time, do they just keep putting more banners up? What if they don't hit it by next November?

Today it's http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFSG008/en/US?utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=20101209SA002&utm_source=20101208_SA001H_US&country_code=US gracing the top of my watchlist.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 9th December 2010, 12:17pm) *

Today it's http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFSG008/en/US?utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=20101209SA002&utm_source=20101208_SA001H_US&country_code=US gracing the top of my watchlist.

I kinda liked the previous babe, who had an appealingly open smile and was easy on the eyes. Now I'm afraid to log on.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 9th December 2010, 7:17pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 8th December 2010, 9:51am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th December 2010, 1:41pm) *

Yesterday (Day 26 of the campaign) was the lowest revenue yet, less than half of the previous day's intake.

Apparently, the WMF tricked me into making a mistake. They post partial daily data, as the day progresses. So, when I looked at Day 26, it was much worse that how it ended up at the end of the day. It still doesn't look good for the WMF. I'm predicting that by January 5, they'll be at a cumulative total of $9.5 million, which will be well below their goal.

The downward trend is still quite strong though. If they don't hit the goal in time, do they just keep putting more banners up?


Hasn't it been common for them to not reach their goal? I seem to remember there being a few messages about "oh my god we're not going to reach our goal what are we going to do" a number of years.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(anthony @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:05am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 9th December 2010, 7:17pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 8th December 2010, 9:51am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th December 2010, 1:41pm) *

Yesterday (Day 26 of the campaign) was the lowest revenue yet, less than half of the previous day's intake.

Apparently, the WMF tricked me into making a mistake. They post partial daily data, as the day progresses. So, when I looked at Day 26, it was much worse that how it ended up at the end of the day. It still doesn't look good for the WMF. I'm predicting that by January 5, they'll be at a cumulative total of $9.5 million, which will be well below their goal.

The downward trend is still quite strong though. If they don't hit the goal in time, do they just keep putting more banners up?


Hasn't it been common for them to not reach their goal? I seem to remember there being a few messages about "oh my god we're not going to reach our goal what are we going to do" a number of years.

Not really sure about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a big uptick round around Christmas and then also the last few days before New Year's when people are like "wait, I still have tax deductions I can make this year." Is a graph of last year's donation history up?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Thu 9th December 2010, 9:58pm) *

Not really sure about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a big uptick round around Christmas and then also the last few days before New Year's when people are like "wait, I still have tax deductions I can make this year." Is a graph of last year's donation history up?

Nuke, I already http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics out.

In previous years, there have been panics -- but then Jimbo Claus came and saved the day. They would save their Jimbo shot for the end, right around Christmas. This year, they blew it early, and my how the blogosphere made fun of the self-important Jimbo.

Looks like "Wikipedia Executive Director" Sue Gardner and her thermometer earned an extra $40,000 to $42,000 over what would have been the expected $103,000 today.

Posted by: Basil

It http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing that those fools who donate to Wikipedia prefer to click on Jimmy's face rather than press on the hotties.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Basil @ Fri 10th December 2010, 4:00am) *

It http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing that those fools who donate to Wikipedia prefer to click on Jimmy's face rather than press on the hotties.


It seems that the fools who set up the testing statistics don't know what "Donations/Clicks" means, mathematically.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Basil @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:00am) *

It http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing that those fools who donate to Wikipedia prefer to click on Jimmy's face rather than press on the hotties.
I'm a latecomer to this thread, but has it been noted that Uncyclopedia has good satires of the banners?

Posted by: thekohser

It seems that the WMF is starting to realize they're not going to make it to their goal. At least not in 2010. Jimbo's appeal is now marked "urgent". And, he's heaping on the bullshit heavier than ever:

QUOTE
I'm a volunteer.

I don't get paid a cent for my work at Wikipedia, and neither do our thousands of other volunteer authors and editors. When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners, but I decided to do something different.

Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others. It is a unique human project, the first of its kind in history. It is a humanitarian project to bring a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet.

Every single person.

If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users would donate $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need. We're a small organization, and I've worked hard over the years to keep us lean and tight. We fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others.

To do this without resorting to advertising, we need you. It is you who keep this dream alive. It is you who have created Wikipedia. It is you who believe that a place of calm reflection and learning is worth having.

This year, please consider making a donation of $20, $35, $50 or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Well, he's right about leaving waste to others.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

Seen this before, on nonprofit community radio.
From now on, they'll be just like NPR or Pacifica radio stations--constantly
(and I mean constantly) begging for donations, while never meeting
their artificially inflated "requirements".

Unlike radio stations, websites like Wikipedia are totally ephemeral. A radio
station has a transmitter, a studio, and a listenership, the latter of which grows
as years go by. Campus stations also have the support of their institution, and
usually serve as training facilities for the school's broadcast majors.
What is Wikipedia, a rented office and a bunch of servers in a colocation shop?
Wikipedia could disappear tomorrow, and be totally forgotten by all but a few
fanatics within a few months.

And Google is their primary "supporting affiliate"? I would not trust Google to
deliver a pizza across town. Google is the world's largest, greediest, and most
self-serving advertising company. They are just very, very good at covering up
their slimy tricks. If they turn their back on Wikipedia, say bye-bye, kiddies.

Will Google someday become "http://www.antezeta.com/blog/teoma-is-back" anyway?
It's happened before. Remember how big webrings were, ten years ago?
Remember how popular Geocities, Tripod, and Angelfire were?
Now, all are rapidly fading memories. Even AOL, once the biggest ISP in
the world, is slowly fading out of public consciousness.