|
|
|
Fundraising Survey (2009) |
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Get your comments in now! QUOTE (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_2009We 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 |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
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? QUOTE 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 |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
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 |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:19am) 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 |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
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 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th July 2009, 2:41pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |