Full Version: "Jimmy fatigue"
Even the Foundation recognizes "Jimmy fatigue" (page 13).
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 19th July 2011, 1:50pm) 
Mind just quoting the relevant part for us Greg?
(I assume I'm not the only one who doesn't particularly want to download a pdf full of hot air and wet dreams, which given the source it almost surely is....)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 19th July 2011, 5:58pm)
Mind just quoting the relevant part for us Greg?
QUOTE
The 2010 WMF fundraiser was our shortest and most successful to date, raising $15 million (up 72% from 2009's $8.7 million) in 50 days (25% fewer than 2009's 67 days). If you include the $6.5 million received by 12 chapters which acted as payment processors in 2010, the total raised by the movement was $21.5 million.
In 2010-11, the WMF refocused from a mixed revenue model towards a primary focus on the fundraiser. That paid off. Other revenue sources dropped by about a quarter, but community giving is up strongly. In part due to increased community involvement, (including experimentation with appeals from community members), the campaign was much less unpopular with the Wikimedia community than in the past.
That said, in 2010 we began to see indicators of banner and Jimmy fatigue expressed in mainstream and social media. We interpret this as a warning: we expect donations to continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
In 2010-11, the WMF refocused from a mixed revenue model towards a primary focus on the fundraiser. That paid off. Other revenue sources dropped by about a quarter, but community giving is up strongly. In part due to increased community involvement, (including experimentation with appeals from community members), the campaign was much less unpopular with the Wikimedia community than in the past.
That said, in 2010 we began to see indicators of banner and Jimmy fatigue expressed in mainstream and social media. We interpret this as a warning: we expect donations to continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
And that's nothing. Start reading at slide 17. Let me summarize:
QUOTE
1) Editor decline is an intractable problem.
2) Escalating movement tensions distract from program work.
3) Readership begins to flatten or decline.
4) External events distract from programmatic work.
5) Revenue targets are not met.
6) Revenue targets are met, but at the cost of significant goodwill.
7) Openness about editor decline makes the problem worse.
8) International expansion results in unacceptable legal risk.
9) A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff.
11) Wikimedia's ability to implement positive change is constrained by actual or perceived lack of community acceptance.
2) Escalating movement tensions distract from program work.
3) Readership begins to flatten or decline.
4) External events distract from programmatic work.
5) Revenue targets are not met.
6) Revenue targets are met, but at the cost of significant goodwill.
7) Openness about editor decline makes the problem worse.
8) International expansion results in unacceptable legal risk.
9) A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff.
11) Wikimedia's ability to implement positive change is constrained by actual or perceived lack of community acceptance.
Point 7 is absolutely right---they are learning to cover up statistics about new-editor decline, because it harms the thing's public image. And it's only getting started.
QUOTE
...in 2010 we began to see indicators of banner and Jimmy fatigue expressed in mainstream and social media. We interpret this as a warning: we expect donations to
continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
...continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
QUOTE
During the 2010 campaign, the Wikimedia Foundation began to
see the Jimmy appeals gently mocked by media and the general public. The
mockery was mostly affectionate but still: people's goodwill towards Wikipedia
is not unlimited, and the fundraiser is inherently annoying.
see the Jimmy appeals gently mocked by media and the general public. The
mockery was mostly affectionate but still: people's goodwill towards Wikipedia
is not unlimited, and the fundraiser is inherently annoying.
Translation: work out on your jimmy too much and you'll go blind.
Edit: Ninja'ed by EricBarbour.
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Wed 20th July 2011, 1:25am)
QUOTE
...in 2010 we began to see indicators of banner and Jimmy fatigue expressed in mainstream and social media. We interpret this as a warning: we expect donations to
continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
Can't the WMF simply vote to raise the Jimmy ceiling and allow higher levels of Jimmy for this fiscal period?
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 19th July 2011, 6:46pm)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Wed 20th July 2011, 1:25am)
QUOTE
...in 2010 we began to see indicators of banner and Jimmy fatigue expressed in mainstream and social media. We interpret this as a warning: we expect donations to
continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
continue strong growth, but a ceiling may be coming into view. And we will need to find alternatives to over-utilization of Jimmy, in order to preserve his appeal.
Can't the WMF simply vote to raise the Jimmy ceiling and allow higher levels of Jimmy for this fiscal period?
I believe that Jimmy and his mojo should be sealed in carbonite for future generations.
"A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff." What? There's a shortage of technical talent? Where? Around here technical talent is piling up in the streets begging for loose change (literally: there is a guy on Canal St. most mornings holding a sign that says "IT SPECIALIST OUT OF WORK NEED FOOD FOR MY TWO KIDS"). I suspect their hiring problems are not due to a shortage of talent in the market....
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 19th July 2011, 10:17pm)
"A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff." What? There's a shortage of technical talent? Where? Around here technical talent is piling up in the streets begging for loose change (literally: there is a guy on Canal St. most mornings holding a sign that says "IT SPECIALIST OUT OF WORK NEED FOOD FOR MY TWO KIDS"). I suspect their hiring problems are not due to a shortage of talent in the market....
Maybe it means "A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent not willing to work for a pittance hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff."?
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 19th July 2011, 7:52pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 19th July 2011, 10:17pm)
"A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff." What? There's a shortage of technical talent? Where? Around here technical talent is piling up in the streets begging for loose change (literally: there is a guy on Canal St. most mornings holding a sign that says "IT SPECIALIST OUT OF WORK NEED FOOD FOR MY TWO KIDS"). I suspect their hiring problems are not due to a shortage of talent in the market....
Maybe it means "A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent not willing to work for a pittance hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff."?
Well, it may not (yet) be quite true that The World is Flat, but IT is certainly where it's the closest to being flat. Exposure to competition from foreign wages with no hope of protective tariffs can be a very horrible thing.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 19th July 2011, 7:17pm)
"A shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent hurts our ability to recruit and retain technical staff." What? There's a shortage of technical talent? Where? Around here technical talent is piling up in the streets begging for loose change (literally: there is a guy on Canal St. most mornings holding a sign that says "IT SPECIALIST OUT OF WORK NEED FOOD FOR MY TWO KIDS"). I suspect their hiring problems are not due to a shortage of talent in the market....
I live in Silicon Valley, and yeah, ^^^^ this ^^^^
I know plenty of highly-skilled people who are out of work right now ....
Excuse me, but you have to remember that this presentation is one of those little "ohgodohgod
the sky is falling, you've got to give us more money to keep the servers up!!" monkey-shows
that Sue has to put on every year, to scare their large institutional donors into coughing up the green.
That is how she earns that $250k-plus salary.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the Sloan Foundation barfed up another $3 million recently.
the sky is falling, you've got to give us more money to keep the servers up!!" monkey-shows
that Sue has to put on every year, to scare their large institutional donors into coughing up the green.
That is how she earns that $250k-plus salary.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the Sloan Foundation barfed up another $3 million recently.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 19th July 2011, 11:30pm)
Excuse me, but you have to remember that this presentation is one of those little "ohgodohgod
the sky is falling, you've got to give us more money to keep the servers up!!" monkey-shows
that Sue has to put on every year, to scare their large institutional donors into coughing up the green.
That is how she earns that $250k-plus salary.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the Sloan Foundation barfed up another $3 million recently.
It's sad, isn't it? Wikipedia used to survive (and thrive) solely on the generous contributions of average people, not foundations or major grants. I remember when people would send what they could and not have to meet some arbitrary donation number. Wikipedia has gone from a hippie-ish, free culture, not-tied-down-by-the-"man", free-spirited community to one obsessed with money and image. The WMF for a non-profit is being too greedy. They need to cut back like everyone else.
How long before the WMF start accepting "educational grants" from corporations like Microsoft and Wal-Mart?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 19th July 2011, 11:30pm)
Excuse me, but you have to remember that this presentation is one of those little "ohgodohgod
the sky is falling, you've got to give us more money to keep the servers up!!" monkey-shows
that Sue has to put on every year, to scare their large institutional donors into coughing up the green.
That is how she earns that $250k-plus salary.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the Sloan Foundation barfed up another $3 million recently.
To be fair, I should correct two questionable interpretations of data here.
First, the WMF is actually scaling back the proportion of its funding that comes from large institutional donors. If anything, these "monkey-shows" are intended to rally the faithful, inspiring more small, individual donations.
Second, Sue's total annual compensation package has exceeded $240,000, but not $250,000.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.