Mailing List Archive

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and
> banner have been discussed:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fundraiser_Notice
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F>
>
> It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel.
>
> I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know
> that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not
> available
> on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the
> Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack
> Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the
> banner now.
>
> My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative,
> and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and
> previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at
> all.
> Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does
> not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by
> Danny Wool last spring.
>
> I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it
> expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of
> reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't know about others, but I've been disabling site notices for
a very very long time now. I've yet to ever read one that was ever
useful to me. I think that registered users should most certainly
have the ability to remove the banner entirely (and they can, via
simple additions to their personal stylesheets, or in the case of
enwiki, a gadget that does it for you).

I would even go so far as to say that anon users should be able
to remove it as well. We're about providing free content, not
shoving a donation banner in people's faces when they don't want
to see it. Even allowing anonymous users to hide it won't matter
much.

When a user sees it, one of two things will happen:
A) They will donate, then the message is no longer relevant
B) They aren't donating anyway, in which case they probably
don't want to see the message.

Just my 0.02USD.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
With all respect, on the English Wikipedia there is a gadget that allows
signed in users to disable the fund raising banner. So what is the issue ?

When people take an interest in what Mr Wool has to say, they should in my
opinion look into what Mr Wool says and how he says it. When he was to write
a Wikipedia article it would be deleted because of the negative and
extremely non-neutral point of view. I would invite the people who take Mr
Wool seriously to go to his blog and analyse his tone and his message. Once
this is done and they are still inclined not to support the WMF, I would
shrug and consider it their right to do as they please.

As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and
> banner have been discussed:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fundraiser_Notice
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F>
>
> It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel.
>
> I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know
> that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not
> available
> on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the
> Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack
> Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the
> banner now.
>
> My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative,
> and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and
> previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at
> all.
> Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does
> not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by
> Danny Wool last spring.
>
> I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it
> expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of
> reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hoi,
> With all respect, on the English Wikipedia there is a gadget that allows
> signed in users to disable the fund raising banner. So what is the issue ?
>
> When people take an interest in what Mr Wool has to say, they should in my
> opinion look into what Mr Wool says and how he says it. When he was to
> write
> a Wikipedia article it would be deleted because of the negative and
> extremely non-neutral point of view. I would invite the people who take Mr
> Wool seriously to go to his blog and analyse his tone and his message. Once
> this is done and they are still inclined not to support the WMF, I would
> shrug and consider it their right to do as they please.
>
> As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>

And what about anonymous users who donate? We should have to go to some
gadget to disable it - it should hide when hide is clicked.

I've never seen reactions this bad. If the WMF really expect to get as much
as they're hoping for, they really ought to do something about this.

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Al Tally <majorly.wiki@googlemail.com>wrote:

> We should have to go to some gadget to disable it - it should hide when
> hide is clicked.
>

Should have said "shouldn't"

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:

> As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>

But to this extend I have only seen it with the Virgin stuff. And yes,
it is ugly and certainly not very convincing to give money.


Bryan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>
> But to this extend I have only seen it with the Virgin stuff. And yes,
> it is ugly and certainly not very convincing to give money.
>

I can only assume you weren't around at the start of last year's
fundraiser when the scrolling marquee of death made people want to
storm the WMF with pitchforks and torches.

By comparison, the complaints this year seems tame.

That's not an excuse not to listen to editor complaints though. As
discussed at Meta, collapsing the thing should do more to surpress it
[1], and banner is somewhat bigger and more obnoxious than it needs to
be.

Fact remains though that it does seem to be generating substantially
more income than the early phase of last year's drive.

-Robert Rohde

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2008/design_drafts#Collapsed_version_needs_to_be_minimal

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it
> expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of
> reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?

Hm? Every previous one has had strongly negative reactions from some
contributors.

(I do not know for sure if this is better or worse but, for example,
to me it appears appears far less significant at this point compared
to the reaction at the time of the virgin unite thank-you.)

The general public is already banner-blind. I'm not aware of any
significant negative response from the general public to any of these
fundraisers.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hello,

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hm? Every previous one has had strongly negative reactions from some
> contributors.
>
> (I do not know for sure if this is better or worse but, for example,
> to me it appears appears far less significant at this point compared
> to the reaction at the time of the virgin unite thank-you.)

It seems to me the amount of discontentment is about the same as for
the previous fundraisers. On the French language Wikipedia, it even
seems to be lower than last year.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Bryan Tong Minh
> <bryan.tongminh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As to negative reactions to the fund raiser, they are a tradition.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>
>> But to this extend I have only seen it with the Virgin stuff. And yes,
>> it is ugly and certainly not very convincing to give money.
>>
>
> I can only assume you weren't around at the start of last year's
> fundraiser when the scrolling marquee of death made people want to
> storm the WMF with pitchforks and torches.

Forgot about that one. In that case it really is tradition :)


Bryan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gregory Maxwell writes:

> Hm? Every previous one has had strongly negative reactions from some
> contributors.
>
> (I do not know for sure if this is better or worse but, for example,
> to me it appears appears far less significant at this point compared
> to the reaction at the time of the virgin unite thank-you.)
>
> The general public is already banner-blind. I'm not aware of any
> significant negative response from the general public to any of these
> fundraisers.

My take is the same as Greg's, but let me add a little more. First,
it's always the case that there's a negative reaction to anything
instantiated as a banner. That's a given, like the tides. Second, the
thing to remember about the negative reactions you see is that there's
no reason to believe that they are representative of *general*
reaction, since they are statistically nonrandom (not least because
the impulse to offer criticism is greater than the impulse to offer
praise, and much greater than the impulse to offer the sentiment "I am
not bothered by this"). Third, the evidence we have suggests that we
are doing rather better on fundraising this year than last year.

This doesn't mean criticism should be ignored (and, believe me, it
isn't). But the sky isn't falling, and in fact things generally seem
to be going well in comparison to last year.


--Mike





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

As far as my own reactions go, I'm not terribly bothered. Yes, the banner
is visually irritating (I don't think it minimizes enough when you hide it),
but that's kinda the point. Annual pledge drives on public television
channels are irritating too, but that's the price of having PUBLIC
TELEVISION. Wikipedia is not Google, and I think the banners are a helpful
reminder to people of that.

Also, on a personal level, I wouldn't mind a personal option to turn them
off, but I think turning them off project-wide is insane. Wikipedia lives
on donations, therefore we must solicit donations. Suggesting that
Wikipedia could or should survive on the donations of people who think of it
first, without prompting, is unrealistic in the extreme. Wikipedia is a
charity; this is how charities behave.

Personally, I like having it there. I mean to donate before the year's out,
but I'm broke now. If that banner wasn't there I'd forget about it sooner
or later and then never donate.

David Moran
aka FMF


On 11/7/08, Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
> Gregory Maxwell writes:
>
> > Hm? Every previous one has had strongly negative reactions from some
> > contributors.
> >
> > (I do not know for sure if this is better or worse but, for example,
> > to me it appears appears far less significant at this point compared
> > to the reaction at the time of the virgin unite thank-you.)
> >
> > The general public is already banner-blind. I'm not aware of any
> > significant negative response from the general public to any of these
> > fundraisers.
>
> My take is the same as Greg's, but let me add a little more. First,
> it's always the case that there's a negative reaction to anything
> instantiated as a banner. That's a given, like the tides. Second, the
> thing to remember about the negative reactions you see is that there's
> no reason to believe that they are representative of *general*
> reaction, since they are statistically nonrandom (not least because
> the impulse to offer criticism is greater than the impulse to offer
> praise, and much greater than the impulse to offer the sentiment "I am
> not bothered by this"). Third, the evidence we have suggests that we
> are doing rather better on fundraising this year than last year.
>
> This doesn't mean criticism should be ignored (and, believe me, it
> isn't). But the sky isn't falling, and in fact things generally seem
> to be going well in comparison to last year.
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Rohde wrote:
> I can only assume you weren't around at the start of last year's
> fundraiser when the scrolling marquee of death made people want to
> storm the WMF with pitchforks and torches.
>
> By comparison, the complaints this year seems tame.

Indeed. Every fundraiser brings out a few pitchforks, sometimes because
of things we've done badly, but other times based on general principles.

At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or
collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user
preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.

--Jimbo



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:

> At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or
> collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user
> preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
>
> --Jimbo
>

Not for anonymous users though.

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Al Tally wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or
>> collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user
>> preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.

> Not for anonymous users though.

Can it be done with javascript and a cookie?

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> Al Tally wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or
>>> collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user
>>> preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
>
>> Not for anonymous users though.
>
> Can it be done with javascript and a cookie?

Yep, it's no longer unsafe to set cookies for anons.

Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep, it's no longer unsafe to set cookies for anons.
>
> Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
>

Anons may be the ones donating. And as someone said earlier, if they want to
donate, they'll click donate, and if they don't, they should have an option
of removing it so it's not interfering.

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/7 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:

> Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?

If it's a cookie, presumably that means it'll only be dismissed for
that reader (and anyone else on the same machine). If they've taken
the time to read the banner enough to see a [dismiss] button, they've
probably taken it in - after all, most of us don't scan banner ads for
"go away now" buttons normally!

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/7 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
>
>> Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
>
> If it's a cookie, presumably that means it'll only be dismissed for
> that reader (and anyone else on the same machine). If they've taken
> the time to read the banner enough to see a [dismiss] button, they've
> probably taken it in - after all, most of us don't scan banner ads for
> "go away now" buttons normally!

I dunno, with dismissible watchlist notices I often dismiss them then
wish I could get them back later. Perhaps I'm weird (though I also
know enough to flush the cookie).

I thought part of the point of the big persistent banner was that
after someone has seen it a few dozen times they'll eventually click
through to see what it's about. ::shrugs::

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/7 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
> I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it
> expected?

Yes - the fundraising banner always creates a strong, initial negative
reaction when it goes up.

Last year, we had dismissability for logged in users (which led to a
smaller version of the banner which still included a thermometer), and
no dismissability for users who are not logged in. This year, both
logged in and logged out users can collapse the banner to a smaller
version. Many Wikipedians have expressed annoyance at the size of the
collapsed version, especially because it includes a bright red button.

Several wikis now have a gadget in the user preferences to hide the
banner completely. The gadget instructions can be found here for those
who want to copy it to their wiki:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2008/design_drafts#Enable_the_gadget_in_smaller_wikis_too.2C_please.21

I've asked Rand to work with the technology team towards a
significantly smaller default collapsed version for logged in users
(e.g. just showing the current amount and a plain link to donate, plus
an expand link). But, in the absence of data showing whether or not
the current collapsed version incentivizes donations by repeat
viewers, we won't make it smaller for logged out users at this point.

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dunno, with dismissible watchlist notices I often dismiss them then
> wish I could get them back later. Perhaps I'm weird (though I also
> know enough to flush the cookie).
>
> I thought part of the point of the big persistent banner was that
> after someone has seen it a few dozen times they'll eventually click
> through to see what it's about. ::shrugs::

Sorry for the double post, there was another point I wanted to raise:

If we offer a dismiss then discover that it slaughters donation rates
what do we do? Restoring the notice a few days later would likely
offend people who dismissed it. In my experience the public is
totally fine with the banner that lacks a dismiss, but I expect they'd
be less fine with a dismiss button that ignored their request.

There is probably a solution to this that doesn't preclude offering
the dismiss button, but we should have it ready just in case.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
If they decide not to, and they can dismiss it only to a smaller banner,
there is guilt that may drive them to donate at a later moment. When they
are not reminded at all we have lost that opportunity.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/11/7 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
>
> > Though, Is it really desirable to make the message dismissible for anons?
>
> If it's a cookie, presumably that means it'll only be dismissed for
> that reader (and anyone else on the same machine). If they've taken
> the time to read the banner enough to see a [dismiss] button, they've
> probably taken it in - after all, most of us don't scan banner ads for
> "go away now" buttons normally!
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Al Tally wrote:
> I've never seen reactions this bad. If the WMF really expect to get as much
> as they're hoping for, they really ought to do something about this.

You clearly have never seen feedback about a Wikimedia fundraiser banner
before, then. :)

In fact, feedback has been extraordinarily good this year -- the only
complaints I'm seeing are that the banner's a bit big, the button's a
bit bright, and the collapsed version isn't small enough -- all easily
fixable matters of style.

The support we're getting is breathtakingly positive, with the first two
full days bringing in about $95,000 *each day* towards our operating budget:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics

As in previous years, actual contributors are very positive in their
comments:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionHistory

The banners are simple and clean. The pages are attractive and easy to
read. The process is straightforward. The response to the actual
fundraiser is *overwhelmingly* positive.

Allow time for the system to work; we're all listening, and the banners
will be adjusted and improved over time.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
CTO, Wikimedia Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkUpWgACgkQwRnhpk1wk47kYACeLsiVEg0JcVh/62pay7dKBmTO
Hz0An07MfjLcwCYJ8ljXTs6YDRTFeWWn
=Uayz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Al Tally wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> At the same time, I think the request that it be made dismissible or
>> collapsible are directly on target. Since the option exists in user
>> preferences, surely it can be exposed with only a little effort.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>>
>
> Not for anonymous users though.

It's already collapsable for anonymous users. The current collapsed view
is however still a bit large, which is why we've been discussing
slimming it down.

- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkUpdgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44mUQCg4FLP8RUEEu8iAv4hd6vldhHE
4+cAn0s+6O4FiAjvh+7Jpn1WaGx9VD3W
=n1M8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know
> that some projects have disabled the banner.

No, if they had disabled the banner for everyone, they would have been
reverted. It's not the local administrators' decision to hide the
site notice for everyone, including anonymous users. :-)

> It was for a time not available on the Spanish Wikipedia,

because we enabled it only on certain wikis at the beginning.

> and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the
> Russian Wikibooks.

because we haven't enabled it on the sister projects yet.

> A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack
> Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the
> banner now.
>

Yes, now all Wikipedia projects have the banner -- whether or not we
have translations of the text. If you know of a wiki that does not
have a translated site notice and would like to translate one, please
send them in my direction. :-)

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l