Jump to content

Fundraising 2010/Messages/Informative

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Navigation
ALL banners Newly submitted By Language Testing Queue Tested
By type
Mission Based Informative Technology Jimmy Appeal Traditional Fundraising
Testimonials Humor Chapter Specific By Geography
Project-specific
Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons Wiktionary Wikibooks Wikinews
Wikiquote Wikisource Wikiversity Wikispecies MediaWiki

Informative

[edit]

Newly Submitted Banner

[edit]


How does Wikipedia work?

Proposed by: User:GoEThe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Landing page could have a brief history of the site with the core politics, why it needs donation to keep running and a link to the donation page. GoEThe 08:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like the informative banners, but I agree that there's no way it could be fit into a readable landing page. Perhaps how is Wikipedia free? --Deniz (WMF) 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of something on the lines of the five pillars or the Wikimedia values. Short and to the point. But your suggestion would also work, I think. GoEThe 12:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nice idea, but the answer would be far too long and un-interesting for a donation landing page. Plus theres no mention of donating, supporting or sharing.Theo10011 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Where's the real "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Charity

[edit]


Wikipedia is run by a charity. Charities are run by money. Please donate now.

Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-14
Comments:
Might be an option to replace "money" with "you". Effeietsanders 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I like this one. But we have to replace "money" with "you". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this, but I second replacing money with you. To the point and informative.--dgultekin 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Love it. Gets non-profit point across. Renata3 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. +1, Till Mletzko. Ziko 14:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Something about 'donate now' is too urgent. I think 'donate today' is less imposing. Otherwise I like it as a direct appeal. Ocaasi 04:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like it, I think we should test it tomorrow as:
  7. Sometimes simple and direct is best. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charities run on money. --Cybercobra 04:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{SITENAME}} is run by a charity. Charities are run by you.
Please donate

Jalexander 04:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but "donate today" sounds better than plain old donate or donate now. NW (Talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Jalexander's with NWs suggestion I like. Also try with "Donations allowed" suggested as a banner on its own, a few down. See what the relative response is. Trev M


Creative commons

[edit]


Wikipedia is in the Creative Commons. This means it belongs to all of us.
Please edit, contribute, and keep it alive.

Proposed by: Doc James. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: yes.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Most people don't know what "Creative Commons" is and you can't explain it in a small banner --Church of emacs talk · contrib 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could change it to "public domain" However I have also explained it "This means it belongs to all of us" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the public domain. (At least, not most of it.) That it "belongs to all of us" doesn't explain CC well and is very vague. Air belongs to all of us, because it is a public good. Wikipedia is not.  fetchcomms☛ 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect "Creative Commons" is a trademark... Philippe (WMF) 01:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Commons is not a trademark. Yes agree "belongs to all of us" is more public domain than creative commons but the "commons" do belong to all of us as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure about that?  fetchcomms☛ 03:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I wouldn't use the word "edit" for something That is asking for donations. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maybe target this to non-logged in users, and link "edit" to Special:CreateAccount? Lexicografía 22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I love to see encouragement but afraid it's ambiguous. Does it "belong" to us? And who are we in this context? Wikipedia content does not for example belong to WMF, at least it has states for years afaik ("not publisher but internet provider logic"). --Aphaia 15:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No, Wikipedia != Creative Commons Chzz 03:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where your money goes

[edit]


↓ This is where your money goes ↓

Proposed by: Seb az86556. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Yep. Good art could make this really compelling. Philippe (WMF) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This could be misinterpreted that Wikipedia is written by a paid staff instead of volunteers. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of these three, I prefer the second one the most. Church's argument is good. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Could end up pointing to: "E. Midy proved a general result about such fractions, now called Midy's theorem, in 1836. The publication was obscure, and it is unclear if his proof directly involved 0.999..., but at least one modern proof by W. G. Leavitt does. If one can prove that MIDY IS A FAG of the form 0.b1b2b3... is a positive integer," —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandré du Toit (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 September 2010
  5. I love it. It conveys a very clear message - "your own money makes realize what you have now". --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What if the article is vandalized, spam, a one sentence stub or has other egregious problems? MER-C 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Too confusing. What about when I'm looking at an article on Médecins Sans Frontières? Effeietsanders 09:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's a good attempt, but I agree with others; it's rather a hostage to fortune... we could end up with those arrows pointing to stuff we wish they hadn't and find screenshots going viral that show, for example, [BANNER] above "prostitution" or "drug trafficking" or any evil you care to name. --Bodnotbod 11:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Good point Bodnotbod. That would be damning. Wiki has enough potholes to avoid without us providing the rope (mixed metaphor!). Ocaasi 20:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Good ... until it backfires, and somebody looks at an article with a myriad of issues (or perhaps saw something that is not in line with their beliefs). MuZemike 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very "to the point" though the wording sounds like your money may pop up on the screen... if only you could reach into your monitor and grab it! Also, let's hope that it doesn't appear above the pages about toilets or drains... particularly having those "down" arrows! LOL — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very straight I like it. KuwarOnline Talk 08:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I like all three of these, but my concern is the same as others': What if this banner appears over something negative (hate crime, persecution, homophobia, etc. etc.) and Wikipedia gets bashed because of it? Lexicografía 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Negative words accompanied - good point. So how about removing the arrow, but saying, e.g. "Wikipedia: where your money goes"? --Aphaia 06:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I believe that this is the best of the ones in this section. I might even bold the arrows. Sven Manguard 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This would be outstanding if we could make it not appear on certain pages– I could see this backfiring if a user saw this on the IRS page, just as an example. Nomader (Talk) 04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I like this and the related ones, but I also think they won't work (and will sound pretty odd) when displayed on controversial or bad written pages. Also, imagine it above such a page as "The Holocaust": not a pleasant match. User:Elitre
  17. Nice idea, but yes, we need to be very careful which pages it appears on. It wouldn't look too hot on en:toilet either :-S I think that, given the technical problems, this probably can't be used. If it was, it would have to be 'only on a certain set of articles checked' - probably most FA or GA would work, with a bit of careful removals. But it's probably too much hassle, sadly. Great idea, probably not feasible. Chzz 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of your donation

[edit]


↓ The result of your donation ↓

Proposed by: Seb az86556. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. good. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. See above. MER-C 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What if I'm looking at an article on holocaust? Effeietsanders 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Like others in the previous banner it can sound negative if looking at a negative page. If it could be placed only on the featured page then maybe. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. These kind of banners are a disaster waiting to happen. People will vandalize pages just to take funny screenshots of the arrows pointing toward something racist or stupid. Gigs 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The one directly above is better, more plain, more compelling. Sven Manguard 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I like this and the related ones, but I also think they won't work (and will sound pretty odd) when displayed on controversial or bad written pages. Also, imagine it above such a page as "The Holocaust": not a pleasant match. User:Elitre
  8. As above....
↓ The result of your donation ↓
Comunism
...and so on. Chzz 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You spelled Communism wrong, but I agree with the point. Although darkly humorous, it is not the type of scenario we want to portray. GHarshfield 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donation at Work

[edit]


↓ Your donation at work ↓

Proposed by: Seb az86556. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Out of the three I like this one the best. Not sure why. Anya 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this third one the best. It's more graceful than "The result of your donation." WillWatershed 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine, but a bit hard to translate I'm afraid. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise a very good point here, Aphaia. Maybe we should be clear that what we're asking for is not necessarily translation, but localization. If there are words that work more clearly to make the point, you should feel free to substitute them. Philippe (WMF) 15:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken, but then you give us in translation another headache. Last year we got complaints from translators who claimed the originally proposed phrases made no sense and sound rather ridiculous. Translation is a creative act, but translators are not PR staff. If they should take so too much time to coin a new phrase as to put aside other necessary works to do in a limited time, I'd rather give them a room to decline intransferrable. There would be many materials besides that. Again puns are not translated, you can just create something similar in its effect. In this case, I'd rather love to decline simply, if I were asked for Japanese: In Japanese its equivalent is literally "in construction" - and often showing agent is thought as simply rude and aggressive. "localization" of ideas are not simple, what you like could be disgusting in another context. If you think it seriously, I'd rather recommend you to do it not only in English, even at this stage. It takes a time to think out this kind of stuff. --Aphaia 06:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is perfectly ok for languages and projects to say "this just won't work here". Same reason we also want suggestions for specific banners that will only work (or are designed for) specific languages and projects. We may have a ton of campaigns running at once but are more then happy to do that. It would be preferred to NOT have a lot of just straight 'translation' requests for banners local specific banners are generally better. Jalexander 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. See above. MER-C 01:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Less dangerous, but still: what about when you're looking at an article on... Effeietsanders 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I really like the sound of this one. It's not implying positives or negatives toward the current article so much. Again, though, this slogan sounds like it would fit better on the main page only. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not the best in the series, the one two above is better. Sven Manguard 02:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like this and the related ones, but I also think they won't work (and will sound pretty odd) when displayed on controversial or bad written pages. Also, imagine it above such a page as "The Holocaust": not a pleasant match. User:Elitre
  9. Same problems as mentioned in previous. Also confusing text, sounds like I'm donating at work. Sorry. Chzz 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US v India

[edit]


It takes X seconds to load this page in the US.
It takes 10X seconds to load this page in India.
Make access to information truly equal.
Donate Now.

Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Hm, and that depends on the donated money? Maybe I didn't get it.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There would need to be some explanation on the landing page. The idea is that with more money we can do a more effective job with caching centers, things like that, to improve performance around the world. Philippe (WMF) 23:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I like it (it's better than references to kids in the developing world and so on), but I would use it only if it's actually in our annual plan. I thought that only Virginia data centre was. --Nemo 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the approximate truth of this, I think most people are unpersuaded by comparisons between haves and have-nots. More importantly, most users probably don't even know India has a Wiki. I think it's better to excite users about the expanding nature of the project, and to view places like India as unrealized growth rather than suffering laggards. Ocaasi 06:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time/volunteers

[edit]


In the time it took you to read this banner,
XXX volunteers made edits to Wikipedia.
Keep knowledge free for everyone.
Donate Now

Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:


Everyone Using

[edit]


If everyone using Wikipedia right this second gave $25, we'd have $XX,XXX,XXX.
That buys a lot of server space. Do your part with a $25 gift.

Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like where this one is going. Donors like to see their gift as part of a big total. Ocaasi 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maybe change "that buys a lot of server space", though. sonia 10:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's bad idea. There are many countres where 25$ for charity for one man are too many, and $XX,XXX,XXX will be reason not to take part of. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bad idea, since iirc WMF has said that server space is no big problem and no sole one for years. --Aphaia 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It can probably be effective to admonish folks that that small donations make a big difference, but I think it would need to be more succinct. ~ Ningauble 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Server space isn't nearly as inspiring a thought as spreading the sum of all human knowledge for free throughout the world :) Jebus989 19:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Is it even possible to determine reliably how many users are on a Wikimedia page at any given time? Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. An interesting idea... but only useful if there is already a counter in place tracking the number of current visitors of course. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yea! WikiCopter 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I agree with Lvova, Aphaia and Jebus989 (and also Ningauble); I'll add that this "what if" doesn't work because you don't explain what you would do with XX,XXX,XXX dollars. We don't ask money just for the sake of it. --Nemo 08:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find what you were looking for (v.2)

[edit]


Did you find what you were looking for?
People like you make it possible.

Proposed by: Ocaasi cf. WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I'm not as big a fan of this variation. "Possible" is not as strong of a word as "happen" and can even imply failure looming. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CobraWiki's reasoning sounds, but for translation, it would be much easier. Not every time the nuance difference between "happen" and "make possible" is no point, and in some languages simple wording may sound rather childish. So it could survive an alternative suggestion for translators. --Aphaia 06:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


#1 Source of Information

[edit]


The web's #1 source of information on Abraham Lincoln, France, and pogs.
Your support makes it happen – click here to give.

Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. <3 this one. Philippe (WMF) 22:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't get it. :( --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Me neither. Seem’s to be something US-specific. Lecartia 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pogs :) The topics could be changed to be language/country-specific.--Dgultekin 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I like the idea of mixing serious and popular topics.But, as the comments show, maybe change it to something else. Maybe "Pokémon"? V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WP isn't actually the #1 source of info on "Pokémon" -- at least not going by Google search results. Going for something pop-culture where the WP entry is actually #1 -- but it doesn't have to be pogs. WillWatershed 23:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What is the "pog"? I have no idea. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pogs are too passé, and Pokémon is a trademark. Can we find more generic pop-culture reference? ~ Ningauble 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. General idea is good. Needs different terms though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doesn't France have rather a negative reputation in the United States? I'm not saying that, if true, that's fair but I just wonder if associating Wikipedia with France for our biggest audience is the best idea. --Bodnotbod 11:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. [citation needed], I think. MER-C 13:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Really like both this one and the one below(the generic one). I can understand some of the concerns but I still think it deserves testing. Jalexander 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. My problem with this one is that I don't know what a pog is. I'm sure many others don't. If you have to look up the information to understand something, it can sidetrack you away from considering donating. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#1 Source

[edit]


The web's #1 source of information on [XXX]
Your support makes it happen – click here to give.

Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

["XXX" will scroll through the myriad of topics for which Wikimedia is the top result.] Comments:

  1. Oh, no. A topic for which Wikimedia is the top result may be bad stub. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Will work well where article XXX has a decent standard. However, this will require creating such a list for every single Wikipeida. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Being the number 1 result of a keyword, in 1 specific language, on 1 specific search engine, does not necessarily make it the "#1 source", meaning the "best", even if that keyword is a featured article. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t17:14z
  4. Too sensitive for bad press/critique. Effeietsanders 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. [citation needed] MER-C 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The '#1 source' or 'first source' to me sounds like 'the best source' rather than 'the first source you check'. And Wikipedia is that for only very few subjects. Its strength is in width rather than depth. - Andre Engels 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Really like both this one and the one above (the specific one). I can understand some of the concerns but I still think it deserves testing. Jalexander 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I think this flows really well, but it may be difficult to get that list of "top results". And this is considered "objectively", right, like Google #1 for a given topic? (it would not help to choose only FAs)... I suppose if there were just 5 per language per service, that would be displayed randomly, it should not be too difficult to identify. You could start with the FA list and back up to make sure they're listed #1 on google... Paulmnguyen 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Not too keen on this one, since it's not universally true. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I like the root idea of this one, but what pulls me away is the feeling we are assuming way too much. How do we know that we are the #1 source? All of our source information is supposed to come from somewhere else. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything You Need

[edit]


We have everything you need, from A. A. Milne to ZZ Top.
You have what we need to keep growing.

Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Clever, but I worry that active links besides donate links might detour readers away from the donation page Ocaasi 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like it. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I love it personally but ZZ Top might not be so known for every our reader. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Like that one. Note that different language versions should use own words from Special:Allpages, and they could eliminate things that sound too strange (nonetheless, it's rather important to show how big our database is, not so much to choose words everyone knows). —Pill (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Point taken, Pill. So my full support. --Aphaia 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If you have language-specific replacements for AA Milne and ZZ Top you should post them here! For Turkish: Tarkan & Volkan Demirel --17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. +1 yes. I like this one but you're right having options for language specific localization would be VERY nice :) Jalexander 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If we already have "everything", where's the need for "growing"? I would prefer seeing the emphasis on our unperfectness and vulnarability. Ziko 13:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. +1 to Ziko. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Me likey. :) --Cybercobra 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. iLike! But Ziko has a good point. PrincessofLlyr 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Reminds me of the Centrum slogan ("from A to Zinc"). Nice idea, though I agree with Ziko's reasoning also. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't like this. Ziko is right. --Nemo 08:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up

[edit]


(Visual of: Foreign language for "look it up on Wikipedia")
Translate

Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Watching TV

[edit]


Americans spend 200 billion hours a year watching TV for $60 a month. It took 100 million hours to create Wikipedia. Did you consider donating $0.36 yet ?

Proposed by: TheDJ. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Submitted on: 2010-09-04
Comments:

  1. I'm not sure if this is gonna work, but i like the idea of illustrating this concept in some way. The 60 bucks is totally made up, but the other nubmers are from http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/cognitive-surplus-visualized/ 86.83.8.231 20:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't get this one. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I appreciate the ratio, but I'm not sure we should encourage donors to limit their donations to $0.36. 71.198.176.22 17:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For US-sceptical people, it is good. I doubt people will take it as an encouragement to donate 36 cents. In any case, donating whole dollars will be easier. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I can see a lot of donations of $0.36. This will appeal to people that have thought about donating but didn't want to give up their money. $0.36 is low enough number where people will give it just to relieve themselves of the guilt of not donating earlier. If we're going into the business of suggesting donation amounts on the banners, I'd go for a "Give $1 for Wikipedia" campaign. Anya 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Our minimum donation is $1 --Dgultekin 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Would be better if we invited those who spend part of the 200 billion our to join us, than donate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like Shirky very much, but perhaps this is better to attract non-financial contributions. I'm not sure of this 100 million hours figure, though. --Nemo 08:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps Wikipedia online?

[edit]


Proposed by: n/d. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Maybe the second line should be: You do. (and that would be the link to donate). User:Ocaasi 09:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 'Online' is probably not the best adjective, it's not clear. What about something moe direct 'Who funds Wikipedia?' 'You do'.--OsamaK 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like "Who keeps Wikipedia online" because this is a main question that probably 99 % of our users cannot answer. Please with further information of landingpage Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like "online". Renata3 01:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer hardware

[edit]


$100,000 worth of computer hardware was used to show this page to you.
Donate today.

Proposed by: RockMFR. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

And growing

[edit]


151,042 free content pages and growing.
Help support Meta: donate today.

Proposed by: User:Juliancolton. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like this one, as well. Scope again. Philippe (WMF) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think some poeple have issues with 'content'. It's probably the best to avoid it.--OsamaK 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It's free for you, but we need your support to keep it that way. Donate Today!

Proposed by: DaL33T. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Top ten

[edit]


Wikipedia is one of the top ten most visited sites in the world.
Please, donate

Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Millions per month

[edit]


Wikipedia is visited by 379 million persons every month.
Please, donate

Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Pages every month

[edit]


Wikipedia serves 14 billions pages every month.
Please, donate

Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Pages every year

[edit]


Wikipedia serves over 100 billions pages every year. This number is similar to the stars in the Milky Way.
Please, donate

Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Interesting. But do people understand what "serves" means here?Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't like any of the four above with just a random number. 14 billion pages. So? Where's the personal connection? Where's that this is charity and not some high-tech Silicon Valley campus? Renata3 01:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ziko and Renata3, and I add my personal fear: are we sure that 500 years after Giordano Bruno (who was killed) the average reader knows that there are many, many, many stars? (There are some interesting essays by Umberto Eco about the fact that for the average man the Earth is flat etc.) --Nemo 08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. We can change "serves" to "shows" or similar. This banner was tested in Spanish (see banner), with very good results. It received $177 (the #2 best, the first one was the Jimmy Appeal) in 4 gifts, with an average of $44 (the best average, #1). I think that it deserves a chance. Please, test it. Regards. Emijrp 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising_2010/Messages/Informative&oldid=24892942"