Fundraising 2010/Messages/Project specific/Wikipedia

Low risk investment

Wikipedia: a low risk investment. Donate today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-28
Comments:

Good. Better without the italics. Anya 19:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Removed. Thanks.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A no return investment, too. It sounds like one would get money back after a time. --88.130.160.172 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'this' kind of investment. That's why I put the word in italics, but is clear to me that as we say "donate" in the following sentence nobody will understand that way.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let's say "high return investment". --Nemo 07:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is:

Wikipedia is: [rotate through:] Free. Accessible. Growing. Editable. Funded by you. Please donate today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-26
Comments:

Nice and simple. I like it! S8333631 18:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Mario777Zelda 22:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really nice. I even like it without the rotation, just a full list ending on 'Funded by you'. Good way to integrate advertising for the project and the fundraiser. Ocaasi 11:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
definitely testable. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little worried about making them wait until the last one to get a donate link. Why not link them all to the donate page? Philippe (WMF) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think Big

Think Big. Think Wikipedia.
Help us think even bigger. Donate now.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-14
Comments:

I like this, one it inspires you to do something. 76.115.173.112 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. sonia 10:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly spoken. I like it. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. KuwarOnline ^Talk 09:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, don't like it; too meaningless for me. Chzz 03:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Encyclopedia

The only encyclopedia

Wikipedia: the only encyclopedia in [language]. Keep knowledge accessible.

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

I love this. Philippe (WMF) 23:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Weak support. We are not the only encyclopedia, but the only in some cases. —I-20 the highway 22:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but does anyone know where this statement would actually be true? That would have to be some obscure language -- which could mean that people would not relate. Renata3 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Renata that choice of language is critical. If it's somewhat familiar to readers, the impact could be profound. If the language, however, is seen as trivial or exceedingly remote, the impact will be more like parody. Ocaasi 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this question I asked on Yahoo! Answers a while back. Waldir (that is his Wikimedia username as well) cross-referenced the Wikipedia articles "List of encyclopedias by language" and "List of Wikipedias" to create this list. While it's surely incomplete (it would be very important to double-check each language to be listed), the unchecked list includes 220 to choose from. I'd estimate that even if obscure/obsolete languages and odd examples (e.g. Scots) were discarded, a list of ~30 interesting languages to choose from would not be unreasonable to expect. I really like this idea, because it highlights an area where we do something really unique. Nihiltres^(t.u) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could this be proven? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this. It'd be even cooler if the [language] was rotated. The language names would need to be familiar enough that the user might have some idea what they are, but also obscure enough that it would be beyond a shadow of a doubt true that Wikipedia is indeed the only encyclopedia in that language. Otherwise we'd be lying and that'd suck. Lexicografía 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really like it. I support ideas focusing on WP's unique features. User:Elitre
Oppose, as it stands; patronising, and very unlikely to be true. Chzz 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this can not be a verifiable fact in most cases, example: English, there are many encyclopedias but online and offline. --Wolfnix • Talk • 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve the only encyclopedia

Preserve the only existing encyclopedia in the [language] language. Donate Today.

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

In general, very true for some languages. But these language versions will not benefit (directly) from the donation, although that is suggested.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they will. Bandwidth, hosting, staffing, legal... Philippe (WMF) 23:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

positive, if those information will be provided on landing page. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Philippe, imagine if I want to give to WP in Corsican. How could I make sure that my donation is serving to and only to Corsican Wikipedia (e.g. paying a flyer in Corsican), and not the Wikimedia community as a whole? Ziko 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems unlikely to me that people would want to earmark donations. Gifts are to the foundation, whose goals are commendably broad to even include places that many people have literally never heard of. Donors might have to trust that the WMF is distributing its attention where it is most needed and most beneficial. Ocaasi 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the wording of this much better, but again, how can the statement be proven?
Oppose, per previous. Chzz 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Specific

You made Wikipedia happen

$5 dollars worse off. Just so you can tell the grandkids you made Wikipedia happen.
Donate today and make that a reality.

Proposed by: Rock drum (talk·contribs). On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Ocaasi 21:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Submitted on: 2010-09-09[reply]
Comments:

Doesn't sound as appealing with '$5 dollars worse off' plus do we want to say donating to wikimedia would make them 'worse off'. how about "For $5 now you can tell your grandchildren that you made Wikipedia possible."Theo10011 13:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. What I was trying to say was, although it might seem bad (parting with your money) it is a actually a good cause. Thanks, Rock drum (talk·contribs) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't like this at all. It makes me feel like I'm struggling to live ("worse off"), and giving isn't very important ("just so you can").
This sort of message drew a lot of criticism and negative feedback last year. I don't know how well the "grandkids" ads did in practice, but they were widely panned from within the community. Gigs 00:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. Too negative. Chzz 00:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"worse off" doesn't make parting with cash more appealing. No. --Cybercobra 03:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grandkids

So you can tell the grandkids you made Wikipedia happen.
Donate today.

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

Comments:

Less wordy, but I'm no more a fan than the previous one. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insert "helped" before "made", and it'll be better. One person's donation alone does not completely sustain Wikipedia. Lexicografía 21:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.Theo10011 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about just 'Tell your grandchildren..." ? Chzz 00:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your encyclopedia

This is your Encyclopedia, Lets keep it that way. Donate today.

Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

I like this one. sonia 03:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first sentence, the second one less. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 how about: with your help it will stay that way. Donate today Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about making the "you" bold? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change the comma to a semicolon. --Cybercobra 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, from all the messages, this was the most engaging one for me. It kinda tells you that Wikipedia is something so easily accessible; it's like a book that you own and you can read it any time you want in the comfort of your living room, it's your encyclopedia, but you can not keep it that way if no one donates. So, the conclusion of it is clear: donate today! --Brainmachine (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only You

Only you can keep Wikipedia running.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

"But I've never donated anything and it's still running!" --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never stopped a forest fire and they haven't burned down my house yet ;) fetchcomms☛ 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about amending "You can keep {{PROJECTNAME}} running with [link to donor's list]"? // Concur with CoE, "only" does not sound compelling imo. --Aphaia 06:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice attempt but too specifically drawn toward negative somehow. Guilt trip? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a guilty-conscience type of persuasion, which is probably not what Wikimedia should be resorting to. Besides, it's not all up to the donors, there's also the WM staff, and the editors etc. Lexicografía 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like it. Too much pressure for me to do something without telling me what to do. Better if "Only you can keep Wikipedia running. Donate now." But it's also too much "only you can prevent forest fires," my American cliche alarm is going off slightly. Anya 19:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't like it. 'Only'. No, wrong message. Sorry. Chzz 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[username]-pedia

[username]-pedia.
People like you make us who we are. Help us thrive.

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

Comments:

I worry about the us vs them a little bit in this one. Philippe (WMF) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. +1 --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+! Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Will only work with registered users. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily, we have the ability to run it to only registered users. :) Philippe (WMF) 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if it is a good idea to say that after we have warned many random users not to make their own articles and speedily deleted their ad-like submissions. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Aphaia, this seems to promote abuse of WP for promotion or a web host. MER-C 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of placing the user's name in the banner is very interesting but I too am not particularly keen on this suggested way of doing that. --Bodnotbod 11:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highly, highly recommend not underestimating the reaction people get from their own name at the top of the page. This could work great if the bottom is phrased correctly. After all, who wouldn't want to donate to their own encyclopedia? Ocaasi 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really like it for logged in users but should note that it would have to actually say '[Username]' I'm fairly certain we don't have the technical ability to actually put the viewers username in (the banners are created here on meta and then served to the projects, most magicwords don't work). Jalexander 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lor, no. If I saw this I wouldn't contribute a dime; WAY too close to MyWikiBiz-style expectations. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A fun idea in theory, but I put my username in front of it and don't like the sound at all. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lexicografiapedia? That's a mouthful, and I know there are users with longer names that would make this simply horrid. I don't think this'll fly. Lexicografía 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to echo the sentiments of Church of Emacs... people who have taken the time to register and stay logged in will not appreciate being defined as a group outside of "us". I like the idea of using the user's name, but it can't imply that the user somehow isn't part of the project. Gigs 00:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote no on this one. Not effective for me. Sven Manguard 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even less effective for me. Kwiki 01:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big but fragile

Wikipedia is big, but fragile. We need your help.
Please, donate today

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

Comments

I dislike the emphasis on the fragility. This is not the message for the masses. →Spiritia 10:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sharing

You are Wikipedia. Keep Sharing.

Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments

I dislike text size changes. :( Philippe (WMF) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about people who never started sharing? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irritating. →Spiritia 10:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Wikipedia

You can be a part of Wikipedia by donating.
Please read more!

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

Comments

Will there more information about "him as a part of Wikipedia"? If willn't, it's bad. Lvova 11:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[[You]] may end up a CSD, even if you donate. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t18:00z
Invokes some self-promotion thoughts. Better not. →Spiritia 10:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only encyclopedia for

Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia for [(rotate names).]
Preserve the culture and history of our planet.
Donate Now

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

Comments:

Awesome, I love this one too. Cbrown1023 talk 14:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: Hi. I'm from the english-speaking w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. Animation causes accessibility issues unless equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play). See w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Videos and animations. Usability-wise it's also not the best idea. I would rather encourage you to make a good video instead of an animation. Regards, Dodoïste 20:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing lives

Wikipedia is changing lives.
Be a part of the revolution.

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

Comments:

note: I find the activist messaging very compelling here and would be interested in trying something like this. Rebecca (WMF)

I think it is a little bit too ambitious. I like the activist messaging aswell but I don´t see a revolution coming (now you can throw the stones ;-)) Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone has positive connotations with the word "revolution". Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a gift

Wikipedia is a gift you can open again and again. Help us give that gift to others.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

I love it! Although the "give that give" sounds strange. Perhaps use "share" instead of "give" in the 2nd sentence? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, what about just "Give that gift to someone else" or "Share that gift with someone else"? fetchcomms☛ 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheesy, but sort of works. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts exactly. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like it. I might tone down the cheese a notch by rephasing the second part as "Help us give it to others". Repeating gift makes it a little more hokey. Ocaasi 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like it a lot. Perhaps "Help us share that gift with other." notice the 'share' and 'with'. –Krinkle^talk 05:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really cheesy, but generally good. Lexicografía 21:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the magic

You are the magic behind Wikipedia.
Donate today

Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

You are Wikipedia

You are Wikipedia.

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

Comments:

Please don't. In Germany there was a campaign en:Du bist Deutschland ("You are Germany"). Only 35% evaluated it positively, probably because people don't like it if you forcefully attribute them to something --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "You make Wikipedia" maybe? Slightly more specific. --Tmorton166 21:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living encyclopedia

Wikipedia - The living Encyclopedia, It needs you to grow.

Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Confusing: where do I get to if I click? Some people may be curious to look after that "grow", most will be confused and annoyed. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would work for areas in which we're focused on generating more editing contributions to the wikis... Philippe (WMF) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if I'm already grown up, and I can't grow any more? -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t17:39z

Largest encyclopedia

We have written the largest encyclopedia in ten years.
Please, help us go on

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

Comments:

No need to mention ten years, its the largest encyclopedia EVER. undisputed heavy-weight champion of encyclopedias as far as I'm concerned. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of your life

If you could only visit one website for the rest of your life
Wouldn't it be this one? Donate today.

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

Comments:

Prob. not, need to check my mail first. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds creepy. Most males would chose a different site, I am afraid. :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would choose Wikipedia ;). Although probably not the majority of all Internet users --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size/cost

How much does this cost in the real world?
In Wikipedia, you decide

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

Comments:

note: Love the idea of this one, the "how much is Wikipedia worth to you?" concept. Rebecca (WMF)

I love it.--OsamaK 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Real world"? :-) But a hint on the size is not such a strange idea.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too complicated for the 2-3 second attention window Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I welcome the attempt to show the size of the Wikipedia I don't think I'd know what the graphic was unless I was familiar with it beforehand; to many people I imagine this would look like a man standing in the foreground of a picture of an office block. --Bodnotbod 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love the idea, but not the delivery. How 'bout a rewording: "13 million articles. How much is it worth? You decide." Renata3 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the sentence "in Wikipedia, you decide" weird Anthere

On Wikipedia? --Deniz (WMF) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had a nickel

Imagine you had a nickel for every time you used Wikipedia
Now, imagine Wikipedia had a nickel... Donate today.

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

Comments:

Made me smile. In a different wording? Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this. Philippe (WMF) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would this translate well to other languages? The "If I had a nickel..." idiom might have problems. Aside from that, great! --Cybercobra 20:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask not

Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia.
Donate today.

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

Comments:

note: This made me smile. Rebecca (WMF)
Seconded. :-) Mike Peel 21:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe funny for those who know the historical background, but for others... :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this but it might be a bit US centric. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

à Feels a little... trite... to me. Philippe (WMF) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 (even though pretty funny) Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me as a little disrespectful toward JFK, and I don't know that non-Americans would understand the quote. Lexicografía 12:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been suggested I think.Theo10011 12:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, I couldn't find it in the archives (or maybe I'm just too lazy). :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Here it is -Fundraising_2010/Messages/Project_specific/Wikipedia#Ask_not Suggested a while back by Ocaasi. Maybe great minds do think alike....;) Theo10011 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed. It sounds too American-centric to me. I don't mind if non-Americans would understand the quote. Rather I'm afraid non-Americans would understand that and take it a wrong message Wikipedia and its sisters are American-oriented, not an int'l project. This quote was great, but strongly connected to American politics context imo. --Aphaia 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, that's a very famous sentence in Italy too, and I'm quite sure most of the people won't think Wikipedia is American-oriented (actually, probably most of the people have no idea who said that)-Sandrobt 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per Sandrobt; it works for non-Americans too (at least for me) --Smihael 16:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikipedia

This is your Wikipedia. Let's keep it that way. Donate today.

Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Going forward

aidepikiW
Keep it going forward

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

Comments:

I'm not sure whether people will get it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people will probably get it, but is it good to make potential donors think that we're currently going backwards? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2G2BT

Wikipedia: 2G2BT. Donate by texting WIKI to 25383
See the Terms and Conditions. Messaging and data rates may apply. Only available in the U.S.

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

Comments:

please bear in mind that you do not get any donor information through SMS donation. I personally think it it a good instrument that works pretty good on Facebook but I don´t think of it as an option for a wikipedia.org banner. In Germany, SMS donations work pretty good but we also want to cultivate our donors, therefore we need some donor information which we do not get through SMS donations. Hence, we use that instrument very targeted Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might have a dramatically higher rate of donation if every banner had an text-to donate option. I don't know why, technically, donors couldn't give more than $10 through a text, or be directed to the cc/paypal page specifically for donations over a certain amount. 69.142.154.10 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should publicize this option, as it would be much easier and quicker for many people. Even if no information is gathered from SMS donations, money is still earned. I think that this option is viable for a large number of people, and cannot be ignored. If the amount of SMS donations goes up a lot, then we'll know that it is working. fetchcomms☛ 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. It is a wonderful option. In Germany we receive quite a lot donations through sms. You always have to communicate this option: it´s fast, uncomplicated and especially you can promote it offline aswell pretty easy. But as I said, on a popular place like wikipedia.org I would mostly prefer online donations because of information gathering. By the way, the amount of donations are higher in the end if we successfully cultivate the donors.Till Mletzko (WMDE) 07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Till, I agree that it's incredibly valuable to be capturing donor contact information, which we don't get from SMS donations. Also, if we try to make this a major contribution method, we are potentially lowering donation amounts from people who would donate more than $10. At the moment, that's the only amount we can accept so it seems best to direct people to online donations primarily. Megan Hernandez (WMF)

I have absolutely no idea what 2G2BT means; does it need to be there for some reason? --Bodnotbod 13:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too Good To Be True :) --Dgultekin 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the acronym either. Renata3 02:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable resource

A valuable resource for me, and for future generations.
For Wikipedia, For the Future

Proposed by: Goktr001. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Makes me wonder who "me" is...? Philippe (WMF) 20:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is the thought process readers are supposed to have, and "me" refers to whoever's reading it? --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past, present, future

Past, Present, Future, Wikipedia!
Donate Now

Proposed by: Goktr001. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Feels a little... I dunno, militaristic? Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Renata3 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asks you to help

Wikipedia asks you to help.
Articles are written by volunteers, but we still need money. Please read about us and consider donating.

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

Comments:

I think it's odd to have "Wikipedia" asking for help. Encyclopedias don't talk. :) Philippe (WMF) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be read as 'volunteers ... still need money'. Seriosly. Lvova 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too long and timid. Renata3 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 2011

Wish for Wikipedia in 2011？Donate today

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

Submitted on: 2010-11-10
Comments:

...