Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55/Fundraising headers

Abolish the silly headers

The Wikipedia Signpost has related articles:

“Wikipedia Forever” fundraiser arouses controversy

See also Meta:Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback

You can hide everything by checking "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" in the preferences, section "Gadgets".

General support/oppose/neutral/"voting is evil" comments

"WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Really? I wonder what readers coming here think of that. To me, that is a juvenile slogan that could be replaced with something that is much more collegial and appropriate for an encyclopedia. I propose that we hide the banners for everyone visiting the English Wikipedia until a better-worded and less obtrusive banner is created. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is obnoxiousness at it's worst. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, here's a UBX for y'all. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 06:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here, which demonstrates that there has been quite strong opposition to it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I thought a hacker did it at first, actually. Equazcion (talk) 05:14, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; I suspect these ads were created by some kind of saboteur intent on depriving the Foundation of funding; as per the meta discussion, these ads are grossly inappropriate. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case any technically minded sysops are thinking about trying to change the .css files to hide it, I do seem to remember a dev saying once that they would take harsh action against anyone hiding a sitewide message since it is really a Foundation issue and not a community issue. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Is that a threat?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a dev and I certainly have no pull over at Meta or with the devs, but I'm just saying that from my experience, it would probably be the last admin action a person made if they edited the .css file to hide the fund raising notice. MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really doubt that. If the community supports the admin's action, and it isn't a legal issue, I think they'd be safe. I'd support any effort to at least exchange this for something more tasteful, and hide it in the meantime. The Foundation doesn't necessarily need to like it. Equazcion (talk) 05:26, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
      - "The community" historically falls into line with Jimbo in practically any dispute. Anyway, hiding it is trivial (check my monobook.css) and will hopefully hide future spam of this type. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you sure you didn't mean to type "hysterically" instead of "historically"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The issue has been raised several times that these banners are ugly, not-representative of what the community think the Wikipedian-message is, make it look like 4chan hacked wikipedia, and are inherently unwanted. Wikipedia Forever? What are we, a high school sports team? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://theheadbomb.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-shoot-yourself-in-foot-in-three.html. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it's quite disappointing that the community's input was not taken into consideration when developing these... err, "slogans". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was, but it looks as though it was disregarded? It looks like there was widespread opposition at meta but it was ramrodded through anyway... —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will defend any user who takes action to prevent the display of these absurd banners. Do not donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. @harej 05:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would as well assuming consensus to hide it develops here. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There has been broad consensus against the campaign ever since it was introduced, but of course Rand Montoya did not listen to us. @harej 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what were you thinking when you approved those? Good god. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that input from the community, no matter how "loud" or how logical, will be ignored or danced around by the Wikimedia Foundation. This is from experience observing and joining in on discussions about the "slogans" on IRC, and from observing how the "discussion" went on meta's talk page about the banners. The issue has generally disgusted me. Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the banners either, but given the way things work, I really don't see them changing, so I hid it under my preferences with the gadget provided and am moving on. MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Julian and Killiondude. None of the editors fully supported this at meta IIRC. The opinions of dedicated contributors to the project should have been taken into account rather than leaving a "thank you for your opinion" message and going ahead with it. What was the point of putting it up for community discussion if nobody was going to take any notice of it anyway? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support hiding this until something better is constructed. Even just making it not all caps would be a minimal improvement. It almost seems like it is designed to honor the recent death of Geocities. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it, and give me my underlined links back. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently even the Wiktionary ads have the Wikipedia logo. Was this thought through at all? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. I'm wondering really what could have prompted such loud banners. I mean, is the Wikimedia foundation a week away from running out of money? Is this some kind of desperate action to get money as quickly as possible? Are we all going to see Wikipedia coated in ads tomorrow, with a message saying not enough cash came in to keep the servers running? --Yair rand (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Commons have the banners with "Wikimedia Forever" in all caps and still has the WP logo in the center. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dare i say the banners look a little MySpacey. "We're Wikipedia! Be our friend. Can we borrow £200." delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arrg, it burns! Kill the banners! Kill them with fire! Until It Sleeps ^{Happy Thanksgiving} 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Truly awful, I think. I immediately thought that it was vandalism and started looking for the template transclusion that allowed it. Are you sure that this PR group isn't trying to subtly inflict damage or something? —AySz88 \^-^ 05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - headers for something unusual and urgent are okay, but for anything else, are inappropriate. A banner just for the sake of having a banner misses the point. What's next, making it blink?? - Denimadept (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! Don't give them ideas!! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It stinks! - These are not very good ads, and the consultants should give their money back.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as among those who originally assumed this was some kind of clever template vandalism. Really now - "Wikipedia forever"? Could we play anymore into the hands of those who portray Wikipedia as a cult? Steve Smith (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible. As stated, almost looks like vandalism. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We get complaints about this every single year. From memory, so far none of these complaints have done much. As someone else has said above, one thing is clear is that no ordinary wikipedia admin has the authority to remove them and doing so would be an incredibly foolhardy idea. Also looking at the meta discussion Meta:Talk:Fundraising 2009/Website Design it seems clear to me there's been very little feedback/involvement from the community. Some people may blame the Foundation/Fundraising team for not soliciting more, but it seems to me unless there has been substanially more feedback during the design phrase in other years and it's always been ignored, those who hate the banners so much could have and should have been more involved in the design phrase. It's not as if this is an unpredictable event. This happens every year at around the same time and we get the same complaints every year. If you dislike it so much (personally I've never really cared) why don't you contribute to the discussions that I presume happen every year? P.S. Also from the meta discussions, it seems (I'm personally not surprised) that we do get substanially more donations during these fundraising campaigns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I would've known about it, I would have participated. Equazcion (talk) 06:17, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- PS. I haven't minded the banners that came up in previous years, and never complained before. This one is just terrible. Equazcion (talk) 06:19, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
  - Sorry, terrible seems to undermine the justplainbadness of this. Perhaps there's a better word? Select from: dreadful, awful, appalling, horrific, horrifying, horrible, horrendous, atrocious, abominable, deplorable, egregious, abhorrent, frightful, shocking, hideous, ghastly, grim, dire, unspeakable, gruesome, monstrous, sickening, heinous. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So did you miss the ugly pink box and its scrolling marquee of doom? This is definitely not the worst one in our history. Not great or exciting, or anything like that, but definitely not the worst. Dragons flight (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the bad quality of Wikipedia donate or die banners been notably bad in the past? Mentioned in RS? Spanning more than a single incident? It sounds, kinda encyclopedic there. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Equaz, it's fine that you haven't minded, but as I'm a regular at Talk:Main Page and also tend to end up at WP:VP from the complaints, I've seen pretty much the same thing before and indeed every single year it seems many editors absolutely hate them and argue they are the worst thing ever. I'm not saying these complaints are definitely without merit but as I said in my first post, when every year people scream it's the worst thing ever and how it's completely destroying wikipedia/the community/whatever, it kind of gets old pretty quick. At the very least, can someone actually show me some evidence that there is more subtanial ill feeling towards this specific banner ad comparing perhaps the number of complaints we've received and considering the likely growth of the wikipedia community in that time and other issues like the apparent dislike some people have for the decision to hire a PR team to come up with the ads this year. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less about the banner -- my brain, luckily, is wired to ignore those ads that AdBlock misses -- but I want my damn underscores back! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Underscores? Do you mean link underlines? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also opposed to them (of course) and I would support the community taking its concerns to the foundation. Wikipedia is a community-run encyclopedia and we should have the power to override the appearance of ugly promotional banners. This is not the way to go about a recruitment drive. The bottom-up model has always worked best around here. Them From Space 06:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we'd been pwned. (Apparently part of our stylesheet has been affected.) Really not very compelling from a marketing standpoint, even more alienating than the past campaigns. It's like a banner ad masquerading in text, which is a bit insulting (and it just looks bad, to boot). user:J aka justen (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed's proposal. That slogan is too amateurish. Bejinhan Talk 06:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of the banner. –blurpeace ^(talk) 06:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like them. I especially didn't like not being able to dismiss them. So for me they are gone, via blocking the script in my browser. It would be wrong to try to shut down a WMF campaign on its primary advertising real estate - especially when you *aren't* the people being targeted. You have the ability to not see those ads without breaking the wiki. - Amgine (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the damn thing is so obnoxious and sends a message that would be counterintuitive to the Foundation's goals. It makes this place seem like Scientology. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 06:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with fire It sounds like some ridiculous slogan a nutty revolutionary (or crazy drunk fan in the background of a live shot after a sports victory) came up with. The font is ugly, the design of the entire banner looks like a Geocities page and it's totally screwing up my page layouts and my reading style, where I enjoy links in the middle of reading. Nate • (chatter) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the banners immediately, please. This is a horrible idea, and it seriously makes me not want to contribute. It's loud, very ad-like, needlessly large, uses a childish slogan, and has technical problems. Does anyone (other than the Foundation) actually support these banners? I'm struggling to find one user. — The Earwig @ 06:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I opened up Wikipedia, I actually said aloud to an empty room, "What the fuck is this?" No way I'm donating knowing my money will be going to the marketing firm that is actually getting paid for that godawful banner. At least they could have not made it break things all over the site. LINK UNDERLINING FOREVER. --L P ^talk 06:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have minimised the banner. How can I technically delete it from my view of Wikipedia? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the preferences there's a gadget that suppresses the banner entirely. --L P ^talk 06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks. I prefer to be offended in different manners than painfully bad marketing. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled, I experimented with this banner a while but although it seemed at first to be a link it doesn't go anywhere. Is it working? What's it for? Odd. Very odd. E x nihil ^(talk) 06:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to [[1]] for me are you using monobook? Jamesofur (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a damn about the banner; they suck every year and this year is no exception. I just want my links to still be underlined. Not much to ask, surely? - Axver (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, looks like we've got our link underlining back. Excellent, thank you. As far as the terrible banner goes, I suspect the only thing that will induce a change is if the fundraising drive is a spectacular failure. - Axver (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! It is awesome in its heavyhanded epicness. It makes me think of a people's movement, guerilla uprising, or something of the sort. Perhaps it's completely the wrong feel, but I like the flair it provides.

Is it supposed to be a link though? Because it's not a link. It's just Wikipedia telling you "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". And that's... that's pretty sweet. Some guy (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the banner makes it swell to the size of a page! It just gets better! Some guy (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the banner is pretty tacky and needs to be redesigned. Ditto Jimbo's claim that Wikipedia is "indispensable" to "most of us" which hits you when you click on the link (who are the 'us' here?). Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, assume some good faith on behalf of the WMF. This is about the fundraiser. Nobody seems to have mentioned that it brought in $8 million last year and we need that this year to keep wikipedia and other wikimedia projects going. I do not care what it looks like as long as it brings in money from readers - yes, readers, not editors. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have no problem assuming good faith when we should. I.e., we think someone fucked up and we tell them about it, and ask them to fix it. Which we did. When we are ignored, we say "no, this is not going to happen like the way you think it will". The way we got the 8 million last year is obviously tried and true. Let's see about increasing the variety of those messages, rather than going off on the tangent. No, it's not even a tangent. We turned around when we should have followed the road. The way the majority of these messages are worded are just... plain fail. --Izno (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the banner – it's rubbish. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it, quickly, what an eyesore! It's embarassing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Something else. Anything. I'm having trouble comprehending that the Foundation seriously paid someone money for this. Someone running for fourth grade class president could come up with better campaign material than this. This is the first time I've ever complained about a sitenotice fundraising promo. szyslak (t) 08:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, someone paid for this? "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" is what my donations are going towards? My word... Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Support/remove/delete. Embarrassingly unrepresentative. That the Foundation paid for this (How much did they pay for this? Anyone know?), is almost worse. We could put together a better banner in a handful of hours of actual community work - and have done, for however many years so far. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the start of an 11-month, $250k contract with Fenton Communications to work on fundraising and shaping Wikimedia's public image. Dragons flight (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ow. $250,000[2][3] is, what, 1,000 manhours of PR work? This won't be a pleasant experience. :( -- Quiddity (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it gone already? Good! --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hack? I thought it was like when someone hacks the FA (used to happen) and something obscene or funny appears instead. We paid a consultant for that? Why? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's that silly time of the year again? I almost didn't notice, but that's because I adblocked the central notice (filter is up.wiki.x.io/centralnotice) last year because of the crappy fundraising banner. This one's even worse. I guess some things don't change. MER-C 09:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the banner - appallingly hideous, embarrassingly tacky. I don't object to fund-raising banners in principle, but this one is big, ugly and it doesn't work. It's our Wikipedia, so how about an editing boycott until it is removed ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite a strong claim. Can you show evidence it doesn't work? I believe the WMF is collecting stats but I'm surprised your privy to them. Or do you have some other real evidence? Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't need no stats. The full size banner doesn't work - it doesn't link anywhere - I click on it and nothing happens. When I "hide" it I see a "Help us protect it" link which links here - but the big, ugly version doesn't link anywhere. This banner is defunct, inactive, and broken. Bereft of life, its rests in peace. It has shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile. It is a dead banner. (I see other editors have noted this problem too, so it's not just me) Gandalf61 (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God almighty, I'm glad I'm not the only one shocked by the childish message. "Wikipediaz Foreverl!!!" Should we all put on capes and run around the playground chanting this? Bradley0110 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if you wear high contrast brief-style underpants outside your slacks, also. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can maybe live with having a huge banner with a stupid slogan if it actually encouraged people to donate. But it doesn't even mention the donation drive at all, just a random slogan with a link in it. It's even worse when minimised as it reduces to the even more corny slogan of: "Our shared knowledge. Our shared treasure. Help us protect it." which at least encourages donations but does so in almost unreadably small text (in firefox at least). Having eventually clicked the required link to donate (purely for curiosity, I have no intention of donating) I am taken to a sinister looking Jimbo spouting some crap about how Wikipedia has taken over "our" lives. I don't know about everyone else but Wikipedia certainly isn't "an indispensable part" of my life. On the whole I am not impressed by this campaign, what was wrong with the old banners? At least their intention was clear - Dumelow (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I offered a comment earlier, but it wasn't directly related to the actual topic here. There's quite a bit of hyperbole being bandied about in this topic, which isn't really bad or surprising, but I think we should be careful to not loose the principle message. Fund raising is important, especially for non-profit concerns such as Wikipedia, and it should be clear that nobody is actually saying that Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to raise funds. The use of a reasonable site wide banner is a perfectly acceptable fund raising tool, as well. The main point that I think we're all attempting to convey here is just how badly this particular banner is. The fact that it has been purchased (with money from previous donations) makes it an even more appalling situation. Pull the ad, and either wait or immediately replace it with an alternative.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's clear some editors don't like banner ads or fundraising period. As I said early, these sort of banner ads always (understandbly) results in complaints from people who feel that way, as well as people who insist it's the worst ad ever. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is, however, that even those banners had their supporters trying to defend them. Nobody's even trying to defend this one, and that speaks volumes about just how big a pile of drek it is. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 12:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support removal. I'm a bit annoyed that my and others work have gone to generating the work that brings in the dontation that, in part goes to.... paying the salaries of marketing company employees. I find it hard to believe that a small WP page could not have been made for suggestions for this, and then putting a one time notice on the watchlist headers. This is really appalling. User A1 (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I complained on the signpost page, but I support removing these banners and asking some questions about how this got approved. PLEASE consider what various NPR stations are doing with pledge drives as a model. You aren't seeking greater attention (As these banners are on wikipedia, not other sites), you are seeking some donations from readers and contributors). NPR learned (slowly but surely) that annoying invasive pledge drives were a last resort and smarter affiliates developed "silent pledge drives", shortened interruptions, made pledge drive length conditional upon donations, etc. DO THE SAME. Please. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't mind the slogan, but the presentation is absolutely ridiculous. I agree that it pretty much amounts to the "wikipedia 4evah" parodies below. I also thought it was some sort of vandalism, and even if I were to contribute, I would only assume that Wikipedia just has a new slogan to through in my face. And the way the foundation is marginalizing the contributors is very appalling. It's not biting the hand that feeds; it's bitch-slapping the souls that contribute. Angryapathy (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support the removal and replace them by slogans that find community consensus. (CAPS are by far the smallest problem.) Moreover, we have to make sure that further outreach efforts are done in a manner way more professional. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "THIS IS ALL WE KNOW" is technically incorrect in light of WP:NOT. We know lots of things we are not allowed to put on Wikipedia. However, to be as charitable as possible to the hired guns - who don't seem to have edited much on Wikipedia themselves - the MediaWiki software could be considered a wider spinoff of Wikipedia and is the basis for thousands of other wikis which collectively might allow us to write everything we know which we can express in writing. So there is sort of a grain of truth to the slogan, but all the same it could be misleading to new editors who aren't aware of the long list of things we can't keep on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly the way the question is phrased but: GET RID OF THE BANNERS. Awful, amateurish and reinforces the idea of Wikipedia as some sort of cult or movement. A paid consultant came up with this? Yikes, what's next, "Wikipedia Xtreme"? Jgm (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a bit if perspective, let me add that I am a pretty easygoing user/editor with respect to stuff like this, and don't usually follow or vote on this type of discussions, but these banners disturbed me enough to seek out the place where it was being discussed. This development is actively obnoxious. Jgm (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding technical implementation

Just as a reminder, if there is a desire to hide these banners locally, they would be hidden via CSS, specifically using MediaWiki:Common.css. In order to add code to "Common.css", a thread must be started on the relevant talk page (MediaWiki talk:Common.css). The necessary code to hide the banners is:

div.notice-all { display: none !important; }

--MZMcBride (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread about removing them here. Brandon (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems other Wikimedia projects are trying to achieve the same end. Killiondude (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Removal_of_donation_messages taking stock at 12.00 UTC to see if hiding it (for now) is justified by the support. Rd232 ^talk 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed

Here's the diff. And here's the place to push for replacement slogans on the theme of the future, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just rollbacked Eloquence's reversion of that edit. I am so going to jail or something. @harej 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And undone again. Next time please finish reading a thread. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add your feedback

I'm also shocked by the banner. I think we all should give our feedback on this page. Hope to see a massive protest! 132.229.117.120 (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding it (seemingly a likely outcome) will be protest enough, but clarifying the reasons for protest will be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If WMF wants a stupid banner to get money off people -- less than a fifth of which is actually spent on anything related to Wikipedia, and none of which goes to any of Wikipedia's contributors or maintainers -- can it at least say something less lame? 144.32.58.96 (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would WP continue without the servers and the salaries paid to the technical people, just for a start? --Bduke (Discussion) 09:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, do you actually like these banners? If so, why do you? I'm curious to hear why someone would. Mike H. Fierce! 11:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care either way, if it gets the money in and I trust the people at WMF to do that. It seems to be working from the stats I saw an hour ago. I have other things that concern me other than a banner on top of a page. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the Wikipedia Forever slogan. It's short and simple. As a bonus, it has the potential to be a Twitter trending topic, which would make people aware of the fundraising drive and potentially give us a nice boost in donations. Use an appropriate donor's comments[4] and then put "Wikipedia Forever" underneath it or something like that. I think that'd be more effective. Lastly, make the font size larg, but don't have it in all caps. Ugh. Mahanga^Talk 15:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad suggestion. I don't know about the larger font though, and I'd also eliminate a ton of the excessive vertical whitespace. Equazcion (talk) 15:47, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Response from the foundation

[5] [6] [7] MER-C 11:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly concerned with the "we expected you all to hate it" rationalization. We're ignored because our opinion in this doesn't matter, apparently. Ridiculous.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is almost certainly true that established editors have very different reactions from readers. The Foundation does have to take that into account in taking our opinions on board. I'm more concerned that they came up with something radical and didn't test it against something more proven. One day proven, one day radical would be something resembling evidence-based. To say that the banner has about the same response as last year is pointless - there hasn't been a banner for ages so there's a big constituency of people who will donate from just a minor prod, because they did before or whatever. Kicking off the campaign with something radical is also a bad idea, as lots of people turn off the banners, and others become used to having banners there which need ignoring, weakening any later banners. Radicalism should be left for the end of a campaign, when people are getting bored. PS part of me still thinks we should hide the message just for the publicity value from ensuing media coverage! Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the cost involved in developing last year's strategy? $0? What was the cost in getting external consultants in this time? A cool quarter-mil. And what is the effective payoff? According to Eloquence, it's achieving about the same result. Someone at the PR firm is laughing all the way to the bank (and I'm not opposed to fundraising, but please, do it with a bit of class). You'd also think that an almost unanimous response from hundreds of people that the design and campaign is crap would have clued someone in that "oh, maybe this isn't such a great idea". I know there's been blowback in previous years, but it's never quite been this ferocious, has it? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have evidence for the last claim? Beyond the added unhappiness with the hiring of a PR firm which I think should be ignored in comparing the years, I'm seeing much the same as I've seen every year Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition this year is unanimous against the embarassing content of the advertisements, which ranges from school-yard graffiti to Soviet propaganda. —Centrx→talk • 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm happy we bought a PR firm. I'm disappointed and confused with their slogans/campaigns given our point in the development of a popular tertiary work. We'd need to be about sixty years old to be "an institution" that needs to think about being perennial. I am also seriously disappointed that for an information agency we used such bad language, such monocultural language, such US specific language. Nice job being cultural imperialists. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Though it doesn't seem too popular with US editors either. It (and some of the other proposed messages) translates into other languages really badly. Meta:"Some of these messages scare me". Rd232 ^talk 12:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you a number, but last year they had at least one consultant to do graphic development for the banner, and quite possibly more than one. So I assume the costs involved in creating last years' campaign were not $0. Though it is clear they are spending more this time around. Dragons flight (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading the comments they seem fair to me. No one said they expected 'you all to hate it'. Rather what was said is they expected feedback from the community to be mostly negative as that's what's happened every year. Which despite having no connection to the foundation and without reading anything the foundation said I too observed above based on my personal experience from various Talk Pages and discussions that I've seen for the past 4 years or so. This is an important point of course, when every year people say it's the worst thing ever, it's not surprising that the foundation feels that feedback should only be given limited weight and of course that people like me tire of the endless complaints. BTW, your presumption that feedback is mostly negative means 'everyone hates it' is IMHO without basis. It's well established in many areas of life that people are much more likely to voice their feelings when they feel strongly about something, particularly for example if they are rather unhappy with it. The second point which is that their primary target is the reader not the editor I think is also a key point (and also something I mentioned too again without really reading anything the foundation said) and in fact it's a problem we always encounter. Just because the editor is unhappy doesn't mean the reader is and in many areas the reader is more important then the editor. Gauging reader response is never easy in this case tho, since their primary goal is fundraising, they do have an easy way to test how well they achieved their goal. I do think the point about quotes is an interesting one, since it does seem that a lot of people seem to think quotes are excellent yet if they don't actually achieve their purpose they're sorta pointless. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Were there serious campaigns to turn the message off in previous years? Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the pink marquee of doom (2007) attracted loud and numerous complaints to that effect before it was ultimately reworked by the Foundation. Dragons flight (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm pretty sure we had serious campaigns to turn off the message every year. Some may have been more 'serious' then others, but that would need a proper comparison rather then just going by memory. Really the only evidence I've seen so far this is really a bigger problem then previous years is below: Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Negative comments are more common than positive ones; people don't naturally think to find a place to leave a positive comment the way they look for a place to complain, expecially Wikimedians who want to just fixit. I think that the criticism was more severe this year, but it was difficult for the campaign planners to see the difference. And the campaign received positive comments as well, but all offline, making it hard for them to inform these discussions. Perhaps a standard way to survey various audiences in advance of big changes (for main page and skin redesigns too -- any case where we want the opinion of both active contributors and outsiders who only read and don't know about talkpages), similar to what the usability project has done, would be a useful practice. If we do it often enough that any active community group can request such feedback and get it in short order, we'd save frustration and time with threads like this. At the least there would be public data on likes and dislikes so we don't have to guess as much. +sj + 13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been complaints in the past, but this is diferrent. I have yet to see ONE just ONE person who supports the current banner. Not even Erik said he supperted. In fact, I havent even seen you support it Nil, how do you, personally, feel about the banner? Can you honestly say that you like it? Acer (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Acer. Chummer, there's nobody even trying to associate themselves positively with it save for the suits. Every user's running away from it. From what I gathered at the CSS TP, most of the "positive" Tweets 'bout it are simply Amtgaard chants. This is the banner equivalent of Primetime or JarlaxleArtemis. Frag the damn thing already! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my views somewhere but I'll repeat them here. I have no particular like for this banner, but I have no particular dislike for it. I don't find it any better or worse then previous years. I haven't really said this before but I will say this now: I don't personally give a stuff how much people dislike this banner if it works better then previous ones. But I'm not a part of the design team nor the foundation so I can say this :-P However you may have a valid point on the lack of support for this one. It was something that occured to me when writing some of my responses earlier but and I emphasised the may in the previous sentence for the same reason, I don't actual recall that much support for the previous ones either. I'm sure there was some but I believe it was overwhelmed by the opposes. Ultimately going by memory is a flawed method anyway. I'm willing to trust anyone who makes some meaningful comparison between the previous years and this (which means considering the various time frames, the involvement of a PR team and the negativitiy that has resulted in this time etc). In the end, a comparison may be difficult since this was only up for ~11? hours before it was taken down for technical reasons and it seems unlikely it's going to return in the same form from what I've read. Who knows, perhaps the people involved realised if they wanted to try this they would run into heaps of opposition so if they left a few flaws, and made it all caps so they could take it down for technical reasons, bring it back without the all caps and they can then claim to have addressed community feedback and move on with a more muted response. In any case, this is probably my last post on the matter. I've already wasted too much time on this since as I've said, I don't really care either way, I mainly came here at first to find somewhere to direct people from Talk:Main Page since I knew from the moment I saw a new fundraising banner it was that time of the year again and it would be best if I tried to cut them off before a thread developed at Talk:Main Page. (In fact the only thread here at the time was the one on the technical problems). But when I saw this thread I got drawn in by the 'OMG it's the worst thing ever' for my fourth? year running (IIRC it was sorta interesting in the first, a bit funny in the second, started to get boring in the third and I think I've made my views clear this time) and couldn't resist... Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First a terribly-designed and pointless survey, now this mess. These things should really have advertised community discussion, or at least approved by a group of sensible people, before being blown across one of the highest-traffic websites in the world. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do I see this right? 250000$ of donation money went into a PR firm creating a campaign that at best works for the American culture while a bunch of unpaid, untrained volunteers have to create the PR phrases for all the other cultures, because the American-centric ones at best don't work and in some cultures come across as totally offensive and wrong (the Dritte Reich and GDR sounding ones in German, for example)? I for sure won't donate money to that shortsightedness. --88.130.170.204 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal reverted

Just to keep everyone posted, the banner was removed from the English Wikipedia by admin RockMFR who disabled sitenotices here. He was reverted by Eloquence 15 minutes later here. The banner is now back in the English Wikipedia Acer (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"fundraiser sitenotices aren't subject to community consensus" says Eloquence. Interesting... who makes the content for this top-ten website again? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless otherwise stated, any edit to Wikimedia projects by myself is an act of a regular member of the community and administrator, not a legal or official action." (from the page User:Eloquence), demand he use his magic Foundation pixie dust to conduct the edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems slightly POINTy --Cybercobra (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but if it weren't for TheDJ's point about caching, I'd be seriously thinking about reverting. Rd232 ^talk 12:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if when we were subject to official actions of the Foundation that the official concerned would clearly indicate they were acting in that capacity. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general its a good idea to avoid revert warring on the sitewide CSS. Since only admins can edit it, it could technically be considered wheel warring regardless of whether its an office action. Mr.Z-man 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I've seen some pretty lame banners in my time on here but this tops it. Completely agree with Ed. This looks very juvenile. Himalayan 12:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire-Seriously, it looks clear among editors that this isn't well liked.--SKATER ^Speak. 13:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

Just so everyone knows, suggestions for alternative banners can be made at meta:Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's GONE

Apparently it was removed at the central level, since its gone from all wikipedias and projects Acer (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed by Eloquence. MER-C 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for technical reasons (IE6/7 breakage), but they may listen to alternative proposals on meta so let's contribute there. Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Rd232 said, please focus on creating slogans that might actually reflect the intent of Wikipedia at meta:Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners. Thanks :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for RockMFR

Everybody let's go sign a mass barnstar for this dude. Thank you for intervening to stop it. :) Durova³⁶² 14:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me notes that you could also enable the "Suppress fundaising banner" gadget under "Editing" in prefs. GrooveDog • FOREVER 18:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about suppressing the banners for those of us who have the experience on-wiki to do so (note that logged out users can't suppress it). It's the fact that these banners don't do a good job of representing what Wiki*edia is about, nor do they accurately convey the message that we rely on donations to run the website. Killiondude (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I clicked "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" just because I wondered what it was. Art LaPella (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

But isn't the majority of money donated from a few large donors? --NE2 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. :) The vast majority of the money comes in from small dollar donations as a result of this fundraiser. - Philippe 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The large donations typically have restrictions attached that require them to be used for specific things like the Usability Initiative, so they can't be used to cover normal operating costs. Mr.Z-man 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It varies year to year, but typically the Foundation raises about 2/3 of their annual income from donors giving $1000 or less. Dragons flight (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banner size indicates salary size

I hope I am wrong, but here goes: Both this year and last year the banners to me looked greedy. It looks like the persons designing these banners did it for their own personal gain. So last year I tried to find out how large salaries the people at the Wikimedia Foundation office have. After all, this is supposed to be a "nonprofit charitable organization", so its economic data should be public. I spent a day searching, but the only thing I could find was one number telling the amount of money spent on the office as a whole, including phone bills etc, but excluding the servers etc. ~~But still, that number seemed to indicate that it is an expensive office, compared to the number of people working there.~~ Not knowing if the people at the top are greedy grabbers or not, discourages me from donating any money. And it makes me ponder if I should continue editing Wikipedia. So, does anyone know how large their salaries are?

But of course we need to use donation banners every now and then, since Wikimedia needs funding. But they could be better designed. We have lots of skilled designers and coders working for free here. No need to pay an external commercial company to do sucky design, that's a waste of money.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Manager (Strategic Plan) - $80,000 to $95,000
Project Manager (Bookshelf Project) - $74,000 to $85,000
Development Associate - $42,000 to $46,000
Chief Technical Officer - $100,000 to $120,000
Software Developer (Usability project) - $75,000 to $85,000
Research Analyst (Strategic Plan) - $70,000 to $85,000

Thats all I can find atm. The Exec, deputy Exec and PA plus travel (no info on exacts) comes to something like 475,000 dollars projected for 08/09 rising to $600,000 in the fiscal year 09/10. Hope that gives you some idea. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, a search for "balance sheet" give nothing. However I managed to find link which states for 2009/10 that $3,036,000 (up 49% from the previous year) was spent on salaries and wages. We definitely need to add this to the FAQ and elsewhere: a bit of transparency is needed. Chris DHDR 19:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you want is the Form 990 Wikimedia has to file every year due to legal requirements. Unfortunately, the form is filed long after the end of the fiscal/calendar year, so the latest version covers the year ending June 2008. (The Form 990 for the year ending June 2009 might not be available until early next year.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seddon, DHDR and llywrch. I have now studied the entire pdf-file that llywrch linked to, and it more or less agrees with the numbers that Seddon mentions. It seems to me those numbers are gross salaries, before the different taxes are paid. That is, the total cost the organisation has for that employee. I don't know how much taxes you pay in the US, but if I read the numbers right then Executive director Sue Gardner, "Key employee" Brion Vibber and the others needed a raise back in 2007. During 2007 they were not overpaid, rather they seem to have been underpaid. Seddon's numbers indicate they have gotten a raise since 2007. Most of them could probably get high paying jobs in other places, so it seems the Wikimedia office is manned by idealists.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've have also had the impression that they are paying below market for most of the key staff. Dragons flight (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who love the design

I think this design is well-thought-out, intelligent, and beautiful. To this end, I have created a version for my user page, entitled PRETZELS FOREVER. You make your own too, quickly and easily! The template is at {{User:Pretzels/Template:Forever}} ;) — Pretzels^Hii! 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic. It's on my user page. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean

User:Rd232/Template:Forever

? Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean

[+] [Hide]Wikipedia

4EVAH

? ;) Protonk (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[+] [Hide]

ARTHROPODS

Forever

Mine at least tells the truth. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harej/Forever precedes all of y'alls. @harej 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Pretzels' has cooler stuff. I'll concede that. @harej 00:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll concede Pretzels' is way cooler. Still, there is something to be said in the truth. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to rotate the "Arthropods Forever" template with other featured pictures?

This would be great, and thanks for the idea. I think it's time to find a programmer. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click at your own risk

A meme? In my wikipedia?--SKATER ^Speak. 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're cool here. GrooveDog FOREVER 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should all do our signatures like that ^ in solidarity. Equazcion (talk) 06:34, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Tonight, on my way home from work, I envisioned my own version of the "Wikipedia forever" banner, with the profiles of the triumvirate of Wales, Sanger, & a 3rd person (not sure who -- Anthere? Brion Vibber? David Shankbone?) to the left of the motto, while to the right an emblem created from a drafting compass & several books. (If we are going to copy bad Marxist stereotypes, we might as well go all ofthe way.) Too bad I don't know how to create images with computer software worth a darn. -- llywrch (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, find your arthropod gallery disgusting. You are blatantly discriminating against crustaceans and other marine arthropods. Such bias on Wikipedia is wholly uncalled for. ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIAZ 4 LIFEZ! (that's what the banner translates to me) Angryapathy (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki iz 4 l1f3s!!! --Izno (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got sick of waiting for the "ALL UR EDITS ARE BELONG TO US" banner, so I did my own. Agree with the sig protest, too, above. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superior:

[+] [Hide]

RACCOONS

Forever

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike

STRIKE

(temporarily)

Enough larking about. The Foundation isn't listening. As a result, I've created a Proposal for editors to go on strike over the refusal of the Foundation to deal with feedback on "Wikipedia Forever". Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, ~~But~~ they did take into account the feedback (to ~~some~~ a limited degree): meta:Talk:Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners --Cybercobra (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't. Not a single one of those suggestions is currently slated for use, and neither are they dropping the currently planend banners even in face of massive opposition. Read Erik's (Eloquence) and Rands posts there. Acer (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be patient, shall we? It's not simply a matter of calling someone and saying "hey, take down the banner". The messages haven't even been put back up, so let's not get hasty about this. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't but they're planning too, as they've said it themselves. I don't want a repeat of yesterday Acer (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I signed, if the foundation puts the eyesore banner back up I don't want to bother to edit. --SKATER ^Speak. 12:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation is basically going ahead full steam after fixing unrelated tech issues. [8]. The only concession seems to be dropping all caps. Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly good to know that they take the views of the community that builds the encyclopedia into consideration when making decisions, huh? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA!!—I'm watching all this in rather isolated, unknowing detachment since I haven't seen any of those banners, simply because I changed my user preferences a while back in response to some other banner campaign. I'm just an ordinary rank-and-file user with no special privileges and mediocre-to-inferior technical knowledge (on an underpowered Compaq desktop with Windows Vista) so I haven't done anything that any other editor can't do. Of course, one should always think of the vast masses of unregistered readers and IP editors, but there's nothing I can see that warrants hasty or over-dramatic confrontation. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is rather more than disliking the banner ourselves (see the sections above, where the actual problems are well explained). We are aware that it can be hidden using the preferences, but what is being requested here is something different. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a Browsing Gadget, under the Prefs->Gadget tab, allowing each registered user to suppress it. Really not the point, if you read the discussion above and elsewhere (see links in the Proposal). Rd232 ^talk 15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, the problem isn't some dorky-looking banners (or even some which are considered offensive in certain countries), but the fact that Wikipedia/Wikimedia symbolizes a new way to harness brainpower & these banners suck; if Wikipedia is so neat, why did the people who created it come up which such a lame ad campaign? The harnessed brainpower here has been telling the Foundation that these ads are lame, & the Foundation's response has been to respond with boilerplate thanks for their input -- or ignore them. (Please note that a lot of the critics aren't the usual malcontents, but many of the volunteers who have donated or invested thousands of hours over years in making the non-technical side of the Wikimedia projects actually work.) The result will not be that a few dozen volunteers will feel embarrassed over dorky-looking banners (or over the unavoidable cultural misunderstandings), but that this will hurt the reputation of both the Foundation -- & its projects like Wikipedia -- thus leading to a decline in new members, new donations, & access to collections of books & other materials needed to improve content. The most generous explanation is that the PTB simply don't understand the depth of this misstep; the least generous is that they don't care. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my Strike Proposal - I don't know what else might get through to them, but a large number of editors signing it might. Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for our money back

As has been stated in various locations, the fundraiser is running with the following slogans: 'Wikipedia Forever' (33%), 'For your great, great, great grandson' (16%), 'For your great, great, great granddaughter' (16%) and 'Free Knowledge Forever. Ad-Free Forever. Wikipedia Forever.' (33%). Two more were developed, but rejected: 'This is everything we know' and 'Look at what you've done'. According to the Signpost (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Fundraiser), Wikimedia actually paid someone to come up with these. I propose that the Foundation asks for its money back. Modest Genius ^talk 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they actually paid to come up with these? Dang. I missed up a chance to make a quick buck.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support asking for money back. Rarely do I like the banners, but these are barely fit for purpose (people not even realizing they could be clicked!). • Anakin ^(talk) 13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a Wikipedia competition for banners?

'Wikipedia quondam, wikipedia futuram'? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're Back

And still not much better... I'll be going on strike now.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll alert the media. Mr.Z-man 01:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sarcasm. The strike discussion has now been archived. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever is open. There is a petition asking the Foundation to reconsider the banners ASAP. Other suggestions/comments on the banners are welcome. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was very supportive of the "revolution" at first, but I think that the main concerns have been addressed (even if they were incompletely addressed), so I think that it's time to dial back the rhetoric in favor of attempting to engage in a more constructive conversation. I know that at least one member of the WMF board has been looking over this conversation at least (or, that's what I'm lead to believe from comments, which I tend to trust). I would hope that two lessons are available from this experience: 1) paying a commercial concern to address our unique needs is unnecessary and problematic, and 2) that the community input should not be summarily dismissed. I think that we've effectively demonstrated both points, but it's up to us to follow through on them being adopted as canon, for the future.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How have the concerns been adressed? all they did was remove all caps. Of all the concerns with the banners that was probly the lesser one. Acer (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did remove the all-caps presentation... maybe I'm risking something (my age?) by saying this but, that alone is a pretty big "win" for "our side". I understand completely the fact that larger concerns exist (and I'm fully supportive of the larger concerns), but we did receive at least one concession. Let's not be sore winners here, and more importantly lets do some real work towards bettering our position for the future. After all, realistically the WMF is committed to the basic jist of this years fundraiser drive (whether we like it or not). Let's show a bit of maturity and good sense, and we can direct the course of next years, and all future years, fundraiser drives.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the caps change as significant. The banners still look bad. - Denimadept (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell, the Foundation reps who have engaged with the complaints haven't actually responded to the complaints other than making some of these slogans - including the ones that have generated the most complaint among the folks who, y'know, build the encyclopedia - lower-case and shoving them back onto the site. There's been no direct response to the community concerns on Meta anywhere that I can find, there's been nothing here... the impression being given is that those of us who have issues with the tone and the design of this campaign can just go back to work and leave the marketing side of things to the expensive folks in the nice suits. It's pretty disheartening to see that level of disinterest in the concerns here and elsewhere. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear you (not that that's worth anything)... it's just, put yourselves in their shoes. You've just spend a good chunk of change on hiring someone to bring in donations, but some of those whom your bringing in donations for are complaining (like they always do). That's why I think we shoudl switch gears from being bitching and moaning trouble makers to being advocates right now, because they've already taken the first difficult step and adjusted on their side somewhat. Do you (meaning everyone reading this) really need the public "mea culpa" statement in order to be satisfied?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying the concerns being expressed as "bitching and moaning" by people who "always complain" is kind of discounting the concerns here. I'm not a rabblerouser by any means, and the people who are complaining come from a wide swath of the encyclopedia's volunteer corps. The concerns are that the $250,000 that was spent on hiring Fenton for marketing services has produced a campaign that has been roundly panned, includes messages that are cliquish and trite, and does nothing to indicate that it's a fundraiser - it looks self-aggrandizing, and that's offputting to people. What I would have preferred is for the Foundation folks to have said "Okay, there's an issue here, let's discuss what we can do to solve that." What we got was "Okay, we fixed some of the technical issues and we took out the all-caps, and we're putting the same message out without answering any of the community's concerns." This is a collaborative project? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I get...

...In Firefox 2: [9]. Surely it's not supposed to look like that? I would have protested sooner but ~~apparently the banners simply do not appear at all from the secure site (unlike prior years). Rather ironic, given that those of us who use HTTPS place higher demands on the servers.~~ Feel free to use ~~both these points~~ as further examples of flagrant moronism in the implementation of these rude and amateurish banners. Thank you. • Anakin ^(talk) 12:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The banner now shows on the secure site for me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. Turns out the secure server thing was just due to a cached script. (I've now added an AdBlock Plus rule to block the notice loader instead -- as it's not like the central notices are ever used to do anything other than be annoying.) • Anakin ^(talk) 15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

Copied from Talk:Main Page.

I find it rather ironic that there is the banner on Wikipedia saying "Knowledge Forever, Ad-Free Forever, Wikipedia Forever" and yet it is advertising itself and the fundraiser.

This is not a complaint

Simply south (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

WMF, you've done an amazing job with these banners. I can only stand in awe. Designing simply horrid products, ignoring any attempts to try and help fix them, forcing them through despite protests, screwing up the implementation of them on nearly every browser known to man and (a few known only by dolphins), assuming ALLCAPS is cruise control for cool, sending a poor spokesperson to try and salvage the situation, acting so surprised that anyone could question your judgement (despite the fact that people have been doing just that for the past few weeks, refusing to admit you were wrong and change, and of course, the exorbitant costs involved. Have those involved considered applying for government posts?

Of course, I can't leave without commenting on just how inadequate these sorry excuses for ads are. Let's look at them one by one, shall we?

1) The infamous 'Wikipedia Forever' banner currently 'gracing' my screen has already been pretty thoroughly de-constructed (sadly, that didn't happen *before* it was put up), so for comparisons with various communist and fascist regimes look at the preceding threads. 'Juvenile' and 'cliché' and 'uninspired' are all words I'd use, as well as 'not worth $25000'.

2) For your great, great, great...etc. This doesn't even make sense unless you know that it's talking about a fundraiser, which most people won't as (shock, horror!) there's nothing there telling them that's what it is. Even if it was explained, it's still a stupid way of selling something (or at least that was the reaction of 5 workmates who I got to take a look at it). Frankly, I hope my descendants have a better organised and managed Wikipedia to look forward to.

3) 'Ad free forever'? The fact that it's saying this in...an ad...might serve to turn people off an encyclopaedia already known for factual inaccuracies.

4) 'Look what you've done' - I honestly laughed for about a minute straight when I read that one. It sounds like an admonition, not praise. Funnily, it's what I said to my dog recently when she took a dump on my pillow.

5) There was a fifth one, but it slips my mind. Possibly my memory is trying to protect me from it's sheer lameness.

And then there's the design. $25000 obviously doesn't by what it used to. *I* could have made those in the space of half an hour, and I'm no design genius. And I would have done it for free. Frankly, the slogans and the banners themselves look and sound like they were designed by primary school students. About the only kind thing I can say is that you didn't use <blink> or ,marquee. tags. Though that was only because you tried them(!) previously.

So WMF, in the words of your banner 'Look at what you've done'. And for the love of whoever is the patron saint of Wikis, change it. As soon as is humanly possible. And don't do it again.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think banners should be generated within the Wikipedia editors' system. To date, this system has not generated anything as lame as the banners up at the top of the page currently. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further WMF response

It's kind of stashed away on the talk page for the alternative banner suggestions (interesting place for it, I'd think the launch feedback page would be more appropriate), but there's a new update over on Meta. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand the "stashed away" comment, other then maybe the fact that it wasn't posted here to Wikipedia (personally, I don't really like the separation of things onto other sites, such as meta and the strategy wiki, but that's what seems to be occurring regardless). I've been turning into an apologist for the WMF over the last couple of days somehow, which I'm not really comfortable with since I don't really support the current campaign. Nothing is going to stop the current campaign though, and I would really like to see our collective effort go towards the long term goal of crafting next years fundraiser into what we want it to be.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "stashed away" seems to be due to murkiness about the difference between Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback and Fundraising 2009/Alternative banners and their respective talk pages. Most people are linking to Launch Feedback instead, but that comment from Eloquence shows that the intent is for Alternative Banners to be the place for non-technical feedback. There also isn't much attention paid to the talk pages, since discussion is also happening on their main pages. —AySz88 \^-^ 05:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my intention - it seemed to have been parked in a backwater, rather than someplace where editors would be more likely to see it. The more recent update by Rand Montoya has been posted more visibly. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The message this sends

I agree with the comments here, about how lame a crappy this campaign is. I can also report that over in Hebrew Wiki most people feel the same way.

But beyond this, I'd like to highlight another aspect - the whole concept of Wikipedia (and sister projects) is using the "wisdom of crowds" and volunteer work to create something to match and surpass high-quality commercial work (like Britannica). All the content, editorial decisions, and designs were produced by the community. We have created all of this, we are the reason people come here (and are greeted by crappy banners). And we also spend countless hours explaining why, even though we're free (in both ways), we're high-quality, reliable, professional, etc.

But when the foundation wanted banners, did they take the community approach? No. They chose to pay a commercial company to produce this. So, the message is clear - community efforts are nice, but when we want something serious, we'll work with the adults. Really advocating those collaborative principles, eh? okedem (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But when the foundation wanted banners, did they take the community approach? No. They chose to pay a commercial company to produce this. So, the message is clear - community efforts are nice, but when we want something serious, we'll work with the adults. Really advocating those collaborative principles, eh? -- Damn, I wish I had written that. -- llywrch (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better?

Any thoughts on how the new set of banners is looking? I find them much less objectionable than the previous lot, and the thermometers actually provide some sense of goals being set to help drive people towards fulfilling them. Still not hugely thrilled with the overall campaign or how it's been put into play, mind you. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new thermometer style looks alot better, a huge improvement over the previous one. This one is at least subtle, whilst the previous one was very "in your face" and shouty. --Taelus (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you -- and honestly, the Adfree Forever sounds like 'Evony Ad Free Forever' : the web game that ripped off tens of other games, published it as their own, than extensivily advertised in hundreds of sites all over the English web. Says Ispin (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currency and MOS

Why does the current banner violates the Manual of Style? There it clearly states that the project uses the format "US$7.5 million", and subsequently can use "US$7.5 M". Today I saw a new article where the editor had added an amount of money as "$4M CDN". This banner is wrecking the hours of labor that volunteers at places like GAN, FAC and PR use to teach editors how to write MOS-compliant articles. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]