Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Nice grammar in the header there.--72.49.62.205

I think it's a significantly big issue that there should be a link to it in the sitenotice. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

it's a message for editors and for the most part heavy editors at that. If there must be a message MediaWiki:Watchdetails would be a far more logical place.Geni 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. Agree with Geni. ~~ N (t/c) 03:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sorry about the revert I saw Sitenotice on my watchlist and just blind reverted. I want to make it clear that at this time I neither endorse nor opose placeing the message on watchlists.Geni 03:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too annoyed at Geni, I'm more annoyed at Zscout370 for abusing the rollback button, the one meant for rolling back vandalism. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Coming soon

"

style="margin-top:5px;">Wikimedia's board of trustees has agreed to a partnership deal with answers.com. The extra money will be used to help people in under-developed contries
For more information, click here.

I will be posting the above 30 days after October 20th. November 19th that is, when the tool actually appears. I have Jimbo's support in IRC, so I hope I won't be reverted this time. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So you want to oppose what is widly viewed as an advitiseing deal [1] with an advert? I think there are better ways to deal with this.Geni 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
We went over this. It's not advertisement in the slightest, it's news... Redwolf24 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I will note here that I only discover about this sitenotice today. I was never told about this notice and I do not approve the text as is. But well. My questiohn : how long has Jimbo agreed for the site notice to stay up ? I hope not 60 days or I garantee the site will not be working at all any more before that date, because we need to do a fundraising before the end of the year. Anthere 08:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd only have it up for one day, any longer would just be obnoxious, and feel free to work the wording ant. Redwolf24 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Where do you get the November 19 date from? Have you read Wikipedia talk:Tools/1-Click Answers where Jimmy has attempted to clarify that this is not an advertising. Angela. 09:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a really bad use of the site notice and use of the word 'advertising' is both misleading and inflamatory (since the ads would be on a copy of Wikipedia content hosted by Answers.com and would not be on Wikipedia itself). Modified wording should just go on the annoucements page and maybe on RC. But not here. I do not support having this message displayed at all. --mav 14:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Mav, and am surprised to hear you say that Jimbo agreed to the message, especially using the word "advertising", which he has made clear is not an accurate description of the deal. — Dan | Talk 15:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disapprove of this sitenotice as written. I think it will be fine if people want to have a sitenotice when the answers.com tool is available, but really, Redwolf24, it should be accurate and not provocative.--Jimbo Wales 20:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend against placing such a message. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed 'advertisement' to 'partnership'. And re: Angela on November 19th... Jimmy said in a PM that the Tools link will appear 30 days after October 20th. 10/20+30 days=11/19. But why did you ask about that? You know the details of the deal... And in the loosest definition, this is advertisement, but I fully agree calling it advertising will be provocative. I think sitenotice is the best path (don't worry it'll only be for about 24 hours) as not every wikipedian is an RC patroller, and not every wikipedian even has a watchlist (i.e. 0 items on it, I can name an admin without a list right now). Redwolf24 (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

(When I said 'you know the details of the deal' I didn't say it in a disrespectful way, I meant it in a 'wtf, maybe Jimbo was wrong' way.) Angela tells me on IRC that this will come about in January, and so maybe it won't be November 19th, but maybe January. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"The community-written free encyclopedia"

"The free encyclopedia" is the project's byline, and has been for quite some time. Changing the sitenotice to bring it out of line with this warrants more than a few minutes' discussion on IRC, without mention of the fact that the wording is extremely awkward. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 03:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's request

Jimbo has requested that we add something either in here or in the Tagline letting people know in some sense that either "anyone can edit" or that Wikipedia should be "taken with a grain of salt". My suggestion is: "All content should be verified from multiple sources", since this isn't wishy-washy, and doesn't sound compromising. Any other suggestions? Of course, nobody is going to agree completely on any changes, but it is better to put something up than to debate about it forever. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-7 14:20

I think that if something is put up (And I don't think it should be) then it will have to be legalistic. Something like this:
"While every effort is made by Wikimedia and its volunteer editors to maintain articles of the highest level of quality, Wikimedia does not accept responsibility for any personal loss due to inaccuracy of site content."
Seabhcán 15:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bigger fundraiser notice

Jimbo, Mav, and others are interested in experimenting with more prominent fundraising notices. For now, it will be restricted to the main page, using {{qif}} as shown below:

{{qif |test={{booleq|{{PAGENAME}}|Main Page}} |then=<div name="fundraising" id="fundraising" style="margin-top:10px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><big>'''[[Wikimedia:Wikimedia needs your help|Wikimedia needs your help]]''' in its current fund drive. See [[wikimedia:Fundraising#Donation_methods|our fundraising page]] for details.</big></div></div> |else=<div name="fundraising" id="fundraising" style="margin-top:5px;"><div style="text-align: center;">'''[[Wikimedia:Wikimedia needs your help|Wikimedia needs your help]]''' in its current fund drive. See [[wikimedia:Fundraising#Donation_methods|our fundraising page]] for details.</div></div> }}

This will produce the normal appearance on any other page, but on the main page will show up a little larger. Can anyone provide other suggestions for making the message more prominent on the main page (since Jimbo is not content with simply making the message bigger)? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:47

  • Nevermind. It works when you test it out on pages, but the way that Sitenotice is placed on every page must break it. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:59

Actually, I've come to complain that it's too big - I find the bar intrusively wide, and would like to see it slimmed down to about 1/3 of its current width (although I think the length does not matter). bd2412 T 23:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been slimmed down. Can't go much farther. --mav 23:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
That's fine - about what I was looking for. Thanks! bd2412 T 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam

This notice has expanded to three lines, and it might annoy some users. Is there a way for individual users to edit their local CSS to hide it?  Denelson83  07:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. The tax-deduction bit should stay. The CFO demands it! :) — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 07:24
  • Not mentioning tax deductibility - at the END of the tax season - would greatly reduce donations. So the message must stay. I don't expect editors to donate, so letting them choose to not display the message at all is fine with me. --mav 07:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This decision isn't yours, mav. Put in on the donation page, where it belongs. Dan100 (Talk) 10:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Getting back to the question Denelson83 actually asked, yes. #fundraising { display:none; } will get rid of it completely; #fundraising img { display:none; } will just get rid of the fugly graph. —Cryptic (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fundraiser graph

You may want to create a black border around the fundraiser graph, as it looks quite stylish on the english wikinews: (courtusy of me) Bawolff 08:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How many problems do you want...

  1. It's huge and spammy
  2. The half of visitors to the wiki who aren't in the US don't care about taxes
  3. The bar graph is meaningless - as there is no target, what on earth is the scale??

Therefore, I've toasted it. I have no objections to the daily reports link though. Dan100 (Talk) 10:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's meant to be "spammy". We want people to donate. If you can't understand this... :-)
More than half of the visitors to the wiki aren't in the US - and I'm one of them. But that's irrelevent to the tax-deductability that the Foundation presents to US donors (and no others).
The scale, for those who can count, is US$500k, which is over what we need and about what we want. It's not a specific target, but it's the commonly-agreed "nice" level.
I'm reinstating it.
James F. (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so there is a target (at least by any other name)? I wish people would make their minds up... Dan100 (Talk) 14:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • No there is no goal, but they've estimated how much they will need, and set that as the end of the bar. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:50
TING "There Is No Goal" - nuff said. ;) --mav 15:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetics

Can we please get rid of that ridiculous black border? This started out as a nice message, then it got a neat picture, then it got daily reports, then it got a US centric touch, then it got a black border....get a grip! I can't work out where the black box comes from - did someone change CSS? -Splashtalk 14:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. It was a suggestion by Maveric149, and was copied over from the defined "fundraising" style used on Wikimedia's website. I think it is reasonable to remove it. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:41

New design idea

File:Maveric149-temp.PNG

Like/no like? v1 v2 v3 http://tom.me.uk/2005/12/fundraising-experiment-wording.html Tom- 16:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neato! I like the second one better. What do other people think? --mav 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's rather good - takes up much less room, but looks better too. Dan100 (Talk) 10:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did make it live, but Phroziac reverted it, claiming it "looks like a popup"...?! Tom- 10:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Deductibility

Look, can we decide whether it is tax deductible elsewhere or not? And phrase a short essay listing the countries in which it is indeed tax deductible. The Foundation has a CFO and I presume legal counsel. If we insist on having the US there, which is plainly US centric, then at least be even handed about it. Or, javascript it in the same way the Error Message is scripted. Or, just suppress the entire fugly thing with a .css entry like I already did. -Splashtalk 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not that simple. According to Maveric149, we shouldn't make such claims unless they are definite. People really have to contact a tax professional in their region to make sure (except in the US). I am not trying to be US-centric. The reality is that WMF is US-based, and is tax-exempt in the US. Rather than being vague about where it is tax-deductible (and thus driving away people who don't want to read into detail to find out if their region is covered), it is better to say exactly where WMF donations are definitely tax-deductible: the U.S. Leave the doubt to other regions, where the status is definitely in doubt. If someone can show that it is definitely tax-deductible elsewhere, then add it to the list. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 17:16
    • That is the job of the CFO and legal counsel, and it should have been done before the launch of the fund drive (which, incidentally, is terminology entirely alien to British English). The main thing irritating me about this, is that some editors appear to think this is a new toy they can play with endlessly, from adding reports, links, styles, messages, images yadda yadda without proper appreciation of the fact that their mini-war is played out across the top of every single page in the English Wikipedia. I just visited Wiktionary. They have a simple, elegant message that worked jsut fine last time round. -Splashtalk 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The majority of donations are not through Wiktionary. As you can see, the donations have really gone up since adding the tax-deduction message at the beginning of today. That is why the CFO wants it to stay. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 17:49
  • It would be US-centric if it just said "donations are tax-deductible", because it assumes that everyone is in the US. The current form is not US-centric. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 17:21
  • Please, don't fight about this. The point of the deductibility message is to convey that donations made to us ('us' including at least two chapters) are deductible in some circumstances. But we can't state all the legalese and caveats in the fund drive notice. Thus there is a link to wikimedia:Deductibility of donations. Donors should read that page (which has been prepared by our legal staff) instead of relying on a sentence fragment. So I don't much care if 'U.S.' is in the sitenotice or not, since having it is obviously causing friction (bad) and makes the message more wordy than needed (also bad) while I'm sure most Americans will automatically assume their donation is deductible and just click to confirm this assumption. Now - what wording do we use to convey that in the shortest amount of space? 'Donations may be tax-deductible' is a wishy-washy kludge that works on a minimal level. Maybe just a simple message that says 'see also: tax-deductibility of donations'. --mav 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

Passive voice - "donations can be made" - is awkward. In the interest of minimizing changes to the sitenotice, which seems desirable, I propose it be changed back to "See our fundraising page for details." Are there any issues with that wording? — Dan | talk 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. It's changed. Please, even if you don't like it, just accept it and move on to more producitve work! :) — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 19:16

Style

My reason for changing the wording was not mainly about removing references to the US. My main objection is to the phrasing "and may be elsewhere". This sounds horribly kludgy and imprecise at first glance, even though it's grammatically correct. I am trying to find some way to avoid this wording. [[Sam Korn]] 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop it!

For goodness sake. Will people stop playing around with this. It needs one change per day. Brian0918, you in particular. This isn't some new experiment in graphic design. MediaWiki space isn't article space. Let the Foundation set the text and then quit. -Splashtalk 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. What we have now is fine! Dan100 (Talk) 09:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, there are the daily reports. Although I could just create a redirect on the foundation wiki and update that each day.. Then the sitenotice would not need to be edited again until the end of the drive. In fact, I'll do that after I create the next report to night. There seem to be serious caching issues this time and we have a donation bar that updates w/o the need to edit the site notice. So let's keep our hands off the notice unless we agree here first that more changes would significantly increase donations. --mav 13:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Does seem to work though

Grudingly, I admit that going by mav's daily reports, the addition of the graph has increased daily donations! Dan100 (Talk) 10:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Better message needed

Current message reads:

"You can help in our current fundraiser by donating here!"
cold, detached and directed toward our needs, not the donors'

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of people who only use Wikipedia as a source for information (same group that donates most of the money we get). Now, why should they care about our fundraiser? I mean, the fund drive itself. I think they care more about seeing Wikipedia improve and grow. The current message does not make this link emotionally explicit.

So how about something like this:

You can help Wikipedia grow and improve by donating here!
warm, nurturing and directed toward what donors want

Comments? Suggestions? If none, then I will implement this in one day. -mav 05:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Let's see if this improves things. --mav 01:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Other ideas

Jimbo has suggested that we experiment with this notice, testing out different ideas to see how they do. For example, the statement "Donations are tax-deductible in the U.S." occurred on Sunday, when we brought in $16,000 (though they don't necessarily correlate). Since we have a few weeks, we can test a different change each day.

Please list any suggested changes to test out for 24 hours. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 03:00

  1. Replace the tax-deductibility bit with "You can donate via PayPal, mail, or money transfer."
    • I think specifically mentioning PayPal might have a positive effect, and it's certainly worth trying. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 03:00
      • Mentioning PayPal in the Sitenotice is a bad idea since almost all potential donors DO NOT HAVE a PayPal account. I've worked hard to deemphasize the PayPal connection since a top complaint about our donation methods was the perceived lack of a way to donate online only using a credit card. I do like option 2 though. --mav 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright. I've tried contacting Tom- about testing his version for today, but he's not around. We'll try it out tomorrow. For today, I'll re-test the version that was used on the day that we got $16,000+ — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 00:30
  2. Try out this design for 24 hours, possibly with different colours to highlight the box
    • Alright. This design will be tested for the next 24 hours. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 00:03
      • This design has been tried and rejected several times since it looks like an ugly popup, I'm reverting to the older version that actually looks halfway decent. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
        • When has this been tested before? Mav wants it to be tested for 24 hours, so please, suggest an alternate version to test, or leave it, since it will only be this way for 24 hours. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 01:02
    • This new design (well, position) is very good. It leaves more room for articles yet at the same time seems to stand out more. Maybe that's because it's closer to the content, it affects the content (i.e. page titles) or because it's simply a new position. Whatever though, it's better :-). Dan100 (Talk) 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. A new idea I would like to test for 24 hours: remove the $ bar. This is on the rationale that as the number gets higher, people will see their potential donations as much less significant, and not bother to donate. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 18:51

Let's not. Dan100 (Talk) 13:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alignment?

Is it just me or did the notice jump to the right side of the screen? `Broken S 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It did. It will remain that way for the rest of today. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 17:25

Average donation

I didn't want to get involved in this but hated to see the "average donation" information there. It almost says "you should donate this much", and don't get me started about the choice of currencies... violet/riga (t) 00:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I chose the currencies that were the largest donors. You can add any you want. This is simply a test to see if donors are more willing to contribute when they see that others are contributing small amounts. This is only a 24 hour test. It will be changed back tomorrow. If you want to make other suggestions, they can be tested for 24 hours as well. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 00:19
    • I suggest not doing it at all! Please don't try and impose your version because it should be tested for 24 hours. I really don't think it is appropriate to show these figures as it implies that everyone should be looking to donate that much, and I'm sure it will decrease donations more than anything else. violet/riga (t) 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The truth is neither of us know what effect this will have. You can guess, and I can guess, but until we test it, who knows. Jimbo wants us to test out different styles and messages, and the CFO (mav) is alright with this 24 hour test (as he has been with the previous ones), so please stop making this out to be more than it is: just a test. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 00:22
        • It looks awful, and I really think that it would've been more appropriate to suggest it here first and then discuss it. violet/riga (t) 00:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC) – I notice you did suggest it, but only briefly and no discussion took place. violet/riga (t) 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest another test. Stop playing with the sitenotice, everyone!. This looks extremely unprofessional. I have to agree with Violet here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Titoxd. It makes the site seem very amatuerish. Dan100 (Talk) 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    • It was Jimbo's suggestion to experiment that led us to the 24 hour test, and mav has been pushing it. It is his fundraiser, so please complain to him if you don't want these tests to occur. You can always turn off the entire sitenotice in your css if you don't like it. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 00:28
  • I don't think it's quite big enough. But, hey, yeah, we can fix that! I suggest we add style="font-size: 500%" to it. And if nobody objects within the next eight minutes, I'm going to edit war on every page on Wikipedia to keep it in for the next 24 hours. what violetriga and titoxd said.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Violetriga and Titoxd. The constant playing with the site notice is unprofessional. It's forgivable, up to a point, because we're mostly amateurs, but we still aspire to the same quality of content as professionals, and I think the tinkering has gotten excessive. And the listing of average donations by currency is exceedingly tacky. --Michael Snow 02:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • So are you saying Jimbo is unprofessional for suggesting we experiment with the sitenotice?!? :) — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 02:32
    • Jimbo's not the one fiddling with it every ten minutes, which isn't necessarily what he had in mind when he suggested experiments. You can't even meaningfully evaluate an experiment if the conditions change too fast. Pick one experiment at a time, and stick with it long enough to figure out whether it works. And yes, I disagree with the average donations idea. I didn't call that unprofessional, but ideas that try to get at a suggested donation amount should at least be honest about what they're doing, otherwise it comes across as being in poor taste. --Michael Snow 02:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not trying "to get at a suggested donation amount", it's trying to provide a less unwieldy number than listing the total amount. See Rational ignorance for my ignorant rationale. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 03:02
        • How is the total amount unwieldy? It was a lot less unwieldy than trying to cram in every currency (unless you mean trying to do totals in every currency, which nobody has suggested yet that I know of). And even cloaked in public choice theory, it still comes across as either a euphemistic or oversophisticated attempt at suggesting a donation amount. Planning based on such theories needs to take into account how the public will receive the message. Judging by the reaction here, the message was clearly miscalculated and should be withdrawn. --Michael Snow 04:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
          • This number of complaints is actually on par with the other tests. Usually when Maveric physically steps in to enforce a version, then people stop complaining, but he has gone on break, and so all I have to prove his "will" is his statement on #wikimedia for me to give it a try. I've been his surrogate sitenotice handler while he's busy living his life. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 05:16
            • There are a lot more complaints here on the talk page about this change than any other. There's a difference between a series of changes, where one person raises a new issue after each change, and one change that prompts a whole bunch of people to raise the same issue all at once. This is the latter. --Michael Snow 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is give means a chance! — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 02:34
  • I agree. Quit fiddling; get rid of the average donation; bring back the progress bar. — Dan | talk 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So far only editors have complained. The fundraiser is meant to target readers, however. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 03:06
      • Readers don't know how to find this page and wouldn't leave a comment anyways. I dislike the averages and I prefer not having random "tests". Tests need results and data. I see none here. This is just random fiddling. Broken S 04:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not random. If mav doesn't like it, it goes, and it only lasts for 24 hours. That's not random :) — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 04:22
          • Perhaps, but the message as it stands now is ugly and is poorly placed. Unless someone other than yourself stands up for this test (I read through the talk and only a few people seem to stand by it, while many oppose it). I am going to revert it. I thought the "having it off to the side" was a test for 24 hours but now I see we are plagued by it for 48. Broken S 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
            • It was a 24 hour test. You need to refresh your MediaWiki:Monobook.css, I think. I didn't like the sidebar either, but I let it go for 24 hours to see how it went. Please let this go for the rest of its 24 hours. We are already well above what we normally have been at for this time. Only time will tell, but it will be impossible to tell if you just revert. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 05:06
  • Agree with removing average donation (I had come here with the intention of suggesting that, not knowing that there was already a discussion on it, actually). Agree with bringing back the progress bar. Blackcap (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For this and any future experiments, can we establish what we want it to look like here, or maybe on a subpage, and once we're decided, install it and leave it alone? I don't dislike the idea of trying different notices (indeed, when things don't change people can tune them out) but I don't like the idea of fiddling with it over the course of a bunch of edits. Oh, and I have my own suggestion to make, which is to use the green progress bar with a percentage of the goal rather than a dollar amount; it's international and doesn't give the impression we have enough money already. Demi T/C 07:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks about four to one against the current format of the sitenotice. Bearing in mind that these "tests" are worthless any way (see below), I'm bringing back the old version. Dan100 (Talk) 13:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh screw it, have your test. I guess it's better to try and have a little stability rather than have an edit war over it (which would no doubt ensue). But after midnight tonight, go to the progress bar version, and leave it for the rest of the fundraiser. Brian, we're all clearly sick of these worthless tests. Dan100 (Talk) 13:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain you do not represent everybody. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 15:14
He represents me in that statement. [[Sam Korn]] 15:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And I. Blackcap (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Average per currency

Hi there! Um...I decided to be bold and updated the value for C$22 to ssay CAD$30. Are we trying to include all sorts of currencies, or just the major ones? --HappyCamper 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • To clarify, this is the average donation made in each currency. So, in JPY we received US$32 per donation, versus $US26 in USD. I ordered them by total amount donated in each currency. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 01:53
    • That is quite confusing, as it seems that it can be easily misinterpreted to mean "the same amount, but converted to equivalent amounts in each currency". Also, the standard currency abbreviation for Canadian dollars is "CAD", but I suppose it's not quite so important to update that. Not sure how to reword to remove the ambiguity though... --HappyCamper 01:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I was just going for the shortest version, which according to the Canadian dollar page is "C$". It does say "Average donation per currency", which I thought make it clear. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 02:03
      • Do you think "Average donation by/through each currency" might be less confusing? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 02:07
      • Maybe "average donation by currency" instead? --HappyCamper 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Or "in each currency". — Dan | talk 02:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm going be bold and change it to "in each currency" :-) --HappyCamper 03:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
          • That probably works as well. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 03:08
            • I picked it based on some cursory Google searches. With "by" nothing came up. With "in", lots of things came up.
              • But do they all mean the same thing? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 03:18
                • Not sure, but with the word "in", when I read it, I do not get this ambiguous sentiment from it. I asked my friends who are just around, and they seem to prefer "in" too, over the other alternatives. Whatever works! :-) --HappyCamper 03:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

These tests are worthless

I think this is worth pointing out - for a valid experiment, you must only change one variable at a time, or you cannot see which variable is having what influence on the results. Thing is, this being Christmas, visitor numbers and attitudes towards donation are undoubtedly changing daily. Therefore we have two variables changing, and no worthwhile information can be gained from these "tests". Dan100 (Talk) 12:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the fact that it's Christmas Eve will have a greater effect on the amount of donations than whether the text is centred or floated right. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we can't still test them out. Every year we'll have a fundraiser during this time, so we can compare each year's efforts. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 15:17

No - the test are not worthless and should continue on a daily basis. I would like to find something that works better. But edit warring over this on the sitenotice, of all pages, is NOT tolerable and NEEDS to stop. We are grownups here, so let's act like them. --mav 15:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate here, is it possible that the expected amount was a bit too optimistic? If the fund drive is bringing in half of the expected amount, could a change in the site note really result in a doubling of donations? I do believe that the site notice has a correlation with donation amounts, but probably not to the extent that a poor notice would depress response by 50%. For what's it worth I preferred the progress bar since it gave a clear idea of what the goal was. Anyway, Happy Holidays everyone! Carbonite | Talk 15:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
A big problem with this drive is that there is no goal. The progress bar only has milestone ticks up the expected amount we thought we could bring in during this fundraiser. --mav 16:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That's dodging Carbonite's question, which I think is quite appropriate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but our best day ever was $16,285.68, and it's a 21-day fundraiser. It's unrealistic to expect to reach $500k if we'd only get 2/3 of the way there if we had 21 straight record days. —Cryptic (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that the fundraiser has started, it is unrealistic. But beforehand, we were predicted to pull in more than $16k each day, and now we realize that we can barely even meet that. --BRIAN0918 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that en.wiki is the only one doing this, with other languages sticking to the same format. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is no goal was the main mistake with this fundraiser from the beginning, and is the main reason it's not been as successful as past fundraisers. Fortunately, the fundraising bar somewhat compensates for this mistake by at least hinting at a goal, without it, it would have been a complete disaster.

A fundraiser must have a goal and clearly justify that goal. But I knew trying to explain this to people would be futile; some mistakes have to be made in order to have an effect on people's thinking. Removing the fundraiser bar is an equally bad idea, but without a goal, it is not nearly as effective as it could be. Focusing on the average donation amount is quite obviously a very poor idea because it carries certain emotional connotations, and as has been pointed out, the experiment is of little empirical value at this time. Again, if you feel you have to make this mistake in order to know that it is one, do so, but it is a mistake in any case.

There are other things that can be done to improve the amount of donations. For one thing, instead of sending our visitors through three or four pages (you can help => fundraising => one time => PayPal), it would make sense to have a PayPal entryfield, currency selector and submit button right in the site notice. Having two links in the notice is also not a good idea as people will be uncertain which one to click; it's better to have the information centralized on a single page. We can make more visible use of the feedback we receive for donations - having the 3-5 most recent comments generated as part of the fundraising image (so they will auto-update) would be one way to do it.

As for things normal editors can do, you could add fun facts about Wikipedia every day -- about our efforts to increase article quality, interesting pages like Wikipedia:Unusual articles, contributor tips, etc. - a kind of mini "Did you know" that increases the incentive to look at the fundraising bar. Of course, these facts could also focus on the need for funds itself: How many servers we have, that we only pay 3 employees, that we run other projects, etc.--Eloquence* 21:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree! Agree! Agree! Do it! Do it! Blackcap (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Goal. You are preaching to the choir on that count. This fund drive was made goalless over my very strong and officially-noted objection. I think we have a moral obligation to link our asking of money to a reasonably clear plan to *use* that money. People need to know that we have a plan to spend their money even if most won't ever look at that plan. Without knowing there is a plan they will not know that a seemingly huge amount of money, such as $100,000, is not enough.

The idea behind not having a goal was a perception that having one limited the amount we took in (we ask for x, we get x). My suggestion to combat that was to have a two phase drive: Phase 1 would have a goal and Phase 2 would be open-ended. An even better idea, IMO, would be to have a multi-tiered goal system based on a budget with needs, wants, and wishes marked out: Tier 1 would cover our most bare basic needs, Tier 2 would cover things we could certainly use or want, and Tier 3 would cover things we wish for (special projects and the like).

RE: Fundraising ideas. I really like the idea of having a single page instead of two. The link to the donation methods section could be eliminated by simply copying that section to the fund drive letter. Brilliant idea. Directly displaying the one time PayPal form on the fund drive letter page would also be a great idea, but I need to figure out how to enable currency selection via a pull down list (I’m sure Brion can help with that).

We can not, however, have the form in the sitenotice directly since that would require adding full HTML support to the entire English Wikipedia. That would be a security disaster. Might be a thing to consider for a future drive though if the security issues are fixed.

I *really* wish it were possible to have donor comments in the progress bar, but alas vandals will pony up a dollar just to put something trollish there. We have already had a few trollish comments by people who donated a few cents. Human-assisted dispaly could be possible but that means there will be a delay.

Fun facts ; Also a good idea. We could have 7 pages for that and display one for each day of the week automatically on the fund drive letter.

I'll work on at least combining the donation methods and the fund drive letter after I'm done with today's report.

--mav 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The donation graphic is already inserted using a custom extension; extensions can output any HTML without a need to change the main site config. It needs to be hacked, but there's nothing fundamental that prevents us from showing a secure donation form as part of the site notice. (In fact, see memorywiki for an example, where I hacked a mini-fundraising extension to be able to add a PayPal button anywhere on the site.) As for vandal comments, you could say that only comments associated with a donation of $10 or more are displayed in the box. If someone wants to pay $10 to troll a bit, I say let them :-). Both changes are, however, technical in nature, and Brion is on his way to Berlin, so he probably doesn't have time to do this during this fundraising drive.--Eloquence* 02:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas day test

Thoughts? Improvements? --mav 17:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Very nice. I like it a lot! — Dan | talk 17:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 17:25
Very good. As suggested above, I like the idea of having a percentage of the goal rather than a dollar amount, but I'm no picky and that looks grand. Blackcap (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no goal. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 17:45
Clarification: Percentage of the amount indicated my the size of the bar, which I'm assuming is some kind of projection of what we're hoping for. Blackcap (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this meant to suggest that if people don't donate Wikipedia won't be free (an ambiguous term in itself, especially for us)? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The term "free" is a little ambiguous. Free of what? Free of ads? Maybe. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 22:26
  • Well, in the sense that if Wikipedia stops getting money, then it eventually won't be able to run anymore or will have to accept advertising or something. Blackcap (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I just think it sounds a bit too much like "Donate or else!". —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. How about "donating to help Wikipedia?" Blackcap (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"You can give the gift of knowledge!" changed to "You can help give the gift of knowledge!"

The two helps ("You can help give the gift of knowledge by donating to help Wikipedia!") look somewhat funny next to each other, and it doesn't change that it sounds like you're giving something. That you're helping giving something makes no difference in that you're giving something. I think this ought to go back. Blackcap (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. That looks O.K. now, although I admit I liked it better the first way around. Anyway, though, I'm not complaining. --Blackcap (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
BAH! Too wordy. It should read: Give the gift of knowledge - donate to Wikipedia! Also, we should have some program in place for people do donate in the name of someone else (you know, like buying someone a name in the star registry). bd2412 T 00:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Images, more color

The notice is not very eye-catching or cheerful. How about something like this?

--+sj + 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying it out, starting at 19:18 EST. +sj + 00:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The icons cause the sitenotice to take up too much space, at least when it's a sidebar, so that it interrupts the layout of article text. Images are okay (although I thought the progress bar served that purpose), but if they're going to bloat the space like this, then we need to go back to a centered notice. --Michael Snow 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It already is centered again. Hold down [CTRL] and click reload. I also don't like the images since clicking on them takes people to a useless and unexpected place ; a page about the image. If more color is needed or whatever, then it should be part of the progress bar image. --mav 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I also fretted about the bit about taking people to an unexpected place... that's always an issue with images. We /really/ need to add functionality that allows one to change where images take you (and add 'leave images linking to their source pages whenever possible' as a style guideline). +sj + 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Template:Click will let you do it. It's a pretty ugly hack, though. —Cryptic (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Not quite sure I like the images. I took them off a few minutes ago to upload them from Commons and reprotect them; they're back on now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
They're gone now. Would other images work better, or do you not like the images there in general? I would definitely notice the top bar more with some more cheerful color; even something very simple; but couldn't think of a more information-rich way to integrate it. I think that any specific implementation of images/color will offend some people's artistic sensibilities, but will increase visibility of the notice for everyone. +sj + (remembering how much I hated the Dean baseball bats) 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm unthrilled with images in general, but these ones are particularly bad. It made us look like a Congratulations-for-graduating-from-elementary-school card. —Cryptic (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I liked the idea of adding little interesting bits about us and why we need the money, such as that (AFAIK) we have no paid workers, etc. That'd add something neat, relevant, and would attract attention. Blackcap (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
m:Wikimedia staff —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I always wanted one of those cards. What about non-iconic colorful images? I don't like this use of red and green, or of an image centered just below the status bar (I preferred something small on one/either side of the bar) but it is an example: +sj + 02:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
red sunset slice
red sunset slice


Oh $deity no

Balloons? A hat? Words can not convey how awful this looks. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A mortarboard isn't just any hat... +sj +

Oh god - please - make them go away! --mav 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrible. I'm removing them. An announcement on the talk page that you're going to be putting cutesy leetle icons on every page on Wikipedia half an hour before you go ahead and do just isn't on. —Cryptic (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, they're gone now. I wonder if that will be enough time to gauge the effect... Is the complaint about icons in general, or these in particular? +sj +
I'd been thinking about adding some color to the header for weeks; a friend (without my prompting) said "Why don't you have a nice cheerful icon next to the bar?" I waited for feedback from a few people (which was positive) before making the change... Perhaps there is some way to add non-iconic color? Something dark or greenish on the left side, to keep the bar from looking too empty; and something brighter on the other; or just a centered very thin image just above that line, or ? +sj + 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea - leave it the heck alone! At the end of the day, running a fundraiser over Christmans when site traffic is at its lowest and most people are broke from buying presents and booze was never a good idea, and the low totals are the result. (What did people expect?) No amount of fiddling with the site notice is going to change that. Dan100 (Talk) 10:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, the current iteration - a single link which goes straight to the "letter" page but with a big fat make-a-donation box on it - is the best one yet, i.e. it's the most logical design - there's only one link to click on, and it takes you straight to where you can hand over money. So I suggest we stick to this version now. Dan100 (Talk) 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Main page banner

See also Template_talk:Main_Page_banner#This_looks_HUGE +sj + 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Version for in between fundraisers

There is talk of keeping a very small version of this for use between fundraisers, since donations are accepted year-round, but drop off to nill inbetween fundraisers (ie: most of the time of the year). Please discuss possible short sentences at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice/temp. --BRIAN0918 04:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It will make it look like we're running a fund drive all the time, and so will kill the proper drives. Suicide. Dan100 (Talk) 10:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Running the campaign sporadically is better, since people will not learn to tune it out, and it retains its credibility. In addition, such smacks of advertising, definitely an impression to avoid. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
WNYC does it similarly. Aggressive campaigning for a month or so, then absolutely no mention of fundraising for a while. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

POV at top of page

I am rather upset by the recent banner at the top of Wikipedia: Please take a moment to read this personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.

While this notice clearly was but up with good intent, that Jimmy Wales is the sole founder of Wikipedia is disputed and saying that he is a direct violation of NPOV. Do we really want a violation of Wikipedia principles to be placed on top of every page. What does it say about Wikipedia if we tell others to be NPOV but Wikipedia is not?

Jimmy's argument is that Sanger's contribution is irrelavent since Sanger worked under him. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to think that this logic is equivalent to saying that William Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain don't deserve credit for making the first transistor because they worked underneath the CEO of AT&T. Thus logic is not recognized by most people - they all won nobel prizes.

I propose that the text be replaced with something like "Wikimedia chairman" or "Wikipedia head".

Where 01:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is for articles. Jimbo considers himself the sole founder of Wikipedia, and the banner is from the Wikimedia Foundation, so it doesn't really matter. You could bring this up on MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice if you feel strongly, however.--Sean|Black 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The banner doesn't assert that Jimbo is the only founder of Wikipedia; it simply identifies him as a founder, implying neither that he is the sole founder nor that there are other founders. I don't think anyone can argue that he is not a founder of Wikipedia. The statement is very NPOV. --TantalumTelluride 03:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The implies only one. It thus implies he is the sole founder. If he used "a", it would be different. Even you used "a founder" when talking about him; I think that undermines your point. I guess I am technically wrong that it is literarly against the NPOV policy because NPOV is for articles. However, the statement is definately POV, and thus violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Where 04:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just suppressed the entirety of the playground-for-admins-and-spam by adding a couple of lines to my monobook.css. Much more pleasant, and I can ignore all the frivolity that one or two or three or four editors have been suffering from throughout the current fund raising. Not that this solves your problem, of course. -Splashtalk 04:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add an ID to the "Please take a moment..."

If we add an ID to that notice, it will allow people who have already read the personal appeal to remove it from their screen via a #siteNotice #personalAppeal {display:none;}. The current set up takes up 4+ lines of space on the top, and it is getting annoying, even though I know how important donations are to Wikipedia. Ideally, I would block the image and the personal appeal message while setting display:inline; for all child tags of the siteNotice, but the current setup makes this infeasible, any solution brittle and probably breaking upon the next shuffle.

I really do not want to block #siteNotice. Thanks. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It already has one: #pabanner. (See User:Splash/monobook.css.)-Splashtalk 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
How does this help us Cologne Blue users? Ambi 09:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you'd need to edit User:Ambi/cologneblue.css? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice/Archive_3&oldid=1108548049"