An urgent appeal from git-scm.com maintainer Scott Chacon(git-scm.com)
git-scm.com
An urgent appeal from git-scm.com maintainer Scott Chacon
http://git-scm.com/appeal
63 comments
It doesn't go away very long. I press the X and I still find myself having to press it again fairly often.
I'm probably not a good benchmark but personally I find Jimmy Wales really smug and annoying. This is due to my experience as an active WP editor back in the day. I hate the false sense of urgency that this campaign is pushing.
I'm not "outraged" by any means and haven't stopped using Wikimedia sites, but it is definitely asinine and repetitive. How long has this "urgent" fund drive been going on now? Are they just going to keep it until they hit their stated goal?
Wikipedia should find a way to become more useful, there's no need for all this crap. I wouldn't have any problem at all if WP just implemented an advanced history or page stats viewer and charged people $10/year to use it. Then they could stop with these humongous, recurring banners, the constant begging, and Jimmy Wales could quit pretending to be the saint that he definitely isn't.
I'm probably not a good benchmark but personally I find Jimmy Wales really smug and annoying. This is due to my experience as an active WP editor back in the day. I hate the false sense of urgency that this campaign is pushing.
I'm not "outraged" by any means and haven't stopped using Wikimedia sites, but it is definitely asinine and repetitive. How long has this "urgent" fund drive been going on now? Are they just going to keep it until they hit their stated goal?
Wikipedia should find a way to become more useful, there's no need for all this crap. I wouldn't have any problem at all if WP just implemented an advanced history or page stats viewer and charged people $10/year to use it. Then they could stop with these humongous, recurring banners, the constant begging, and Jimmy Wales could quit pretending to be the saint that he definitely isn't.
> Wikipedia should find a way to become more useful
I find wikipedia very useful in its current form.
I find wikipedia very useful in its current form.
Me too, useful was the wrong word. I probably should have said "self-sufficient".
That doesn't make any sense either. Do you think Linux should find a way to be more self-sufficient? Either it's a community endeavor (and requires community support) or it is not Wikipedia.
Linux is a rather different deal than Wikipedia. When you see Linus running fundraisers for 3-4 months until ten or twenty million dollars is donated, then I will probably think that Linus and Linux need to become more self-sufficient.
The content and the hosting can be separated, as they are with Linux and many other open-source projects; Linus controls Linux, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he also controls kernel.org or any of the other places where it may appear. The authors of projects on Google Code control their projects even though Google provides the hosting -- individuals can still create content without centralized authority. If Wikipedia performed more experiments in this space, they may not need $20 million every year to continue operation.
That's a pretty hefty investment for something that doesn't make any money. Even non-profit or public endeavors are expected to operate in a generally self-sustaining way so that they don't become a burden and so that reasonable control isn't taken away from the endeavor's controllers.
Wikipedia could be developed independently of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think Wales et al have done a really spectacular job running things as it stands anyway.
The content is produced by the community. This fundraiser is not to pay people to produce content, but to pay for hosting and other costs associated with running a live instance of the Wikipedia content.
The content and the hosting can be separated, as they are with Linux and many other open-source projects; Linus controls Linux, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he also controls kernel.org or any of the other places where it may appear. The authors of projects on Google Code control their projects even though Google provides the hosting -- individuals can still create content without centralized authority. If Wikipedia performed more experiments in this space, they may not need $20 million every year to continue operation.
That's a pretty hefty investment for something that doesn't make any money. Even non-profit or public endeavors are expected to operate in a generally self-sustaining way so that they don't become a burden and so that reasonable control isn't taken away from the endeavor's controllers.
Wikipedia could be developed independently of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think Wales et al have done a really spectacular job running things as it stands anyway.
The content is produced by the community. This fundraiser is not to pay people to produce content, but to pay for hosting and other costs associated with running a live instance of the Wikipedia content.
Why should Wikipedia's goal be to provide something different that's cheaper? Why is it wrong for them to need money?
They can provide the same thing if they can work it out. It's not wrong to need money per se; as noted above, I am not outraged about this and I don't get the sense that the idea of a Wikimedia fundraiser is immoral.
It is just annoying that the fundraiser has continued for so long and that the practices have been disruptive to the perusal of Wikimedia content for some time now. I am aware that Wikimedia wants my donation; I do not want to give it to them because I don't trust the Wikimedia Foundation to make very good use of it, and I don't like several of the policies they have promulgated and installed on Wikipedia.
I think it would be better for everyone if Wikimedia found a way to become self-sufficient because then: a) nobody would have to be bothered by huge donation banners for months on end; b) Wikimedia would have more consistent and improved cash flow, which ultimately translates into greater flexibility; c) Wikimedia would not be beholden to random subsets of people for its continued operation (they could focus on the subsets that specifically generate revenue and improve their revenue-generating functionality) and would not need to dedicate large amounts of effort to a sustained months-long fundraising effort. And so on.
So, I'm not casting moral judgment here. I just think it would be better for everyone if WM tried to do something less annoying and more focused to sustain its finances.
It is just annoying that the fundraiser has continued for so long and that the practices have been disruptive to the perusal of Wikimedia content for some time now. I am aware that Wikimedia wants my donation; I do not want to give it to them because I don't trust the Wikimedia Foundation to make very good use of it, and I don't like several of the policies they have promulgated and installed on Wikipedia.
I think it would be better for everyone if Wikimedia found a way to become self-sufficient because then: a) nobody would have to be bothered by huge donation banners for months on end; b) Wikimedia would have more consistent and improved cash flow, which ultimately translates into greater flexibility; c) Wikimedia would not be beholden to random subsets of people for its continued operation (they could focus on the subsets that specifically generate revenue and improve their revenue-generating functionality) and would not need to dedicate large amounts of effort to a sustained months-long fundraising effort. And so on.
So, I'm not casting moral judgment here. I just think it would be better for everyone if WM tried to do something less annoying and more focused to sustain its finances.
Just out of curiosity, do people get this upset when NPR and PBS do their fund drives?
Yeah, actually. Most NPR listeners I keep in touch with hate fund drive season and find it highly annoying.
Frankly, I hate ads that play sound and obscure the page I'm trying to read, too. The reason I'm particularly annoyed at Wikipedia is because I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard. If Wikipedia had ads that played music or obstructed the article (even pledge drive ads featuring Jimmy Wales' goatee) I would be even more annoyed.
Yeah, actually. Most NPR listeners I keep in touch with hate fund drive season and find it highly annoying.
Frankly, I hate ads that play sound and obscure the page I'm trying to read, too. The reason I'm particularly annoyed at Wikipedia is because I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard. If Wikipedia had ads that played music or obstructed the article (even pledge drive ads featuring Jimmy Wales' goatee) I would be even more annoyed.
Oh yes. The worst is having to suffer through the NPR pledge drive after I've already donated.
I kinda wish the politics and technology allowed them to offer a premium version with no corporate messages or pledge drives.
I kinda wish the politics and technology allowed them to offer a premium version with no corporate messages or pledge drives.
I wouldn't donate to Wikipedia because I don't think they spend the marginal donation dollar very well. Here's a picture of the Wikimedia headquarters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Wikimedia_Foundation_O...
I'm not convinced that having a lot of foundation employees helps make the encyclopedia better. I'd like to see Wikipedia operate on a shoestring budget and stop collecting donations once they had enough invested to run their servers off of dividends and interest indefinitely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Wikimedia_Foundation_O...
I'm not convinced that having a lot of foundation employees helps make the encyclopedia better. I'd like to see Wikipedia operate on a shoestring budget and stop collecting donations once they had enough invested to run their servers off of dividends and interest indefinitely.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit with only 27 full-time employees[1] (data for 2009) which runs, among others, the 7th most popular site on the web[2], and provides the world with an amazing source of knowledge. Of course the contents is provided by volunteers, but logistics of running a site and community of this size are far from trivial. I think that they spend the money wisely, so I donated myself and encourage you to do the same.
When it comes to the photo that you linked, what does it prove? That they work in an actual office, not a bike shed or a tent? Do you claim that it's a luxury for them to have an office?
I personally admire their spine and dedication to reject corporate money, and I'm surprised that even HN readers complain so loudly about the appeal. I guess Wikipedia already became a commodity that we got used to taking for granted. For better or worse.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
[2] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
When it comes to the photo that you linked, what does it prove? That they work in an actual office, not a bike shed or a tent? Do you claim that it's a luxury for them to have an office?
I personally admire their spine and dedication to reject corporate money, and I'm surprised that even HN readers complain so loudly about the appeal. I guess Wikipedia already became a commodity that we got used to taking for granted. For better or worse.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
[2] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
very nice idea, I wonder how much money would be enough to make wikipedia run on its dividends only. Does anyone know how much wikipedia cost to operate ?
Well, fund drives are annoying, whether they be for Wikipedia, NPR, or anything else. They are less annoying than ads, however, so I deal with them and don't complain. I just wish the banner would go away now that I've donated; instead, I still see the banner and have gotten an email asking me for more money.
Exactly. That's the problem with old media - you can't, for example, subscribe to the "clean" version of NPR, a magazine, or a newspaper after paying for it.
With online media you can. If Wikipedia went to the "with ads for free, no ads if you subscribe or pay a one time 'founders fee'" I think it would be much more successful.
With online media you can. If Wikipedia went to the "with ads for free, no ads if you subscribe or pay a one time 'founders fee'" I think it would be much more successful.
I just think it is weird to ask people for money when there are other people(companies) willing to give them money.
I assume the reason they don't want to take money from 'people(compaines)' is that once they do they will be accused of being influenced by them. If they took a $1m donation from McDonalds, how much fuss would there be over every edit to articles about food/nutrition etc.?
I think it's mostly because you can blame wikipedia for wanting your money, as opposed to the innocent "free" website that puts ads... at least they aren't getting your actual money LOL
it's just psychology
it's just psychology
It's a joke parodying http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA032/en/US
I can't imagine Scott or a tiny git website is in need of money.
Amusingly, if you try to enter an amount greater than $25000, google checkout just dies.
I can't imagine Scott or a tiny git website is in need of money.
Amusingly, if you try to enter an amount greater than $25000, google checkout just dies.
Speaking of wikipedia, I'd be perfectly content if the "urgent appeal" banner were replaced with an ad.
That would be horrible. Replacing it with an ad would mean that they are now beholden to the advertiser, as opposed to being beholden to their donors. Right now Wikipedia depends on their editors to provide content, and donors to provide money. If instead they relied on advertisers to provide money, they would lose an awful lot of credibility.
Also, why would you prefer an ad to the donation banner? Ads tend to promote excessive consumption or try and manipulate your baser desires to get you to part with your money. They tend to be animated, or play sounds, or dance all over your content. They provide vectors for malicious code to be injected into your site.
Instead, we have the founder of a highly useful collaborative educational resource (or sometimes some editors of same) asking for donations to support that without being beholden to corporate interests. Where's the problem?
Also, why would you prefer an ad to the donation banner? Ads tend to promote excessive consumption or try and manipulate your baser desires to get you to part with your money. They tend to be animated, or play sounds, or dance all over your content. They provide vectors for malicious code to be injected into your site.
Instead, we have the founder of a highly useful collaborative educational resource (or sometimes some editors of same) asking for donations to support that without being beholden to corporate interests. Where's the problem?
The problems you cite depend on the implementation. Wikipedia could require ads to be unobtrusive, from a diverse set of advertisers, and placed via a system (perhaps completely automated) that insulates from advertiser meddling in content. And, anyone who's truly offended by ads could turn them off at their option, just like the [X] on the campaign ad.
Such a system might generate 10X the revenues. If Wikipedia doesn't need them all, either for current year operations or a lasting endowment, they could liberally fund other free-culture projects with the surplus.
The biggest risk I see -- and what I believe to be the de facto reason ads haven't been more seriously considered -- is that a large portion of the editor community shares your (IMHO irrational) fear of ads, and this fear could become self-fulfilling if the introduction of ads drives away editors.
Even this might be addressable with careful handling, though. For example, what if there was one official Wikipedia mirror that had ads -- rather than the hundreds of unofficial ad-drenched mirrors? The default site would still be ad-free, for all editors, users who opt to visit or link-to the ad-free site, and inlinks from ad-free or primarily non-commercial sites. But, inlinks from major commercial entities (like say Google) would go to the ad site, unless that user had opted differently.
Doesn't that give everyone what they want -- lots more money for free culture projects with a large default sphere insulated from the 'corrupting' influence of money?
Such a system might generate 10X the revenues. If Wikipedia doesn't need them all, either for current year operations or a lasting endowment, they could liberally fund other free-culture projects with the surplus.
The biggest risk I see -- and what I believe to be the de facto reason ads haven't been more seriously considered -- is that a large portion of the editor community shares your (IMHO irrational) fear of ads, and this fear could become self-fulfilling if the introduction of ads drives away editors.
Even this might be addressable with careful handling, though. For example, what if there was one official Wikipedia mirror that had ads -- rather than the hundreds of unofficial ad-drenched mirrors? The default site would still be ad-free, for all editors, users who opt to visit or link-to the ad-free site, and inlinks from ad-free or primarily non-commercial sites. But, inlinks from major commercial entities (like say Google) would go to the ad site, unless that user had opted differently.
Doesn't that give everyone what they want -- lots more money for free culture projects with a large default sphere insulated from the 'corrupting' influence of money?
Many of the things you describe here would make for a more palatable experience on an ad-based website. But you completely miss the boat by assuming that people 'fear' advertisement, some people just really dislike it on principle. This is especially true when it comes to free culture projects who wish to be self-sustainable and perhaps even feel as if their efforts are validated a bit by the willingness of their users to support their project.
Wikipedia is a huge project with tremendous social value. It is sad to me that you may be right that an advertisement would bring in 10x the revenue, because it means we're in a culture in which one expects to perpetually be in commercial relationships. This makes the user more likely to purchase a consumer good than they are to donate to a service that has been consistently offering them more value.
The reason for this is that any direct donation based system is deeply damaged by the mass tendency to assume that someone else is in a better position to donate. In fact, the more valuable (and successful) a project is, the more this becomes a problem. But this problem is cultural, in an ideal world people would have a greater social responsibility without the need for assuming someone else is going to take care of important services like these. To push us in that direction, we get a giant fucking picture of Jimmy Wales to make us feel guilty and give. Personally, this has about the same negative impact on me that an advertisement would, albeit for different reasons.
I think the real solution is for Wikipedia to find a better way to fund itself in a grassroots fashion. I have trouble seeing how the Wikimedia Foundation can't come up with other ways to fund themselves. They have a tremendous amount of content and data. I'd love to see them build something they can sell that would support Wikipedia's operations.
Wikipedia is a huge project with tremendous social value. It is sad to me that you may be right that an advertisement would bring in 10x the revenue, because it means we're in a culture in which one expects to perpetually be in commercial relationships. This makes the user more likely to purchase a consumer good than they are to donate to a service that has been consistently offering them more value.
The reason for this is that any direct donation based system is deeply damaged by the mass tendency to assume that someone else is in a better position to donate. In fact, the more valuable (and successful) a project is, the more this becomes a problem. But this problem is cultural, in an ideal world people would have a greater social responsibility without the need for assuming someone else is going to take care of important services like these. To push us in that direction, we get a giant fucking picture of Jimmy Wales to make us feel guilty and give. Personally, this has about the same negative impact on me that an advertisement would, albeit for different reasons.
I think the real solution is for Wikipedia to find a better way to fund itself in a grassroots fashion. I have trouble seeing how the Wikimedia Foundation can't come up with other ways to fund themselves. They have a tremendous amount of content and data. I'd love to see them build something they can sell that would support Wikipedia's operations.
Why would they lose credibility?
It seems like an ad could be much more profitable than the donation banner, because ads can be targeted, even with zero behavioral history. For example, if I'm visiting a page on the new Tron movie, show me ads for the Daft Punk album! Odds are I might buy it.
Also, all of the things you said about ads could be said about in-house donation banners.
It seems like an ad could be much more profitable than the donation banner, because ads can be targeted, even with zero behavioral history. For example, if I'm visiting a page on the new Tron movie, show me ads for the Daft Punk album! Odds are I might buy it.
Also, all of the things you said about ads could be said about in-house donation banners.
* Manipulate your baser desires to get you to part with your money
* Tend to be animated... etc
* Could provide vectors for malicious...They would lose credibility because there would be a conflict of interest. Advertisers would be able to manipulate Wikipedia by threatening to remove ads unless they received favorable coverage, or negative coverage were removed.
Yes, I'm sure that ads could be more profitable than a donation banner. This is why most websites have ads instead of donation banners. However, Wikipedia is not a for-profit enterprise. It is an educational non-profit. If it were a for-profit enterprise, people would trust it much less, not as many people would contribute to it since they'd wonder why they were donating time and effort to a for-profit enterprise, etc.
And none of those things you list are true of a donation banner. Donating to an educational non-profit is not a "baser desire." I have never seen an animated banner asking for donations on Wikipedia, nor anywhere else that I can think of off the top of my head. And donation banners are coming straight from Wikipedia, not a third party; if they wanted to send malicious code, they could do so directly. The point is that ad networks are notorious vectors to allow malicious code to be injected by third parties into other people's sites.
Yes, I'm sure that ads could be more profitable than a donation banner. This is why most websites have ads instead of donation banners. However, Wikipedia is not a for-profit enterprise. It is an educational non-profit. If it were a for-profit enterprise, people would trust it much less, not as many people would contribute to it since they'd wonder why they were donating time and effort to a for-profit enterprise, etc.
And none of those things you list are true of a donation banner. Donating to an educational non-profit is not a "baser desire." I have never seen an animated banner asking for donations on Wikipedia, nor anywhere else that I can think of off the top of my head. And donation banners are coming straight from Wikipedia, not a third party; if they wanted to send malicious code, they could do so directly. The point is that ad networks are notorious vectors to allow malicious code to be injected by third parties into other people's sites.
> If it were a for-profit enterprise, people would trust it much less
You'd be surprised to learn how many people have no idea wikipedia is non-profit. A lot have no idea that you can edit articles and just assume it's a regular encyclopedia written by paid people. I have witnessed people telling me this too many times, and yes, it's pretty depressing.
You'd be surprised to learn how many people have no idea wikipedia is non-profit. A lot have no idea that you can edit articles and just assume it's a regular encyclopedia written by paid people. I have witnessed people telling me this too many times, and yes, it's pretty depressing.
Whether advertisers would have that influence depends on the specifics of the implementation; I think Wikipedia has the smarts and culture to resist any attempt at advertiser (or donor) manipulation.
The decision to make money from advertising (or other services other than charitable donations) is independent of the decision to be a mission-oriented non-profit or a for-profit. A non-profit can still make most of its budget from selling considerations; see for example The Mozilla Foundation.
The decision to make money from advertising (or other services other than charitable donations) is independent of the decision to be a mission-oriented non-profit or a for-profit. A non-profit can still make most of its budget from selling considerations; see for example The Mozilla Foundation.
You are assuming a model where they would have something like an ad sales department that deals directly with advertisers and so might try to put pressure on the editorial side to keep big ad clients happy.
There are other advertising models. For instance, why not Google ads or Bing ads? I don't see how there is much danger of those influencing editorial content.
There are other advertising models. For instance, why not Google ads or Bing ads? I don't see how there is much danger of those influencing editorial content.
They got my donation, but for some reason I can't keep the ad from coming back, and, I'm now getting email asking for a monthly donation.
I just wish there was some way I could pay money to turn off the Massive Banner Ad off for a year. I'm happy to pay around $100-$150/year for WIkipedia, but the user experience is starting to degrade when a signicant chunk of my screen is a Massive "Urgent Appeal" banner.
I just wish there was some way I could pay money to turn off the Massive Banner Ad off for a year. I'm happy to pay around $100-$150/year for WIkipedia, but the user experience is starting to degrade when a signicant chunk of my screen is a Massive "Urgent Appeal" banner.
I find it particularly bad that the banner is there even after you donate.
On top of that, a few weeks after donating I got an "urgent" request from Jimmy Wales looking for a recurring monthly donation.
The urgent appeal banner is an ad.
It is, but it's not bad in the way that an outside advertisement is bad: there's no conflict of interest.
one potential issue there: what happens when the advertiser doesn't like what they see on the article about them?
even if such 'influence' is disallowed, just the possibility of it occurring would hurt the site
even if such 'influence' is disallowed, just the possibility of it occurring would hurt the site
If an advertiser is dissatisfied, he withdraws his ads and is replaced. If noone wants to advertise on controversial topics, wikipedia has more than enough uncontroversial content to pay the bills. They might even just disable ads on controversial pages, which would go a long way towards avoiding even percieved conflicts of interest.
I don't think anything would happen.
They should just get one big sponsor per year to cover their costs and be done with it. Why not have a McDonalds or Pepsi banner somewhere in the corner? Bargain branding for them, free wikipedia for us.
And to limit the influence they could make it a rule to switch sponsor once a year. Why not auction the ad-spot and donate the overflow to charity?
They should just get one big sponsor per year to cover their costs and be done with it. Why not have a McDonalds or Pepsi banner somewhere in the corner? Bargain branding for them, free wikipedia for us.
And to limit the influence they could make it a rule to switch sponsor once a year. Why not auction the ad-spot and donate the overflow to charity?
or just keep the extra as an endowment and eventually just run off that
What happens when Google says they won't donate to Wikipedia unless the Google article represents them more favorably?
I had to put the following with chrome scripts.
$("#siteNotice").hide();
$("#siteNotice").hide();
Same here, I could take care of it with AdBlock...
I knew something was up when he said it costs >1mil/year to host the git-scm site.
Joke? Maybe you underestimate the number of us gitiots. All the same, the SFC supports great projects[1] (and Mercurial too).
[1] http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
[1] http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
You shouldn't be being downvoted for this comment... The content of the page has completely changed from a parody of the wikipedia appeal to a real one asking for donations for sfconservancy. This is the version everybody's talking about: http://i.min.us/idDeBk.png
(TBH I didn't actually recognise the parody myself and thought it was just a fairly crass call for donations that made a couple of silly claims. I guess I should read the small print).
(TBH I didn't actually recognise the parody myself and thought it was just a fairly crass call for donations that made a couple of silly claims. I guess I should read the small print).
Though nearly everybody seemed to get the joke, a few people didn't - one in particular who seemed very upset about it, thinking that it was fraudulent in some way. I was only planning on keeping it up for one day anyhow, so I've taken the page and banner down. I thought it was an amusing parody, as did the majority of people who gave me feedback on it, I'm sorry if you did not.
If you did donate through the button, as was evident from multiple places, the donation went to the Software Freedom Conservancy for the Git project which will go to helping the Git project however the Git leaders see fit. Technically, even if you took the page seriously (which I still have a hard time understanding how that happens, the content of the appeal was simply ludicrous), I still don't think it could be considered fraudulent as the money does go to the Git project. If git-scm.com actually needed millions, which is ridiculous, it would go through the SFC. I'm also likely to transfer the domain to the SFC, so some of the donations will probably go to domain registration for git-scm.com at some point anyhow.
I apologize to anyone who took it more seriously than it was intended (except for one guy) and thank those of you who did donate because they like Git or because they like the other resources that I've put online. The money will go to the Git project and likely partially to the website for registration or transfer (the hosting of which has been donated by GitHub for a long time now and will continue to be).
If you did donate through the button, as was evident from multiple places, the donation went to the Software Freedom Conservancy for the Git project which will go to helping the Git project however the Git leaders see fit. Technically, even if you took the page seriously (which I still have a hard time understanding how that happens, the content of the appeal was simply ludicrous), I still don't think it could be considered fraudulent as the money does go to the Git project. If git-scm.com actually needed millions, which is ridiculous, it would go through the SFC. I'm also likely to transfer the domain to the SFC, so some of the donations will probably go to domain registration for git-scm.com at some point anyhow.
I apologize to anyone who took it more seriously than it was intended (except for one guy) and thank those of you who did donate because they like Git or because they like the other resources that I've put online. The money will go to the Git project and likely partially to the website for registration or transfer (the hosting of which has been donated by GitHub for a long time now and will continue to be).
Everytime I see a 'how could people not get that it was a parody' posts or commments, I wonder, really? How long have you been on the internet/lived in this world. Of course plenty of people aren't going to get it. If you are 'surprised' by that you are either being disingenuous or have a highly inflated idea of how critical most people are of what they read.
I think the banner asking for donations is just fine. However, I take issue with two things:
If you decide to donate, the minimum amount is 20 USD. While it is highly debatable how much access to Wikipedia is worth to a person, I believe it sends a message that they really don't care for it if you give them anything less than that.
Also, despite assurances to not use private information gathered from the Paypal transaction, once they grab a hold of an email address, they keep sending reminders intended to pressure people into signing up for a monthly subscription. This is simply not very nice.
Another minor detail: a donation to Wikimedia is handled as an ordinary PayPal payment transaction, whereas a donation to SFC (the company behind git) is properly and clearly labeled as a donation. Not that it matters much, but it probably betrays the mindset of Wikimedia to some extent.
If you decide to donate, the minimum amount is 20 USD. While it is highly debatable how much access to Wikipedia is worth to a person, I believe it sends a message that they really don't care for it if you give them anything less than that.
Also, despite assurances to not use private information gathered from the Paypal transaction, once they grab a hold of an email address, they keep sending reminders intended to pressure people into signing up for a monthly subscription. This is simply not very nice.
Another minor detail: a donation to Wikimedia is handled as an ordinary PayPal payment transaction, whereas a donation to SFC (the company behind git) is properly and clearly labeled as a donation. Not that it matters much, but it probably betrays the mindset of Wikimedia to some extent.
Love the photo. What appears to be alcohol, an explosion in the background, and he looks like he's saying something off-camera.
Twice.
Twice.
My guess is that the floating head and staring contest with Jimmy Wales banners finally got to him.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTe...
Interestingly from what I can see in their published tests and stats for the banners, having pics of Jimmy on the banners actually had a significant positive effect. Which explains why they kept doing different variations of them despite the fact they creep some of us out.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTe...
Interestingly from what I can see in their published tests and stats for the banners, having pics of Jimmy on the banners actually had a significant positive effect. Which explains why they kept doing different variations of them despite the fact they creep some of us out.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...
In case you wonder what the fuzz is about: the page has been changed in the meantime.
This is how it looked: http://i.min.us/idDeBk.png
Meta: I'm reposting the link originally posted by recoil [1] because I just spent 5 minutes skimming the comments.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018992
This is how it looked: http://i.min.us/idDeBk.png
Meta: I'm reposting the link originally posted by recoil [1] because I just spent 5 minutes skimming the comments.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018992
The footnote mentions this is a parody.
And quote "Donations made will actually go to the Git project under the Software Freedom Conservancy.".
They just joined the SFC - http://sfconservancy.org/news/2010/dec/16/git-joins/
Awesome! Has a meme on this started yet?
By the way, thanks to this, I got to read the Wales' appeal which I didn't bother to do before; but I can't take it seriously unfortunately anymore :)
By the way, thanks to this, I got to read the Wales' appeal which I didn't bother to do before; but I can't take it seriously unfortunately anymore :)
[deleted]
Not everybody can donate money. Is there any other way we can contribute?
[deleted](1)
Can someone tell me which link leads to their high-end brothel?
You know you can just click the "X" and it goes away, right?
(Just out of curiosity, do people get this upset when NPR and PBS do their fund drives? Or because you are getting a lunchbox for your $100 donation, it's not as annoying? The outrage just confuses me.)