Wikipedia:Petition for reconsideration of the Wikipedia Forever banner

The "Wikipedia Forever" fundraising ad (and associated variation on that theme ) appear to be widely rejected by the editing community, and the Foundation's claim that readers find it appealing does not appear to be borne out by friends/family of editors. Yet the Foundation plans to go ahead with them, and declares that "fundraiser sitenotices aren't subject to community consensus".

This RFC follows on from
 * Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55
 * MediaWiki_talk:Common.css
 * Meta: Website Design
 * Meta: Launch Feedback

UPDATE: The "Wikipedia Forever" banners appear to have been dropped due to poor performance.
 * Although traces remain, eg at the UK chapter donation page.

Why these ads are bad
''Collaborative position statement: anyone may edit this to improve it. Do not sign.''
 * 1) Meaningless: the "forever" hooks don't appear to have any substance backing them up —it's just hot air; in fact the fundraising goal is just to cover the next year's expenses plus a bit. The landing page  makes no attempt to justify the hook. How is the 2009 fundraising having any impact on Wikipedia's long-term future? Nobody seems to know.
 * 2) The ads don't appear to have been tested on readers or the general public, and The Wikimedia Foundation has ignored the negative feedback from editors.
 * 3) The banners make no indication that they are part of a fundraising campaign (lacking a call to action); indeed, a lot of non-users weren't even aware that the link had anything to do with a request for donations, and some didn't even know the link could be clicked! This confuses people and makes us look silly, at the very least.
 * 4) The "Wikipedia Forever" slogan is widely considered childish.
 * 5) The slogan is particularly problematic across cultures, with German editors seeing associations with Nazi or Communist slogans  (although translated versions of slogans may avoid this, e.g., the German translation of "Wikipedia forever" is "Strengthen Wikipedia [logo] for the future", which is not quite as bad ).
 * 6) They look distasteful.
 * 7) They are badly programmed: requiring JavaScript, they fail utterly for readers without JavaScript enabled (Users with Javascript disabled see nothing.). This also prevents opening the link in a new browser tab, using a mouse wheel click, or right-click then "Open in a new tab", potentially annoying users who are about to be asked for money.
 * 8) They give some editors the impression Wikipedia has been hacked.

Why these ads are good (compared to other ads that might run)
''Collaborative position statement: anyone may edit this to improve it. Do not sign.''
 * 1) Fundraising is necessary for the survival of the project. The ads raise funds. Not an argument for running these ads as compared to many others that have in the past, others that have been proposed  or others that might be come up with.
 * 2) When so much of the opposition on other pages is exaggerated, as if the ads were promoting genocide, then it is reasonable to speculate that the unspoken, underlying motivation is opposition to any fundraising intrusive enough to be effective.
 * 3) Although point 2 above mentions testing, nearly all of the opposition elsewhere is about subjective impressions, while Foundation representatives talk about donation statistics.
 * The Foundation talking about donation statistics suggests the messages haven't been tested before launch: donation statistics are post-facto. And since the launch is done without any ads rotated from previous years, the donation statistics' meaning is hard to gauge. Even crap ads on a top ten site will get some response.
 * 1) Wikipedia proves that volunteers can outperform professionals at gathering details, but not at subjective judgments like this one. That's why we have a Original research policy.
 * But since there's no such thing as a PhD in Subjective Judgement, and that examples abound of bad ads designed by professionals, elements such as petitions against, or for, the campaign are probably as close as can be to a verifiable source.

Actions
''The following editors are going to strike: each day these ads appear, they will make no edits (excepting discussion of the strike and related issues). The strike requires 50 editors supporting to go into effect.''
 * Strike ballot


 * 1) Rd232 talk 11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  SKATER  Speak. 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) It's time we, as the lifeblood of this project, stand up and let the Foundation hear our voices. We volunteer countless hours to help make something monumental, and then our opinions are marginalized by those who are too far removed from the true essense of Wikipedia: it's contributors. Angryapathy (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors opposed to a strike
 * 1) The Wordsmith Communicate 16:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * because? Rd232 talk 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on Talk page. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Stupid idea, disruptive and clearly not going to be taken up my any significant (or even noticeable) proportion of the community. ╟─TreasuryTag► consulate ─╢ 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You said at WP:VPR "Remove the banner – it's rubbish.". Many agree with you. Do you have a better idea for getting the Foundation's attention? Rd232 talk 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what I said, I said it. I don't think that this proposal is suitable, or likely. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag► presiding officer ─╢ 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is beyond absurd. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Look, I know that these banners are silly and all, but a bunch of editors going on strike can, frankly, be just as disruptive...  Until It Sleeps Happy  Thanksgiving 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) 50 editors supporting is enough? That's like 1% of all active editors, you'd probably need at least 500 for it to be noticeable. By the time you get that many people, the drive will be half over. Coming from an area where selfish labor unions have helped destroyed the economy, I've found that striking generally does little good for the strikers, the organization, and the general public (as well as occasionally failing miserably). Mr.Z-man 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not intended to bring Wikipedia to a standstill, Z-man, it's intended to get the Foundation's attention. And unions didn't destroy Detroit... but that's off-topic. Rd232 talk 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And 50 people won't do that anymore than the big list of complaints that people already generated. If you include all of the non-English Wikipedia projects, 50 editors going on "strike" for a week or so will be little more than a minor blip. (I didn't say they did it singlehandedly, but they were a major factor) Mr.Z-man 00:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The campaign is lame, but this will probably just mean the Wikimedia Foundation get to roll in less cash than they'd hoped, and they might not spend $$$ on hiring PR firms to produce lame ads in future. I'm sure there will be plenty of infighting and arguments in the WMF without us needing to lift a finger, and it'd be best just to ignore the whole thing and get on with editing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This is like protesting your favorite sports team by sitting at home watching a soap opera wearing that team's official merchandise. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 00:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) This would be the lamest strike in the history of strikes. What we need is a work-in. That'll learn em. MickMacNee (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Administrators (and particularly bureucrats) orchestrate a mass page-move-vandalism spree. This is about as realistic as the "strike" proposal. ╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 18:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Not editing is on a par with mass vandalism? That's so unfair it's borderline rude. Rd232 talk 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it was reductio ad absurdum. If you read what I very carefully wrote, I did not say "not editing is on a par with mass vandalism." You can read what I said above, by reading what I said, above, but the gist of it was, that the concept of getting together an effective strike that achieves its aims is equally realistic to organising a mass vandalism spree. ╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can link to the argument, you should understand you didn't employ it. In any case, admin/bureaucrat-endorsed mass vandalism is clearly not as likely to happen as a temporary withdrawal from editing. One is a destructive violation of policy which will result in immediate desysopping/etc, the other is an exercise of a right we all have - to temporarily desist from editing. Rd232 talk 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the likes of Zoe, and RickK can leave because they feel so strong about a cause, others can too.-- SKATER  Speak. 19:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that subsequent evidence has determined that RickK and Zoe were the same person.  MBisanz  talk 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? The most I've seen is both accounts were compromised, but nothing absolutely damning.-- SKATER  Speak. 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, yeah, they were the same.  MBisanz  talk 02:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, so was the puppet master a banned user like the whole User:Archtransit saga?-- SKATER  Speak. 02:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just one person, two sequential accounts, no saga.  MBisanz  talk 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Petition to have the Foundation reconsider the banners ASAP

 * 1) This is the worst ad campaign I've seen in my entire life. I don't want to use Wikipedia if it turns to such measures to get donations. I don't feel like I should donate. I actually wanted to donate last year, because the quotes from the contributors were very inspiring. I wasn't able to donate because I was short on funds. I now have plenty of money, but I don't feed compelled to give it away. Not until the Foundation changes their attitude. This ad campaign is NOT making Wikipedia sound like a .org website. It sounds like a .com now. I may begin to consider leaving now... DaL33T (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Recognizance (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Rd232 talk 11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  SKATER  Speak. 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) It's time we, as the lifeblood of this project, stand up and let the Foundation hear our voices. We volunteer countless hours to help make something monumental, and then our opinions are marginalized by those who are too far removed from the true essense of Wikipedia: its contributors. Angryapathy (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) It is pretty lame and makes me remember something I read a few months ago about the WMF bringing in some business genius to tell wikipedia how to act more like a dotcom. I hope this isn't a portent for the future.  Added 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC): the stuff about protecting wikipedia as a treasure is also cringe-worthy since WP hasn't released any database dumps with revisions in over a year, and hasn't released any image dumps in more than 2 years.  The best way to make sure something is preserved is make sure there are lots of copies everywhere!  I get the impression that the current management is more interested in money and attention, than in delivering a complete free encyclopedia or remembering its values ("Our community should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps").  69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) The phrases "head" and "brick wall" come to mind, but the message needs to get through somehow. MER-C 10:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Reiterate my support of this, for all the good it'll do. The foundation people involved have been linked to the already lengthy and unanimous discussions, and have made it clear that they don't care what we little ones think. Equazcion   (talk)  10:53, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, and I hope that, even if they decide to flip us off this year, they don't try something this utterly idiotic next year.
 * 10) I agree with all the reasons in "Why these ads are bad" above. (This feels like the YouTube beta channels debacle all over again. >_< amirite guise?) • Anakin (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) For God's sake, why can't we just have a normal header like "Please donate and keep wikipedia ad-free" rather than these silly childish forever your great great grandson needs you. Its looks really childish. Just keep it simple folks and drop the seirously lame "forever" slogans. Himalayan   13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) You know, I thought everyone was over-reacting to the banners when I read the signpost article and the comments. Then I actually went here and took a look at them.  Oh my stars, this has got to be the worst idea I've ever seen on Wikipedia that wasn't related to flagged revisions.  Please Foundation, I beg you, listen to the community, delete these abominations and salt the servers on which they stood.  I know that you don't care what we think, but you should.  These banners send the wrong message about Wikipedia- they are arrogant and obtrusive, and they are not the way to go.  It doesn't matter if they're successful, they don't represent the spirit of the community or the project.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. They are bad in English: is Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia or a college football team? Really, truly, no offense meant to the translators (you can't turn a sow's ear into a purse) but in French they are embarassing. In Russian ("Long live Wikipedia!") they are truly awful. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) The foundation has effectively forced me to disable these kinds of sitewide notices in my custom CSS due to this hideous monstrosity. This is something I have not been forced to even consider in my 5 years as a Wikpedia reader and editor.  Thank you for forcing me in to this radical solution to your hideous and embarassing ad campaign. Shereth 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Something needs to be done with the banners before we become a laughingstock. One suggestion - maybe a petition would be better off at Meta, to get more participation from other projects? Tempodivalse  [talk]  15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) After translating the new fundraising slogans into German word for word a couple of days ago, the German WP community found it imperative to tone them down a lot, because they sounded very disconcertingly like the propaganda of certain past totalitarian regimes we had...Note: I'm not being ironic here. --Janneman (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) These banners are childish, arrogant nonsense that have been conclusively rejected by the community. They should be disabled via site-wide CSS, per consensus. *** Crotalus *** 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Per all the above and what I have said at the Village Pump. — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) they simply do not represent the spirit of the encyclopedia or its contributors. I regard them as an embarrassment. True, Americans are used to this sort of embarrassment  from institutions they love and respect, but that is no excuse.  It's wrong, also, as has been pointed out: nobody can reasonably expect to do a reference book that will be a current resource indefinitely--in the state of the web, it is exceptional to have a resource last the 7 years we have managed. I would hope for perhaps twice that, but I would not like to think the the acme of human creativity for all time to come is the wiki.  If future generations can not do better than us, what are we   working for?      DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) The message of these banners is incorrect and reads like a totalitarian statement rather than a request for funding. If this is the kind of advice that the Foundation is getting for its $250,000, then I despair for the results to come from the rest of the contract. Seriously, if this is the best that they could get for the investment, they've chosen the wrong firm (despite its resume of successes in progressive themes). Tony Fox (arf!) 18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Yuck! Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) "For your great great great granddaughter"? Not only does that sound like a line from Busted's Year 3000, but what's to say that even gonna have children? (I've never considered turning the CSS - or whatever it's called - off before now, but this has successfully changed my mind - and I'm not lying either. And what's with the constant use of "forever"?)  DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) The banner is crude and more likely to drive people away from Wikipedia than get them to donate. It is so ambiguous I didn't even realise it was an ad for an appeal, I thought it was some misguided motivational drive for the editors. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Per what I said at the VP. The banners are terrible. Acer (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) The WMF should take a look at how Creative Commons are doing their fundraising campaign: http://creativecommons.org/. Direct, simple, obvious. I don't imagine CC has received any complaints.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Wow, looking at more of the banners, these are hideous. Foundation, please reconsider immediately! Acps110 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) No point in rehashing what has already been stated above. An attitude of "we don't care what you think; we're going to do it anyway goes against the very fabric of Wikipedia.  — BQZip01 —  talk 23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) As well as giving my my agreement with all of the comments above, especially with the fact that I will now find it embarrassing to recommend Wikipedia to my friends, I would like to point out that the implementation of this campaign is appallingly ill thought out. How on earth can so much have been spent on this without the "experts" noticing that some of the messages sent to people outside the United States just don't make sense. From some pages when I click on the banner I get invited to donate $250, $100, $75, or $35, and from other pages the software seems to recognise where I am and invite me to donate £35, £50, £75 or £100, but it still tells me that donations of $100 or more will be matched by a sponsor. I, as a resident of the United Kingdom, have a pretty good idea of how much euros and złote are worth in relation to the pound as I travel regularly to countries where they are used, but, as I haven't been to the United States for about 15 years, I don't keep a running total in my mind of what the US dollar is worth. How am I supposed to know whether, for example, a £75 donation will be matched or not? Can't you at least present the minimum amount that will be matched in the same currency as you ask for the donation? This is just one of the many pretty obvious flaws that show that that PR company paid for this campaign is not delivering anything worth anything like the amount of money that they are being paid. When will anyone at the Wikipedia Foundation stand up and admit that this whole campaign is a gross mistake? Or will you just wait for the ridicule to pile on and look even more stupid for defending the indefensible? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the "tax-deductable donation" bit - I know it can happn in America, but I believe that's not the case in Britain. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  16:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Aeeg! after thousands of editors spending thousands of hours creating quality content, some ass sits down and comes up with a few words that undermine it, and get paid 25,000 for the pleasure! I can't believe someone will get paid for that - it can't be true!! Marketing sucks, hopefully lessons will be learnt ... Lee&there4;V  (talk  •  contribs)  23:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it $250000? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hope not...!Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  03:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I can already see the headline on FoxNews.com now... Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely. NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Most ridiculous idea of a banner yet, the foundation needs to remove this. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Last year's was actually decent. иιƒкч  ?  00:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) — Jake   Wartenberg  00:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) They are awful, embarrassing and completely unprofessional. And no, I don't have children, so enough yammering about the progeny I will never have.  Auntie E.  02:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Procrastinated this a bit, but, ya. No.  ceran  thor 03:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Page reads like the text of a PBS 'pledge drive' shill; embarrassing. Half  Shadow  03:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) I donated last year, and felt no negativity toward that campaign. This year's banner is just unprofessional.  -- Scray (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) If the public knew we spent thousands of dollars of donation money on this campaign we'd be hard up for any more donations. If we can create 3 million plus articles, and 2,600 plus featured articles, why can't we come up with a few slogans and adverts as well?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Per my comments at the village pump. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) --John (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) ...Or do away with the banners. Pmlineditor     <font style="color:#50C878">∞    08:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) <font style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5   16:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) I find it hard to believe that the Foundation spends a lot of money on this, when there are professional designers amongst the editors across the projects who would be able to come up with something that would be free, that would probably be able to be used elsewhere for free (rather than being copyrighted), and which the community as a whole would be able ato agree on. I feel that if the money I donate is being used for something like this, I don't want to contribute. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) --Kozuch (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) An ad saying there will be no ads?  Has someone got rocks in their head or something? Such idiocy is a discredit to anyone involved in Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Unprofessional. What demographic does this slogan appeal to?  --maclean (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Very unprofessional, terrible for a supposed professional ad company. Skinny87 (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Donating money so it can fund the design of such ad campaigns ? Not really a good incentive. --Tovarich1917 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) A professional firm claiming copyright on cheesy three word sentences in order to benefit a quality grassroots free encyclopedia? Ahem. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) It appeared so juvenile to me at first, I'd thought it _had_ been done unpaid! Buying slogans without canvassing multiple groups for 'reaction' is at best unwise. And now we've seen foolish. The mooted idea that winning such a 'campaign' would be a feather in an ad agency's cap is the correct one. Make it a competition of _good_ ideas!  As it is, it indeed does remind one of "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Vikipedia". Memory should be forever, too? Shenme (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Change them to something more professional - GateKeeper (talk) @  06:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Please do. -- Menti  fisto  10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) They are really big. If the collapsed version was the only version, then I'd be mostly OK with it.  Disappointing to find out that you paid a marketing company for something this lame though. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) I've been complaining about these for days now, and very little has improved (at least there's a 'donate' button now). Horrible waste of money. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Agreeing with the objections as stated - the marketing culture in the US has led to certain "accepted practices" that are simply inapplicable in this context. Wikipedia marketing used to be like the hand-drawn sign on a child's lemonade stand: not always professional in its design, but sincere and effective. Sincerity is precisely what the new ads lack, and why they will drive people away. A nonprofit, particularly one dedicated to the spread of knowledge from a neutral point of view, is expected to portray itself realistically and to supply full information so that people can make informed decisions, not fill them up with hyperbole. Dcoetzee 11:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Don't have so much to add to what's been considered until now. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Why should Wikipedia even hire a PR firm?  Captain   panda  18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) It's just disappointing they spent $250K on this, from a professional PR Firm. Seriously? Q  T C 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Really, who expects a PR firm to have a more sincere understanding of Wikipedia than the users and contributers themselves? +  A.Ou  02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) One vote for approval of the petition. Apparently the makers of the add don't know what "Protect" means.  Apparently, they don't know what their own project is about: "Sitenotices are not subject to community consensus" earns the whole of my strife.  68.193.113.198 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) And noting that I am making no further donations unless this absurd banner is reconsidered. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) It looks like (at first glance) the work of some hacker that would get a laugh from putting a poorly thought-out banner on Wikipedia. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Derivative of the "Apple ][ Forever" campaign. We all know how that one turned out. Racepacket (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar views expressed elsewhere
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Fundraiser
 * 1) The Signpost cannot include images of the campaign due to Wikimedia Foundation copyright, yeah cause the WMF is all about teh free culture....nothing corporate about it at all...it's pure grassroots, just like the teabaggers. But I do like the title...Wikipedia 4evah...kinda reminds me of the cinematic masterpiece Batman Forever. On the subject of which; Rand Montoya, I'm so sorry about your father.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) What a strange campaign that PR firm is pushing on us... I liked the old one they didn't do where donating wikipedians quotes were shown on wikipedia. It made me feel like I was important for donating and that wikipedia was made up of the people who contributed to it, fiscally, intelectually, and otherwise. Not this campaign. It makes me feel like the PR firm is laughing at me or feels I'm stupid. --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) The choice of firm and strategy explain pretty neatly why I wouldn't donate money to the foundation. What a waste of cash. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) This looks really ... bad. Paul August &#9742; 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm not so much concerned about the quality, but about the hypocrisy of Wikipedia using a media firm that will slap a restricted copyright on a number of 3-word slogans used to promote a free culture project like Wikimedia. They need to be fired or educated, even if they do it for free. Timeo Danaos and all that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) This campaign still doesn't answer the most important question that any donation campaign needs to answer: Why does WMF need the money? What is it going to do with it? Until someone in charge gets a clue, I'm spending the money I could donate on something which I know will help the Foundation achieve its most important goal -- buying books to use to contribute content from. Maybe more of us ought to do the same. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) The logo/slogan/whatever is completely inappropriate and unprofessional. I'm shocked that it was apparently designed by a professional company. I am also entirely in agreement with Llywrch - I shall not be donating a penny, especially with such an arrogant and obnoxious banner in my face.  Majorly  talk  19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) I likely will be donating but this does seem like a really bad idea. The quotes from donors came across as very sincere and nicely stated. This comes across as cultish, self-promoting and arrogant. I'm a bit appalled that a professional PR firm actually came up with this. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm pretty sure the community would have done this better. Unlike most other companies, the WMF has a vast community of users which could help in such matters, including many experts in web design et al, yet they involve us minimally - just to give feedback when it's done, why ? Cenarium (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) This is hilariously bad. Can we put this one up right now? — RockMFR 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Wikipedia forever? What hubris. How about "Wikipedia: until something even better comes along" instead? Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) When I first saw this, I thought a vandal had done it – I only realised it was legitimate when I opened the Signpost. I most certainly will not be donating again if the money is spent on something like this. "THIS IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW", seriously?? It's not a compliment. I love Wikipedia, but really. It pretty much turns into a joke of the website's content and trustworthiness. --Epiq (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Ugh. I too thought it was something one overenthusiastic editor had created, and was busy looking for the discussion about getting rid of it. Very disappointing to see that the eyesore has actually been paid for! --Slp1 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Maybe I shouldn't have expressed myself sarcastically. My point was that it's ridiculous to rationalise people's dislike for this campaign based on nationality. They dislike it because it's bad. Lampman (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) The campaign looks like some one new to the field has designed it, and the word 'Forever' has been overused. After seeing this campaign, I would certainly think if I need to donate my time and money for WikiMedia. Money is a no for certain. Let Wiki stay the way it is now and make it more organized and structured, going away with IP edits to remove vandalism. Kiranmayee&amp;#124కిరణ్మయి (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) WIKIPEDIANS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! Óðinn <font style="color:#ffd700;background:#cc0000;">☭☆ talk 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Wikipedia! --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) I am not as concerned about the fact that the ads were poorly contrived and presented. This sort of thing can be fixed, particularly by the largest aggregate group of free content generators in the world today. I am far more concerned that the foundation paid money which could otherwise have been spent on hardware and technical salaries. Without this loss, we would only need a  (no calculat, assuming 2.5M drive) ~10% less effective a fundraiser to break even, and the people who spent their time in the marketing department could be released to do something actually useful (edit a page?). User A1 (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) If this is that bad, then I can only cringe at what the rest of teh Internets is like. MuZemike 05:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) This looks horrible! I can`t beileve they can come with something like that! Spanish wikipedia is also criticazing this, saying it's Gay and stuff like that. Ricardo P. (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Fundraising headers
 * 1) This is obnoxiousness at its worst. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 05:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v
 * 1) 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Seriously, what were you thinking when you approved those? Good god. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  05:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Burn it, and give me my underlined links back. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Dare i say the banners look a little MySpacey. "We're Wikipedia! Be our friend. Can we borrow £200." <font face="Georgia"> delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ TALK  05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Arrg, it burns! Kill the banners! Kill them with fire! <font face="Segoe Print"> Until It Sleeps Happy  Thanksgiving 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) 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\<font color="#FF9966">^ - <font color="#FF3300">^  05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) It stinks! - These are not very good ads, and the consultants should give their money back.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) 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)
 * 15) Terrible. As stated, almost looks like vandalism. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) 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)
 * 17) 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)
 * 18) I agree with Ed's proposal. That slogan is too amateurish. Bejinhan  Talk   06:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support removal of the banner. –blurpeace (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) 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)
 * 21) 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. &mdash; The   Earwig   @  06:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) 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)
 * 23) I prefer to be offended in different manners than painfully bad marketing. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) 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)
 * 25) 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)
 * 26) 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)
 * 27) 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)
 * 28) Remove the banner – it's rubbish. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► ballotbox ─╢ 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Remove it, quickly, what an eyesore! It's embarassing.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
 * 30) 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)
 * 31) 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)
 * 32) Is it gone already? Good! --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) 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)
 * 34) 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)
 * 35) 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)
 * 36) 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)
 * 37) 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)
 * 38) 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)
 * 39) 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)
 * 40) 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) Opposition this year is unanimous against the embarassing content of the advertisements, which ranges from school-yard graffiti to Soviet propaganda. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Poorly justified, poorly thought out, poorly executed, poorly received, yet defended irrationally by the powers that be. The people are speaking: listen up! Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Much of the criticism I've read w/r/t the banners has included the "only Americans like these sorts of ads" trope....well honey, lemme tell ya, I'm an American and I'd rather be punched in the mouth than have to look at these ads. In fact, they give me a great, big sad. It's like the Tropicana repackaging launch and the new Pepsi logos all rolled up into one...then dunked in a feculent swamp of ordure and rolled in sprinkles. Capital-letter sprinkles. And don't even get me started about the cultural tone-deafness inherent in many of the slogans...or the way the contribution amounts were originally expressed in $USD...or refer to tax laws that only work in one country...Way to prove that we're not America-centric, hm? There are literally dozens of levels of YUCK! that this ad campaign--and by that I mean the concept, the final product, the implementation, the whole shebang--passes through, on its way to the pinnacle of Do Not Want. Please: Take WIKIPEDIA FOREVER! and all its little friends, its mommies and daddies and aunties and uncles, and put all of them in the Bad Ideas Poorly Excuted box--then fill the box with rocks and sink it in a nearby river...of battery acid. And as I read somewhere above, please, for the love of all that is good: Don't do it again. Failure to Suck, FOREVER! GJC 18:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Other suggestions for responding to the campaign

 * 1) Wait for a day or two and see what the donation figures look like. If the WMF are right and we get lots of donations, then great. If they are wrong and we don't get many, they will admit their mistake and change the banners (I've spoken to Rand Montoya, Head of Community Giving, and they will be monitoring the numbers and will change it if necessary). These banners aren't meant for us, they are meant for readers. Let's see what the readers actually do when confronted with them. A few biased anecdotes from friends and family don't make useful data. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How much could be attributable to greater popularity, maturity amd awareness in the last year, I do hope the cost produces resilts, but at least a thorough analysis can aid future plans. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Donate money so we don't need such lame fundraising slogans. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That won't help. Donation drives will be held annually no matter how much they get, and giving when the slogan is lame encourages the continued use of lame slogans. Equazcion   (talk)  10:47, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention they'll need the money to hire expensive consultants to produce crappy campaigns like this. MER-C 11:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Discourage everyone you know from giving as long as these slogans are up. Ask them to wait until a non-lame ad is running, and donate then. And, obviously, do the same yourself. Rd232 talk 11:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm the first person to say that I think these banners are annoying at best, but I'm not sure I see the point of going on strike or making a point out of not donating any money. Sure, there's unanimous consensus amongst contributors that the fundraising slogans are terrible, but what about the general public? I've spoken to a few people off-wiki that said they like the Wikipedia Forever thing (shudder), and judging by the donation history, money seems to be coming in every couple minutes or so. Seems like making a mountain out of a molehill either way when we don't even know if the banners work or not. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I too have considered the "ends-justify-the-means" rationale, but at the same time there's something to be said for staying true to our actual intellectual ideals, even when asking for money. We could play the percentages and possibly raise more in the process ("Donate because God wants you to", "It's the Christian thing to do", "Do it for the children", etc {extreme examples to make a point}), but what does that say about us? The reasons the current slogans are unpopular are the same reasons they shouldn't be used: They are a dishonest representation of Wikipedia. We never dumb down anything else to gain the appeal of as massive an audience as possible, so why do it when requesting donations? Just to get more donations? If you want more practical reasons, the slogans send the wrong message to potential editors who may start editing with misconceptions in mind about Wikipedia as a result. These slogans certainly don't convey the kinds of ideals generally valued in the community, and may attract the wrong people, or the right people with wrong intentions, to start editing. Equazcion   (talk)  15:38, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Retire. In completely ignoring the wishes of community that built the project, the foundation is showing that they've lost sight of whom they owe its success to, and have shifted to taking us for granted. They could use a reminder. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Equazcion   (talk)  10:51, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that: User talk:Rd232. This episode was far from the only factor, but it was significant. I suddenly am less sure if the constant Wikipedia battles are worth fighting, if the people who make sure the project stays online care so little for the community that makes it what it is. Rd232 talk 11:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As am I, the banner campaign has certainly shown me how the community enjoys mocking ideas... Outside of this page and one vandalism revert on a page on my watchlist (I can't let that stand -.-), I have refrained from editing and retirement is genuinely sounding good...-- SKATER  Speak. 12:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, why can't we just have a normal header like "Please donate and keep wikipedia ad-free" rather than these silly childish forever your great great grandson needs you. Its looks really childish. Just keep it simple folks and drop the seirously lame "forever" slogans. Himalayan   13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because anyone can come up with a banner ad like that, & these folks need to justify that they deserve their money for "creativity". (I can think of a few marketting folks with better Web 2.0 creds than these fools, like Citizen Agency or Hugh Macleod. I assume the Foundation has heard of these people.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why though does thousands of dollars of money need to be wasted on paying clearly incompetent marketeers to do it. Any one of the community here could come up with something here by consensus free of charge. I find it ridiculous that the wikipedia foundation would waste money like this, they don't even pay people to edit articles. In my view all we need is a "Please donate and keep wikipedia ad-free". I am sure most people would be chocked to learn wikipedia had paid thousands of dollars for somebody to create a lame slogan for fundraising. What a waste. Himalayan   11:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Come the next board elections, ask the question "Wikimedia sites depend on the community, the foundation is/should be accountable to them. Despite the overwhelmingly negative response to the 2009 fundraiser (links), much more so than usual, the foundation proceeded to ram it down everyone's throats. Would you (move to) fire those responsible for [this dreck] and insisting it stayed live on Wikimedia sites?" Vote for everyone who said yes, and against everyone who said no. MER-C 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is A Good Idea™ Equazcion   (talk)  13:57, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * DoublePlusGoodThink -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How about just going to "My Preferences", "Gadgets" and then check "Suppress fundraiser banner" (or similar wording).--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants <font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27 ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that helps those of us who are registered from not seeing the eyesores; it doesn't address the overarching issue that the banners are a net negative for the project and its image. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm sure there are many budding PR companies / designers who would love to add designing a banner to their resume.. How about in future holding a competition whereby users/pr companies can submit banners/campaigns. Someone ( community / marketting /both ) picks the best ones, with monetary prizes - possibly linked to the amount of donayions received whilst that banner is displayed. It verges on paid for editing, but is better than this situation... Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You telling us that, with all the technically-minded as well as artistically-minded people we have in the Wikimedia community as a whole, not one of them could come up with a catchy and PC banner? If not, then we're screwed. MuZemike 09:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No I mean pitting companies vs editors and see who wins ;) Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  15:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For those who are thinking about it, paid editing has no place here. MuZemike 09:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Notice that a large number of people who are already positively-inclined towards WP think that this is a terrible idea, and therefore fire the ad agency who were paid a quarter of a million dollars to create positive views of WP and failed. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty content to let the experts handle the advertising-- but I too found my way here because I have a bad feeling about the direction of this. I'm just one person, but I read the banner and came away with a vague intuition that the banner was a mixture of tacky and creepy. I thought to myself "Perhaps I should mention this to somebody, just to be on the safe side"-- only to find out that lots of other people had a similar reaction. I'm not driven to a moralistic rage over it or anything, but I just hope the people making the decisions genuinely know what they're doing, because a lot of different people seem to have independently gotten a 'vague intuition' that "Wikipedia forever" might not be the way to go. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Something less ambitious: "Wikipedia for at Least the Next Two Weeks" ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I disagree Anetode - it should be "Wikipedia Forever " --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. That's genius! Wikipedia Forever ... Rd232 talk 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur completely ! In the same spirit : Some say that you should donate money to Wikipedia . It would actually represent the "spirit" of Wikipedia (if such a thing exists) far better. --Tovarich1917 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * YES! placing a fact tag by the ad solves everything. Brilliant! MuZemike 03:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes made by the Foundation

 * Dropping ALL CAPS
 * Dropping "for your great great ..." banners
 * Adding Donate buttons
 * Adding other messages into the rotation mix, including one that suggests a target of 25m articles for all languages.

Some of these changes are due to early fundraising being more than 50% down on last year according to Rand Montoya, 17 November. Rd232 talk 09:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * >Thermometer - Article 20%
 * Great. Now we'll have lots of crappy new articles. The other three are more sensible donation thermometers but Wikipedia Forever is still up... MER-C 02:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From :

IT'S GONE!! (Close this RFC?) MER-C 08:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Closure- These seem fine to me.-- SKATER  Speak. 14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Current rotation seems fine. Presumably measurements showed that Wikipedia Needs You was the most effective message. Hopefully this week of weirdness only did temporary damage. Haukur (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the effect of giving $250000 to snake-oil salesmen will only have a temporary effect. That's money that could have been spent wisely on infrastructure, while getting marketing advice for free from editors, whose predictions about the effectiveness of this campaign have been shown to be much more accurate than those of Jay Walsh, Rand Montoya, and Fenton Communications. I hope that anyone following this discussion who has any influence on corporate marketing budgets will remember those names. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I do think that it looks like this was a quarter of a million dollars spent badly - or at least spent to no good effect. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with FM&C: calling them "snake-oil salesmen" only apply if you consider all marketing people ethically impaired. AFAICS, Fenton is no better or worse than most marketting companies out there: their problem in this instance is that they showed no awareness of Wikipedia's distinct culture, or even the idea of community-based projects & how it is different from Crowdsourcing. Maybe that's because there are people in the Foundation who don't understand (or care about) the difference, & who have far too much power -- but if that is what happened, the villain is not Fenton. -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still have to disagree. If you have a look round the Fenton Communications web site you will see that they position themselves as just the sort of agency that will do better than "most marketing companies" for clients that don't want standard corporate PR. They have shown by this campaign that that positioning is false. The fact that they consider "women" and "international" to be some sort of specialism rather than part of the mainstream indicates a severe lack of clue. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're quite concurring with me. :) I believe the marketers screwed up royally and need to be dumped.  In my opinion, either they threw together a half-baked junk product and hoped we would be rubes and not notice it (and therefore they're selling snake oil), or they did this thinking it was a good idea (and they're therefore incompetent).  In reference to this not being Fenton's fault: Part of the job of a consultant is to look past any powerful clueless people in an organization, like the ones you mentioned as possibly being in the Foundation, and to find out what the client actually requires.  Then the consultant must get buy-in on this, maneuvering the powerful clueless into agreeing with him. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)