Fundraising 2009/Donation buttons upgrade/Round1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intro to Donation Button and Messaging Project[edit]

We have begun exploring ideas for enhancing the visibility of the donate button not only within the Wikimedia main skin but also on every page of every Wikimedia project. We hope that enhancement will enable us to better inform our public that we are dependent on their donations as we promote the free and open knowledge movement. We expect that a small change to the Wikimedia main skin will result in big returns in donations -- donations we use to keep the Wikimedia movement alive and growing. I expect that in return for a bit of enhanced visibility, we will see a daily increase of up to 20% in donations.

Below we have 6 designs for comment. But design is only half of this change...words are important. What are the simplest words we can use (we are aware that these changes may get translated to numerous other languages) that will convey what we want to convey? You, collectively, have proven to be amazing at using words and communicating with our users. How can we reach them?

One of these designs borrows from our look and feel from our previous campaign and another resembles the look and feel of Paypal. What do you think of those? We are curious about how look and feel associated with online payments will increase the need or opportunity to make a donation. There is a possibility that Paypal would lower or eliminate donation processing fees for co-branding the donation button. Those examples are expressed in buttons #4 and #6, below.

The objective here is to take the average Wikimedia user and get them to recognize we are a non-profit and that our future depends on their donations. How can we better show our users that we are a charity?

Style of button[edit]

  • Button 1: Mushroom Red.
  • Button 2: Mushroom Red with collapse/hide ability.
  • Button 3: Mushroom Red Glow.
  • Button 4: Sunrise. Reminiscent of Paypal/ecommerce.
  • Button 5: Rounded Blue with collapse/hide ability.
  • Button 6: Sunrise with no text. Also reminiscent of Paypal/ecommerce.
  • Button 7: Blue with no text.
  • Button 8: Jimbo's face on a field of green, linking to [1]

Comments about style of button[edit]

Note: Please keep threaded discussion on the talk page.

  • Sample response: I much prefer style 3. --Cary Bass 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I love #1 and #5. A "hide" button is definitely a good thing and I like the ones with text too, though that's not a requirement for me. Cbrown1023 talk 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer the first one. The glow effect distracts from the message and doesn’t draw additional attention to the button. Style 4 and Style 6 (the paypal ones) have the advantage that they look familiar for users, as they’ll recognize the logo from Paypal). I do not think that the hide-button is needed, as it will clutter the box. If users want to hide it, they might want to add something to their monobook.css. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like #2 and #3 but I prefer the blue of #5 over the mushroom red. Still the #5 button looks awkward to me. Also, I don't think that the familiarity of the PayPal style buttons is necessarily going to increase donations. It's so strongly associated with PayPal that there might be confusion about where the money goes, if we are sponsored by PayPal and so on. Anna Shyrokova 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Would individual wikis or language communities be able to modify the colors? Some wikis use different color schemes, and different colors have different cultural connotations, so whatever works on one wiki may not work on another. - jredmond 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 with a more attractive "hide" mechanism is my preference among the current selection.--Eloquence 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sunrise ones (4&6) are raising my mental anti advert filters. Would not be good choices.Genisock2 21:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Genisock2 about #4 and #6. Look a whole lot like PayPal buttons. I would have to say I like the #3 style the best, but the hide button in #2 is also much-needed, just like the sitenotices. ^demon 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm quite fond of #3. I don't share ^demon and Geni's issues with the ones that look like paypal buttons... sometimes it's a good idea for a donation button to look, instinctively, like a donation button. -- Philippe 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The colors for these buttons seem to be deliberately trying to fight Monobook's (or even Vector's) style. I realize you want to make the buttons stand out, but you don't need to punch the reader in the face. Dismiss-ability + a nice color would be a good combination. --MZMcBride 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Style of #2 (it needs a button to hide it, IMO... if users know about it, they don't need to keep seeing it, and logged-in users who knew how to would just hide it with CSS if there wasn't a button), but color of #5. Drilnoth 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC) #7, but with some sort of hide button (or at the very least, an id so that you can set display: none as a CSS style to hide it manually to monobook.js's and gadget pages). Drilnoth 02:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with Eloquence: #2 is my preference, but I'd also like a little more tinkering with the position of the "hide" button -- perhaps centered in the box one line below the message, or in-line directly following the message? Just please not 4 or 6, for the same reasons others have mentioned. Luna Santin 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone should have the ability to hide the button (what if one has already donated?), so either #2 or #5. I personally prefer blue color, it closely matches hyperlinks.--Adi 23:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Numbers 2 and 3 look good but as Eloquence said above, a more attractive "hide" button (or icon) would make it better. - Rjd0060 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Number 2 is most dignified--the hide button is essential--a better icon for ti would help. DGG 01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Great idea, but I think the design needs work. The typography in the blue button is a little crude looking. It also makes more sense to me (logically and aesthetically) to use the red in the Wikimedia logo for the other ones. Just my two cents. I also feel that a hide button is not necessary, since they are all a part of the fixed width sidebar, unlike site notices and banners which disrupt the normal distribution of screen real estate. All things considered, I like #3 best at this point. Steven Walling (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC
  • I think Blue is the best colour but prefer the smaller shape/size of the first buttons (the blue example is too big). Also, as many people have said, the "dismiss" needs to be incorporated. As with the site-notices, once dismissed it should stay dismissed and should auto-dismiss/collapse (if possible) once a donation has been made. I do not like the 'paypal style' buttons as per Anya Shyrokova's comment. Witty lama 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Number 3, but with number 5's color scheme, IMO. — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • They appear all rather garish, numbers 4, 5, and 6 being the worst offenders. While we should encourage donations, these look rather spammy. I know if any of these were added I'd personally disable them using Firefox plugins. One of the biggest reasons I spend so much time on Wikipedia is the lack of ugly BUY BUY BUY corporate advertisements that infest the internet. I hope none of these make it. Plain text is beautiful. Themfromspace 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the style of #3 the best (though I agree with others that it should have the "hide" link), but I like the blue color of #5 as it fits into the color scheme of the site better. 日本穣 Nihonjoe 06:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer #3 but with a "hide button" (for me "hide" is a condition sine qua none) and in blue or green or others colors but not this orange-brown. The undertext must be short (#5 is fine) and not in the button (#5 seems a bad idea to me). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 and #3 are the best ones, IMO. --Kanonkas 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • From reading a lot of feedback from the general public, there does seem to be some misunderstanding that if people don't donate there may be advertising or some other fees associated with Wikipedia. I agree that adding language that emphasizes Wikimedia as a non-profit may help clarify the point without sacrificing the message of why we need donations. Anna Shyrokova 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer the images #2 & #3, preferably the #2 —Dferg (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #3. PeterSymonds 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 1,2,3, or 4. The paypal ones look trashy sort of. I think we do need a hide button, but make it only show on hover or something a little more designed. Make sure these look good with the new skin also. In general I think it wouldn't hurt to have a little more polish to these. - cohesion 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 4 and 6 I think fit best with the monobook skin; 2 and 3 aren't bad. 1 looks too flat and 5 is so large it's overkill. Hersfold (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 isn't too ugly. Giovanni-P 23:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #1 simple is better.--Pixeltoo 23:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 with #5 color's Otourly 08:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like #3 best, and it should fit in with the updated skin well enough too. I don't think a hide option is necessary, but if there is one it should certainly be better than that in #2. the wub "?!" 16:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer #2 Stef48 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like #3 best --Ofol 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • None of the above - I agree with what Themfromspace said. Also, a button that close to the search box is something a spammer would do, not someone who's trying to help people find sourced NPOV information. The co-branding buttons are beyond the pale. -- Jeandré, 2009-06-30t06:30z, -- Jeandré, 2009-06-30t06:33z
  • I vote #6 --Bodnotbod 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't like any of them, so I created option #7. Kaldari 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like # 7. It seems mature, noticeable without being obnoxious. Or we could do #0, keeping it like it is now. HereToHelp (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #5 I am against a large donate button, especially one that is directly below the search. Do we need money that bad?I chose number five cause of the little "x" at the bottom right corner. Should only need to pester the reader once. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I like #3, but, after the button to be used is chosen, I'd like to see other color options of it created, and then have a final discussion take place on which color to use. hmwithτ 14:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly prefer #7: is the only one that matches the existing Wikimedia/Wikipedia color scheme (blue, thin 1-pixel lines, lack of curves), and just looks less tacky. Continues to be the most noticeable thing in the left column, which I don't care much for, but I get the impression that's what the point of this button is. Needs a "hide" option though. -Kotra 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In my opinion you can't just take any color to make the button more visible, it still has to fit to the website design. Same with the glossy-style. Why do you wanna use it for the button if this style is nowhere else?!? There are better ways to improve visibility of the donation-button. For example: Get rid of all this junk in the left navigation and you have plenty of prominent space for the donation button. --Juxn 06:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I like #7; a hide feature is nice, but it's better not having to worry about it at all. Leonard^Bloom 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think #7 is the best, but may be you should add to it 'every donation helps us...' (with 'hide' function). Other variants are really vulgar. Lvova 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #7 is the prettiest. Needs text though. --ysangkok 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #8 is a late entry, and clearly different from the other choices, but it is mathematically superior because of the huge increase in donations after Jimbo's letter was put up. HowDoIUseUnifiedLogin? 21:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #8 esthetics aren't relevant - statistics are with respect to generating revenue. (Maybe a rotation of designs will do). Dedalus 20:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please, anything that isn't #8. Whilst there's a correlation between donation response and a "personal appeal", I really doubt there is a correlation between donation response and a small image of a face. The text helps contextualise it a bit, but at the expense of not making it clear that this is how you donate, rather than a place to click to read an appeal. Shimgray 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I like No. 5, it is cool and nice. The red color is too aggressive to me, and it looks like advertisment. The Wales face is a little bit funny. --Ziko 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The yellow buttons (#4 and #6) have strong negative associations to me. --65.101.119.25 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #7 is classy. --Falcorian 04:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #7, definitely. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I very much like number 5, #8 just looks silly with Jimmy's head on, #7 would look better without that border and with "Keep Wikipedia free" text instead. #4,6 aren't good.--Alnokta 06:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #8 no! #7 is ok (blue is our color), but with #2 text and, importantly, the possibility to hide it (whatever will be the choice). If #4 or #6 will let us save monney on fees, why not? They're good too. --Nemo 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I like #2 best. #1 lacks the glow, #3 lacks the hide button (is it possible to have some stats on who hides the appeal/banner? My guess is that merely noone hides it and the hiding leaves the impression we're not intrusive which is positive). #4 et 6 look like paypal, so we're somehow associated to PayPal for the donor, and well i don't know if it's positive. #7 doesn't catch the donor's eyes. And keep #8 for the last week or so (the one around Xmas). Besides JWales is not well known outside the English-speaking world + the pic is creepy. (:Julien:) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Number 3, Please, not, 4,6 or 8
  • I like #5 because the user can hide the donation button by clicking on the [x] and all the text is inside the button (the text in #1-#4 is hardly visible on first view). However, #5 doesn't seem button-like. If you see it, you don't think that you can click on it and some page will open. #7 seems much better in this aspect. --Church of emacs talk 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer #7. It is clear and to the point. Craig Hicks 17:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Message text of button[edit]

We are equally concerned about the design and the text of these buttons. Your input is important here too.

  1. Donate Now Every donation helps us to keep free.
  2. Donate Now Keep Wikipedia free for everyone.
  3. Donate Now (button only)

Comments about message text of button[edit]

Note: Please keep threaded discussion on the talk page.

  • Sample response: Option 3. Def. --Cary Bass 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All 3 work for me. I like #2 though, seems like a personal call for the reader to donate and help everyone out. Cbrown1023 talk 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Every donation helps us to keep Wikipedia free for everyone." I keep stumbling visually over the "to," to me it seems that the quote should simply be: "Every donation helps us keep Wikipedia free for everyone." Anna Shyrokova 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • How about something like “Donate now and help us keep Wikipedia free for everyone”? It sounds more fluent than the current version and emphasizes even more attention to the fact that we (a) need people to donate and (b) that we use the money to keep Wikimedia up and running. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Button only. You can put the tagline or slogan in alt text and display it prominently when the button is clicked. KISS. --MZMcBride 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Not sure why we need a (albeit small) paragraph on these pages as once one clicks the button they will have more than enough to read. - Rjd0060 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't like the (I assume incorrect) implication of 1 & 2 that we are threatening to go non-free if we don't get money. Possible a very short message "every contribution helps"DGG 01:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Either #2, or #1 changed to be more declarative and less repetitive, such as: "Every contribution keeps us free." Steven Walling (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would make the non-profit status extremely explicit: "Donate Now Wikipedia is not-for-profit, please support us." --Cybercobra 02:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with DGG that there is an implication of impending commerciality if donations aren't made. Whilst this is fundamentally true, it does come across to me as looking like a bit of a scare tactic. That said, is it possible to have the browser load a different message each time (chosen from a set) like we did for the fundraiser last year - that way we could empirically test the effectiveness and "conversion rate" of each slogan? Witty lama 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Number 3 per DGG. There's two different meanings of free that are being blurred by the first two statements. Being a free content encyclopedia (news source, dictionary, etc.) has nothing to do with being free of charge. Themfromspace 04:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like #3 best, though I also agree with Cybercobra that emphasizing the non-profit status is good as that will get people thinking about larger donations due to the possibility of a tax writeoff. 日本穣 Nihonjoe 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not #3. Is it possible to randomize this text ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I also agree with DGG. Both the text options proposed are not acceptable but I could support something besides "button only" if it were not misleading.--BirgitteSB 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer #3 —Dferg (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with DGG, these read as threats to me if I think about it from a non-wikipedian perspective. Mentioning it's a non-profit/charity would be good. In general I would prefer to have a positive message. Something that allows the contributor to feel good about donating rather than feeling like they have to or else! Maybe "Support Wikipedia:A Free Content Encyclopedia". Just an example of a positive message, I don't love that one really. :) - cohesion 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #3 - I was leaning towards #2, but DGG makes a good point. Hersfold (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well let's hope the message won't be only in english. Giovanni-P 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As short as the #2 but translated for other wikipedia Otourly 08:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Prefer with text, as long as it is short and to the point. Options 1 and 2 would be fine, but why not have a series of rotating messages? the wub "?!" 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Stef48 18:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 "Keep Wikipedia free for everyone", serious consideration should be given to translation - ask Chapters from the cultural area ? ---Ofol 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would prefer something like "Support this charity" or "Support the Wikipedia charity". I think the word "charity" needs to be in there somewhere. --Bodnotbod 09:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #3, we don't need a slogan on the donate button. Kaldari 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #3, because we want to be noticeable, not obnoxious. HereToHelp (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • #3 or DGG's other suggestion. 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #1/#3. The presence of the slogan is not terrible, but should be able to hide it. Lvova 08:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Keep Wikipedia free for everyone." This sounds as if it would otherwise be free only for some? I believe that everything saying "donate and thus keep WP free" does not really sound like a non profit. It reminds me of the difference between freeware and free software. The emphasis should be more on donating in order to improve Wikipedia and to support the great work of great people. And: I wouldn't write "donate now", because it sounds as if clicking the button means being already obliged to pay. Write something like "more information". Make it like "click on this button and we tell you something interesting about us, waht we actually are doing. And maybe you would like to support that." --Ziko 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #3 preferably. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • number 2, adds a message, better than a 'dry' button.--Alnokta 06:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • How, who, and when will localization happen? (:Julien:) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • #5 button, "Support Wikipedia! – Keep Wikipedia free for everyone." would be the best option --Church of emacs talk 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • They are all good, but I think it's a good idea to rotate in the Jimmy Head (#8) every once in a while. The personal appeal works. Eddie tejeda 00:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Message subtext of article text[edit]

This section deals with new messaging below the title bar of WM articles. This text could replace the rarely seen text that shows up at the top of most articles. Please suggest alternate language and remember that we will be translating those to many languages. Keep it short, simple, and translatable.

Sample: (the new text will replace the "Learn more about Wikipedia for research" on the top and instead have it under the title bar)

sample
Article Text 1 select.png
From Wikipedia, the non-profit supported by people like you. Donate here
(See here for full page)

Comments about message subtext of article text[edit]

Note: Please keep threaded discussion on the talk page.

  • Sample response: Looks fine to me. --Cary Bass 22:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I really like the idea of taking advantage of that space under the article header. I'm just worried that it's too subtle... maybe that's the point, it's subtle for the frequent editors but not for the readers. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the message going to change? Are we just working on one message or will there be a handful of similar ones that rotate? Anna Shyrokova 20:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I like changing the tagline. Prefer just the button in the navbar, if that's an option. ^demon 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Having a button in the sidebar with text and the text above the tabs are mutually exclusive in my mind. There's fund-raising and then there's simply being obnoxious to our readers. The tagline (the text below the page title) unequivocally should be left alone. --MZMcBride 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think begging for donations in the tagline and adding a giant button is a good idea. I'd prefer just the button, personally, as I do actually think the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" has some public recognition. Luna Santin 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The anon message text (shown above as: "Learn more...") already begs in many of it's rotated forms. I think it is too much to have that, and a donate button in the sidebar, and a donate link in the tagline. I'd prefer to leave the tagline as is. I also concur with those above that "the free encyclopedia" is such a recognizable statement of our identity that messing with it seems like a bad idea. Dragons flight 23:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If this is added, would very much prefer (change underlined) "From Wikipedia, the non-profit encyclopedia supported by people like you. Donate here" Ed (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the tagline as is, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". It's a recognized motto of Wikipedia, adding a link at this place would create a proximity interference with the article/discussion/edit/history UI, as well as being intrusive on the page content, thus considerably reducing the comfort of reading. Cenarium (Talk) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with what has been said. Stick with the existing tag-line or something very like it but don't turn it into a donation button as well as having a colourful donation button in the sidebar. One is enough IMO. Also, as I edit as a logged-in user, I've never noticed the text right at the top (above the article/talk tabs) before. Why is that there? It seems to be adding clutter in my opinion. Witty lama 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If the sidebar button is implemented, keep the current tagline. This could work as an alternative, but having both seems excessive. --Drilnoth 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with others that having both a donate button ad a tagline requesting donations is excessive. I think keeping the current tagline is good, though I have no problem with moving it. 日本穣 Nihonjoe 06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like this better as it is. I always thought the purpose of the tagline was for the printable version.--BirgitteSB 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • . I would strongly oppose this anywhere except the footer. I think current feeling is to clean up the interface, not add unessential elements to it. One notice per page is enough, and the side bar one will be clearly visible if distinctively coloured. DGG 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, agree with DGG. How about instead of replacing "rarely seen text" that serves no use, we just remove it. The colorful donation thing is big enough, whitespace is nice. :) - cohesion 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No, no, no. I fully agree with Dragons flight here - the tagline is our "thing", a sort of trademark for Wikipedia. This wouldn't be the best advertisement for us. Hersfold (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, the button is enough. Giovanni-P 23:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Only the button. Otourly 08:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't need this text. A nice button, near the search area, should be enough. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Hégésippe, the button proposed above is sufficient in my opinion. Pill (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No. The current English Wikipedia tagline is succint and has become something of a recognisable signature. Also note that some other WMF projects have more use of the tagline to describe themselves to newcomers. the wub "?!" 16:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Donate here." The word "encyclopedia" is important because the twitter generation who apparently haven't seen a paper encyclopedia seem to want to turn Wikipedia into Usenet. "that anyone can edit" is important because a lot of readers (including judges, immigration officers, and police officers) still don't know what wiki means. -- Jeandré, 2009-06-30t06:27z
  • No. That slogan is too recognizable, and we don't want to sound obnoxious. It is, after all, the free encyclopedia. HereToHelp (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not change that, but if we must, I think that it should be "non-profit encyclopedia". The word encyclopedia should always be in the tagline, if we must change it at all. hmwithτ 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No need for both an donation button in the left column and a donation reminder under the article title. Having both may come across as desperation or greediness. Not sure which I prefer: the button is annoying and tacky, but the proposed text (and any suitable alternative I can think of that includes a donation link) is much less snappy and appropriate for under the article title than "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." -kotra 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I rather like the donate here link instead of the quite distracting buttons above, but I hate the idea of changing the tagline. How about "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Donate here." ? Zocky 23:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hmwith and Zocky (and others, I'm sure). The tagline should remain roughly the same if possible. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I had to search for a minute until I found the donation link in this picture. Most readers ignore that little piece of text. It'd be better to put the donation link in some area frequently used by readers (like the search box). --Church of emacs talk 13:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)