Fundraising 2010/Messages/Mission

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Navigation
ALL banners Newly submitted By Language Vista-keditbookmarks.pngTesting Queue Tested
By type
Mission Based Informative Technology Jimmy Appeal Traditional Fundraising
Testimonials Humor Chapter Specific By Geography
Project-specific
Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons Wiktionary Wikibooks Wikinews
Wikiquote Wikisource Wikiversity Wikispecies MediaWiki

Contents

Education/Information/Knowledge[edit]

Scientia et Aurum[edit]


Proposed by: TeleComNasSprVen. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-22
Comments:

  1. Latin's not one of my strongest subjects.
  2. Nor is it most people's. How many would get this? sonia 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. ahh latin, it means "gold and knowledge are power", its a variation of Gold is power "Aurum est potestas". there are much better phrases like "Ex astris, Scientia" which mean "from the stars, knowledge" and "Et ipsa scientia potestas est." which would mean "And knowledge itself, is power" if you want to consider Latin phrases.Theo10011 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Not every single person in the world is familiar with Latin. I love "Scientia potestas est. Make Wikipedia more powerful." but if we non-English people translated the latter part, why not the former part too? It'll make more sense to speak in a same simple tone. We have not to be a snob // Reservations: our Latin projects may assume this kind, but better the whole banner in Latin, not only the former part. --Aphaia 09:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's my fault. I tried to translate as much as I could, but that turned out to be only the first part. I know I should have studied my Latin more. ;) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Make the Wikimedia Foundation more useful[edit]


Proposed by: James Salsman with thanks to TeleComNasSprVen. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

P.S. Please test the #25goals below. Thank you! 71.198.176.22 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Millions[edit]


Proposed by: Kevin McE. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Dual meaning of contributions, emphasise collective effort element of content, happy to see alternative words to further (other, a different type of, your, financial...) Kevin McE 06:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I support this, but only if the spelling is changed to "encyclopedia".. Lexicografía 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I think encyclopaedia/encyclopedia should be standard throughout. I vote for "encyclopedia". Also, I feel like "in need of further contributions" is awkward -- perhaps go with a full sentence? GorillaWarfare 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting delete.svg I vote for encyclopædia  ono  21:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    Of course, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the free encyclopædia that anyone can edit". — The Earwig (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    There's probably some cause for avoiding ENGVAR issues entirely by not using such words. In English speaking countries outside North America, the insistence on American spelling (one *never* sees it as -edia in Australian texts for example) smacks of a form of cultural imperialism which Wikipedia is right to avoid. Orderinchaos 01:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    Huh? It still doesn't look right. Encyclopedia is what should be used.GHarshfield 14:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than an encyclopedia[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-21
Comments:

  1. Suggested for non-Wikipedia content projects. ~ Ningauble 14:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a very, very bad idea. The projects are not defined by their relation to a larger sister project. --Yair rand 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that it feels off message to me. I'm OK with the concept, but this particular language makes me uncomfortable. Philippe (WMF) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I can see how this might come across as rivalrous or something. I will try to think of something that more clearly connotes sailing alongside the flagship project towards a shared vision. In many people's minds, other projects are strongly identified by their relation to Wikipedia: content that furthers the foundation's vision but, in terms of scope and structure, is "what Wikipedia is not." ~ Ningauble 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Presenting 11/12 of the projects as "sailing alongside the flagship project" is itself very harmful, IMO. --Yair rand 19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the theory behind this at least. Maybe revised somehow? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Like it as it is. User:Elitre

Knowledge heart[edit]


Proposed by: GoEThe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-29
Comments:

  1. Maybe animation is not a good idea. Could replace with Wikilove2 new.png. GoEThe 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Not sure if everyone "hearts" knowledge. How about doing a variation of the famous "I Wikilove2 new.png NY" campaign.Theo10011 12:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. No animated images, especially low-quality ones. A text heart would work fine.  fetchcomms 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    I proposed something similar here.  fetchcomms 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    I changed the image to a stationary one.GoEThe 11:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Tacky. One of the main qualities of Wikipedia (to me) is the professional, clean look. This banner doesn't go with it. --Urzică 07:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Humanity Dream[edit]


Proposed by: Da voli. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 21:41: 2010-09-24
Comments:

  1. Is there any particular reason this is in triangle brackets? S8333631 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The brackets are in the template, to delineate where you submit the banner name. I'm removing them.  :) Philippe (WMF) 19:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Philippe, for removing the brackets. It was my first try. --Da voli 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. What dream? --88.130.160.172 10:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I hope this is not the culmination of humanities dream, otherwise we are way too shortsighted. My76Strat 05:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • According to Buddhism Teachings, main reason of all suffering is a lack of knowledge. So comprehensive knowledge can be considered as a humanity dream. --Da voli 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia will never be finished, so this isn't really true. Mr.Z-man 03:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is for everyone[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Like it. Another Variation "Free knowledge for all, help keep it that way".Theo10011 13:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You have the power[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. hmm shape people's mind might be construed as influencing or controlling them. How about "power to enlighten/open people's mind...".Theo10011 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, that sounds negative / threatening. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    +1--OsamaK 19:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. This one could go horribly wrong in translation. Gigs 00:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sum of All Knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. This kinda makes it sound like the sum of all knowledge is already present and the projects are complete, which they aren't... Lexicografía 12:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yea I know, and I wanted it to be different, but unfortunately I could not think of a better set of words to fit the rest. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Maybe work in a verb such as "amass" or "collect"? Lexicografía 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. "Amassing the sum of all knowledge in one convenient location, help us collect it."Theo10011 13:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Knowledge is cheap[edit]


Proposed by: Trev M. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-22
Comments:

  1. Knowledge is cheap? doesnt seem that natural, there are hundreds of phrases to contradict that "information is power" etc.. plus "how much you got" sounds aggressive and threatening.Theo10011 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. If its so cheap, why are we asking for $250 donations? Mr.Z-man 03:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the previous comments.--OsamaK 19:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

all our knowledge belongs to anyone[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. I'd probably switch the language to something like "Our knowledge belongs to anyone.", but I like this idea quite a lot. It promotes (Wikimedia) giving back, as opposed to simply people giving TO (wikimedia). Philippe (WMF) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. First thing that came to mind was "all your base belong to us". I'm trying to decide if that is a good thing. Concept is good though. sonia 06:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    Me too ;-) ~ Ningauble 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    Me too ;-) Bright side: it makes someone smile, grin or laugh. Bad side: some people - Japanese - feel mocked, because the original is thought to be a typical English, Bad English of Japanese. But either good or bad, it would be no big deal. I assume most of our readership may never have heard that and only see its idea. --Aphaia 08:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. not sure about this one, I would suggest another iteration to Philippe's suggestion above "Our knowledge belongs to everyone". More inclusive of the diversity on Wikipedia.Theo10011 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I would use "All knowledge belongs to everyone," since "our" implies a bit too much control. (It's ours, but we'll let you rent it for a while.) I like the idea in general. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Information should be free[edit]


Proposed by: Andre Engels. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-17
Comments:

  1. it sounds pretty ironical for a donation request. DarkoNeko 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I agree, but I like this. How about "information should be free, but our servers are not"--Deniz (WMF) 00:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. this sounds very familiar, I think this or something very similar has been suggested or used previously. I like Denize's variation though.Theo10011 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Information IS free. Access to it isn't always. For that, I don't like this one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


you can help spreading knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Concise and to the point. - Andre Engels 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. like it, just add "donate now". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't sound right grammatically. Theo10011 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Grammatically it would be "with spreading" or just "spread", but I like it. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Mission Statement[edit]


Proposed by: <enter your username here>. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Bringing the idea of the Movement for the old banner. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice try, but seems a bit too obvious and wordy for its purpose. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pretty long. I don't know if it'll work, and the punctuation might need some work as well. Lexicografía 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Remove 'That's our commitment.' (no added meaning there) and remove ' - Wikimedia movement' (we don't need refs here) Chzz 03:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sum of all knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Doc James. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. The wording is a bit awkward, something more along the lines of "our goal: the sum of all human knowledge" ? --dgultekin 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I think fundraising banners are not the place to mix motives about editing vs. donating. Also, not sure about capitalizing the H and the K. Always reminds me of German and reading old English. Ocaasi 21:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. As above, I wouldn't use "edit" as an additional option when the specific purpose for this is to receive money.
  4. No, weak wording. Chzz 03:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

spread knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-14
Comments:

  1. intentionally mentioning Wikimedia, so when they are visiting a page on Red Cross they dont think it is them. Replace [pm] with p or m - open for debate. Intentionally h with a small_caps so the W is the only capital in the sentence and attracts more attention. Effeietsanders 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I really like this one. It is clear and simple. I would go for Wikipedia and not Wikimedia. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Clear and simple, yes. Just drop that "pm" thing. :-) Ziko 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support. Very nice. Paulmnguyen 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Nice idea. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I think placing a / between "P/M" might help but I am still not sure of this one.Theo10011 17:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Simplify; "help us spread knowledge - donate to Wikipedia" and, Ok, acceptable. Chzz 03:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Sharing[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Needs a comment on what should be done next. "Edit. Donate." maybe.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
it was written along the lines of "Stay Curious", shorter messages have tested extremely well. Plus, I think Sharing works better than asking to donate. It's Short and concise for those reasons.Theo10011 13:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Like this one very much. @Jmh649: Sharing can be interpreted as sharing money i guess. Mvg, Basvb 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I can see both sides of the issue made here already. But generally I like it. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Not bad. Not great, not bad. Chzz 02:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Simplicity is good, but this suggestion targets those who already give, excluding those who have yet to give, but might be willing. My76Strat 04:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. I like it. Very simple, very meaningful.---OsamaK 19:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep Sharing[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Not crazy about this one, and I suggested it.Theo10011 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. "We" have the sum of all human knowledge- we being the world, or Wikimedia? The latter is untrue, the former unclear. sonia 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    Concur. --Aphaia 15:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. There is a huge amount of editing too do. The sum is a goal not the current state of things. How about "The sum of all human knowledge is our goal."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. And, frankly, the vision is "imagine a world in which the sum of human knowledge...." We don't have it yet. :) Philippe (WMF) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    Concur with Philippe and Jmh649. I like the modified version - or We are making the world in which ... --Aphaia 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. This is the only one so far that I support. I love this one. It conveys the message of wiki.-Iankap99
  6. No, poor grammar, and incorrect. Chzz 02:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Food of the Soul[edit]


Proposed by: Rock drum. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-09
Please note, I adapted this banner from one by fetchcomms.
Comments:

  1. Not so compelling as other subversions of "food of the soul". IMO we'd better to get rid of negative words like "don't do xxx". --Aphaia 06:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. If knowledge is the food of the soul, how can a lack of food do anything but make you hungry? :) Rock drum (talk·contribs) 16:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is, negative words rather help taunt and intimidate people, but it would not be the best way to motivate them. --Aphaia 16:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that. How about just Hungry? as the link? That cuts more positive. Ocaasi 09:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done See #Hungry? Regards, Rock drum (talk·contribs) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Like the one further up that this is based on, I see where it is going and how it is meant, but do we really want to mention a "soul" here? What about those who don't believe in souls? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it (as an athiest) - maybe "Knowledge feeds the soul" is better? Chzz 00:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feed someone Knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. good :) Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Somewhat awkward, I am not sure if it'll translate well. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Are we not having language-specific banners as well? This one might be better for Wikiquote at least; "Knowledge is the food of the soul" is from Plato.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    We are indeed using language-specific messaging and banners.  :) Philippe (WMF) 00:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I love it. If we optimize it for Wikiquote (and Wikipedia/Wikisource in some cases), the first sentence would be followed a link to q:Plato in each language. For translation concerns, if we can tell translators where we've taken it, they can consult a local library, or just their own language WQ or WS :) --Aphaia 06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I do not believe in the concept of a soul. Impossible to translate in my silly little farmer language (Dutch). Kwiki 04:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Great, the end could be improved. Consider just "Feed Someone" or "Hungry?" Ocaasi 20:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Nom nom nom LOL I'm not a fan of mentioning a "soul," though I see where you are going with this. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This one's also kinda cheesy no pun intended whatsoever but also good. Reminds me of FreeRice a little, which isn't bad at all! Lexicografía 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. I think this one has potential as well. Gigs 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. I like it but I'm not sure it would get me to donate. Anya 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. the generalized usage of "Soul" along with "feed someone knowledge" seems a bit clumsy. The original quote is from Protagoras, a dialogue by Plato, its original context is quiet different from its perceived usage. As far as modifying Plato's quote theres quite a few others like “If a man neglects education, he walks lame to the end of his life”,“Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous.”, “The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life” and “Know thyself.” Theo10011 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be free[edit]


Proposed by: Andre Engels. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • "Because knowledge should be free", maybe? Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Imagine a world[edit]


Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Actually, I am not such a big fan of this peticular Wales phrase. "Knowledge" can mean a lot, but WP (and WM projects) deal only with a little segment of human knowledge.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with striking phrases. For me, it is important to contextualize the project with the overall goal. It strenghtens the call for action and it is a good method to cultivate donors. But we would have to talk about the last sentence. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree that the goal is the more important part. What's a fundraising campaign without a big idea? 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Very wordy. --Cybercobra 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that people like reading, really, they are in Wikipedia for that. Emijrp 16:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Once restricted[edit]


Proposed by: sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • I like this one. Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • how about "knowledge was once restricted to those who could afford it. That changed in 2001. Donate today for free knowledge". That gives a time frame and it highlights the historic importance of wikipedia. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I people will get what is meant with 2001. Also, this works only for (English) Wikipedia --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest rewording: "Knowledge was once restricted to those who could afford it. Do you want to keep it that way?" to provoke action. Renata3 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I like the subversive quality. --Cybercobra 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is too much. Knowledge is still restricted. --Nemo 09:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Closer to that goal[edit]


Proposed by: Yair rand. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Or possibly "brings that goal closer" or something like that. --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. +1 Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Free Information[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Sure it is. It's free as in freedom and currently also free as in beer :)
    It isn't free to make, though. I don't think people will get it (most people don't even know the original slogan) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. What does "free" mean? Free licence or no cost? It can't mean no cost, so long as we are asking for money, and I am not sure people appreciate the free licence. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    It wants to be free of cost to anyone, but it's not (we need to pay for server costs, etc.) is what I meant.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Knowledge is free, content isn't. Sounds too activist to me. Effeietsanders 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. The message throws questions into my mind if I try to place myself in the shoes of a casual visitor. I might ask "huh? I thought Wikipedia was free to use?" or "can knowledge want anything, since it is not sentient?" I feel it gives me too much to think about; lacks directness. --Bodnotbod 11:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. As Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation founder) put it many times, it's "free content" as in licensed under our free licenses such as the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, not "free beer". MuZemike 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Information IS free. Access to it isn't always. For that, I don't like this one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. You might be able to play on the dual definition of free here. Something like "Free content isn't free". Gigs 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. No, simply no. Sven Manguard 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shine the light[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
  • Basically, I like the global approach. But in that case we would have to provide further information on the landingpage in what way we support the global outreach. Maybe too poetic for a donation banner. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

/:I like the broader emphasis. I think many Wikipedia users would take to the idea that the format is spreading to distant places. User:Ocaasi 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Sounds almost religious. (Matthew 5:14-16) Not sure we want that association to happen, but maybe it is just me. And maybe that association only happens to people for who it is a good association. Effeietsanders 10:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't think of religion with this one (but don't have much knowledge on religion). Mvg, Basvb 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A bit too enlightenment (I'm not sure this word has the same meaning in English as in Italian, though...). --Nemo 09:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is universal[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • The universe is big, you know ;). We're happy to spread it on earth, though --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is power[edit]


Proposed by: Church of emacs. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Inspired by Fundraising 2010/Messages/Courageous
Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Näh... V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it. --Aphaia 06:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Seems hard to translate. But for English only it might work. Effeietsanders 09:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Nice, but will users understand that this is a request for donations? Ziko 13:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • We can always test it with and without a 'donate now' button Jalexander 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I think it is kind of hard to add a donate now-buttom. You have to empower yourself by donating? You take through giving? I would rather see this message in a personal appeal. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Knowledge is power[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Actually, when I look at donator's comments on German language Wikipedia, there are many of such statements. Maybe not a bad direction.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Even though some Germans might like the idea of knowledge as power, I would guess that most users do not think in that categories while searching for every-day-information. But I´m open to test that one Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm worried that this one may be a bit too cliché for American audiences and therefore won't have as much impact as the sentiment it is trying to portray. I wouldn't be surprised though if the general idea of "Knowledge is Power" resonates with donors. Anya 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A bit corny, but would probably still work. --Cybercobra 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What's money[edit]


Proposed by: ChrisDHDR. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • It is a little bit contradictious if you ask for money saying simultanously that money is not important.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • good Lvova 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like concept, don't like wording. Renata3 02:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Next Chapter[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments

  • Prefer an active verb (Write the next chapter...) Ocaasi 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think if it was "write the next chapter", people would be expecting it to be an edit link and not a donate link. Then again, I'm not sure what kind of link they think this wording is. GorillaWarfare 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Worth to you[edit]


Proposed by: n/d. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like this. Maybe "how much is {{project}} worth to you? Philippe (WMF) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This would be one for the testing. the wording "knowledge" vs. "wikipedia". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I like this one as well. --Bodnotbod 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • wolud it be possible to test both variants? would like that --Jan eissfeldt 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wake up the world[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Good one, but translations should use different amounts of money. In the Middle East, I'm sure no coffee costs $5 (~$2-$3 usually).--OsamaK 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We should consider possible effects of suggesting a specific donation amount. This could potentially result in people donating $5 who might otherwise give more. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
  • The problem is a general one, we do not want to tell people how much to give. If we say "give 5$", we may only get so much from a person who would have given also more. If we say "give 100$" this sounds exclusive to many others. Some may not want to give (even if they themselves would give 100$) but find this offensiveley high for poorer people.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon[edit]


Proposed by: Pronoein. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Global community[edit]

«The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product» (Fundraising 2010#Focus Group).

Millions[edit]


Proposed by: Yair rand. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Don't quote me on the statistics :) --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I like this concept a lot.
  1. +1 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like concept, but not wording (repetitive). Renata3 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Return the favour Today!

Accessibility[edit]

Make Wikipedia available[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
  • Globes don't have corners. :) Philippe (WMF) 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL For that reason alone I like this one even more! — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And there are many languages which has no equivalent expression. In them it'll be just said "everywhere" or "in all the world". Just remark. --Aphaia 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree but still support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like it. Worth testing. Ocaasi 20:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The downside to the slogan being it's already available. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like it. User:Elitre
  • I love this one. Mr. R00t Talk 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, some what redundant, but at the same time straight to the point. --WolfnixTalk • 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Making History[edit]

Make history[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • We should correlate to the donor survey and see if this rates as a motivation for giving. Philippe (WMF) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed the world[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Past simple isn't very active time. Lvova 11:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, the "us" vs. "you" problem... GorillaWarfare 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Crescit eundo[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Most people won't get it due to Latin. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Exactly! And most people don't live in New Mexico. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Heh. At least you got it :P.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Cancer. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t17:35z
  4. I think this one is a little too obscure. Philippe (WMF) 18:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. No. "Crescit eundo. Translated from Latin, it means "It grows as it goes" and has been criticized for appearing strange or even nonsensical at first hearing." en:Seal_of_New_Mexico. Chzz 00:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Future of knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: User:69.226.103.13. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • The actual stuff is done by volunteers, donations only enable that process :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I really like it. Anyone who helps Wikipedia in any way does "build the future of knowledge", and that's exactly what this donation campaign should emphasize. --Urzică 07:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Future freely given[edit]


Proposed by: n/d. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • I like this one very much. --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What is Wikimedia? Sounds nice, maybe too nice to click on it? Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Too ambiguous for new readers? Renata3 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Change "Wikimedia" to "[Project]" --Cybercobra 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious[edit]

We need your help[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Maybe drop the "We need your", so it's just "Help keep it going."? Philippe (WMF) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • either way - I like both phrases. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • good. Lvova 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Good. Suggest rewording "This website is changing the world. Do your part. Donate today." Renata3 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice appeal. --Cybercobra 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit the World[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

One small step[edit]


Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Poetic and bold. Maybe remove "That's", and it would be even broader. User:Ocaasi 09:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly a rather tired message, though? Perhaps with some tweaking - "That's one small donation for man, one giant gift to mankind"? Mike Peel 21:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "man" and "mankind" is the same thing, it should be "a man". Gender neutral terms would be better tho: all white, all male, all American won't fly anymore. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t17:48z


Quid pro quo[edit]


Proposed by: Magnus Manske. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Should be tested. 216.38.133.254 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. please not, most won´t understand Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Only on lawiki ;) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. It might get a high number of clicks as a short and intriguing message, but the phrase has a very negative connotation in politics as a synonym backdoor bribery and other unseemly transactions. I'm not a big fan. Ocaasi 06:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Concept good, not so much on wording. Renata3 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Agree with comments 2 & 3. --Cybercobra 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    I thought more people would remember Silence of the Lambs... --Magnus Manske 16:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This is (also) an Italian phrase (qui pro quo), which has a very innocuous meaning but wouldn't be understood in this manner (do ut des would be, it's very common); Ocaasi's comment surprises me, someone should update wikt:en:quid pro quo (looks like w:en:Quid pro quo is more updated on English modern usage). Conclusion: don't expect similar results in different countries... --Nemo 06:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Protect[edit]

Keep it that way[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • I like. --Cybercobra 20:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Preserve the knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
  • This sounds as if WP is the place to do so, or that without WM all would be gone. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep the information free[edit]


Proposed by: Andre Engels. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Again, our problem with the word "free". Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see a problem with 'free', most people just take it to mean cheap and available, without any conflict. User:Ocaasi 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No Wikipedia[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-20
Comments:

  1. I like this, to the point, but perhaps worth testing where we can choose what age groups we want to target? --Deniz (WMF) 00:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. simple, straight, I like it too. Also, for some reason "wouldn't that be dreadful" sounds very British to me which may not be a bad thing.Theo10011 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like the basis behind this one. Do we really want to user "Wouldn't that be dreadful" though? That's too depressing. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Dreadfully funny. :) I'm all for this one. S8333631 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The day when Wikipedia was down[edit]


Proposed by: Hans Adler. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. I'm not sure of this: first, I don't think that we should be "proud" of our offline-status, second I don't think that many remember that day, and third we are not asking money only for that. But perhaps it may be useful to ask money to improve our servers, although 99,999 % uptime (with new datacentre) is a 2010 goal, if I remember correctly. --Nemo 10:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. My concern would be that a lot of people may not really know what servers are. Even "down" in this context is somewhat computer jargon-y. Mr.Z-man 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ad Free[edit]

Only Ad[edit]


Proposed by: Mario777Zelda. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-22
Comments:

  1. so we're making a promise to have no ads, then asking them to keep that promise? sonia 05:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Not strictly true either: Users place WPs own internal "propaganda" in their own space in boxes labelled "advertisment". Trev M 09:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Not remotely true: multiple fundraising banners are rotated. ~ Ningauble 21:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like it.Theo10011 18:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Untrue statement (though I know what you mean to say). Don't like it for that reason though. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Perhaps a slightly better wording for the first sentence would be "This is the only ad campaign on Wikipedia." Mario777Zelda 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    But this isn't the only "ad campaign" on Wikipedia, either - they do this fundraiser every year. Lexicografía 21:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    That's the point: this annual campaign is the only advertising. Also, the more correct the slogan is, the less catchy it becomes. Mario777Zelda 23:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sadly, people today are incredibly quick to notice when something said by an organization or public figure is untrue — so banners that WM uses must be true. Lexicografía 23:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Not supportive. Repeatedly we have said Fundraising banners was no ads. We are not in the position to make a promise - That if Wikipedia will be ever ad-free, it'll be decided by the community in future and in each time, not us in 2010. --Aphaia 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just kidding[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

I dont think its funny to even joke about ads, the idea has been thrown around so much I dont think a lot of community member will see the humor in it. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Seems like a touchy area to me. Philippe (WMF) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
+1 --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • no. Many will not see the humor Anthere

Not an Ad[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? 16 September 2010. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-09
Comments:

  1. Yes I think this is an important point to get across.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, I think it is important to point out the no-ads-all-donations-character. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Might be very nice! Effeietsanders 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Heh (I love it). --Aphaia 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Dislike. I thought we weren't going to use "Threat of a future-advertisement here." type-ads, or however these were eloquently described before. Quiddity 22:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. It looks like an ad: it is one. Bad one. I-20the highway 22:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Not sure we can promise to never have an ad, either. GorillaWarfare 00:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yuck, an ad[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Yet another take on the no-ads theme. Lexicografía 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Heh. I like this kinda joke, but no so much as to have it on the top. --Aphaia 19:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. would work... --Smihael 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fast removal[edit]


Proposed by: Train2104. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

  1. Only if this is true — and the "no more banners" theme is getting pretty overworked. Lexicografía 22:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks different[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Like this one too.Theo10011 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. This is good. S8333631 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I don't like it. Too colloquial – does not go well with the formal tone of WP articles, etc. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm not opposed to the tone.  :) I think there's value in writing that's different in a defined way, because it calls your attention to it. Philippe (WMF) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I think dropping the "Yeah" would help, but otherwise I like this one. Gigs 00:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like this one (although I agree with Gigs that the "Yeah" should be dropped) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This looks promising. May be worth testing. Hans Adler 14:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. In general I like the message, but it uses "it" three times with no explicit antecedent for any of them, which bothers me slightly, but could be confusing for people with poor English skills. Mr.Z-man 21:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How to keep Wikipedia ad-free[edit]


Proposed by: Bejinhan. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. This presents the whole ad-free message in a concise manner. Bejinhan talks 05:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ads[edit]


Proposed by: sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Please don't... --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No "no ads" banners.--OsamaK 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If I saw this, I'd avoid the area and not donate out of sheer anger. I HATE these types of adds. Sven Manguard 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Goals[edit]

Available everywhere[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Every day? GorillaWarfare 00:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Here for you[edit]


Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments

  • I like the first part, but the second sentence doesn't quite resonate for me. Philippe (WMF) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the idea. Agree that the end could be more effective; maybe just 'Donate today'. Also, 'try' is kind of soft maybe 'want to be here for you' is a little more positive. User:Ocaasi 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not convinced. Spiritia 10:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Philippe. --Cybercobra 20:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

City free[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

A contest among cities? Might work in competitive countries... User:Elitre

Someone in city[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Yes... so what? :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, it needs a call to action. Maybe, Together, you can keep the project thriving." Ocaasi 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

City $$[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Not sure how robust our geo-tracking integration is, but this kind of competitiveness can be fun and effective, especially if it is tied to easily available or publicized lists which track donations by region. Potentially there could be a prize for the city with the highest total/highest per-capita donations. Ocaasi 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Would be interesting to test. But no core values/messages, just appeal to competitiveness... Renata3 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh, I like... Although, like Ocaasi said, how accurate would the "You know you can beat that, [City]" part be? If it got my city wrong, I think I would just be a little confused. And then again, if it got it right, I might be a little creeped out. GorillaWarfare 00:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How about "do more than most for others"? 71.198.176.22 22:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reach that goal[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

I like the idea to communicate a vision. Even though a little bit wordy. Maybe without "on the planet" Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, lose that. Plus I don't think "single" is needed either. With those words removed I support this banner. --Bodnotbod 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
+1 --Cybercobra 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe make it "a world in which everyone is given free access to all knowledge"? Orionist 12:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Build the biggest[edit]


Proposed by: [[Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)]]. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • we already have, haven't we? at least in our core markets and languages --Jan eissfeldt 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe change it to "together we're building..."? Orionist 12:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

26 from Sue's goals list and overlooked esoterica[edit]

General Comments

I'm sorry, I don't find any of those banners compelling. They list very specific goals such as offline editing, which are of course important for us, but most of the readers a) don't know what this is about, and b) don't care. The banner text should be a slogan, a short (emotional) appeal, which everyone (or at least many readers) understand. Not something specific you'd have to explain in detail for people to understand. Just my $0.02, --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately agree. They're just too insider-y and technical for most readers to understand or care about. Good idea, though. I do like the goal motif: maybe some of these can be rephrased to be more attractive to a wider audience. User:Ocaasi 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Given the fact that the best performing banners have been generally surprising to most everyone, I hope they are all measured. If it were easy to predict what inspires people to give then there would be fewer poor people. 71.198.176.22 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm coming around on these. They are very concrete and specific. Some people might find that direct and appealing. Worth testing. Might also benefit from a link to the full goal list on the landing page. Ocaasi 06:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of these are definitely good, but others are too confusing or uninteresting to most donors. I think it would definitely be smart to test some of the ones that we think are the most specific/most obviously impact and help donors and readers. Cbrown1023 talk 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not test all of them instead of assuming that any of us has the ability to read donor minds? With more than 2.5 millions impressions a day for the tests that are currently running at only four at a time, they could all be tested with a very high level of certainty in less than an hour. 71.198.176.22 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No. This simply isn't true. The math doesn't work. For a banner test to be really relevant we need to see about 150 donations as a result of it. We simply haven't been able to do that on banners that weren't the Jimmy appeal, and certainly not within an hour. Even with that aside, there are other considerations (hours spent creating them, checking the test for flaws, checking the designs so that we don't run broken banners, creating UTM tracking, etc) than the sheer number of pageviews served, which is - as I already pointed out - a flawed analysis. Philippe (WMF) 02:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of these could be rewritten to be more interesting, but even I don't care about a few. Woohoo, math rendering. Mr.Z-man 22:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter note: this and the following 25 banners were derived from Sue's list of goals plus some items which have been overlooked -- originally they were intended as earmark suggestions, but I realized just now that they work just as well for banners.
  1. Significantly too technical for the majority of editors, I'd say. Same goes for some of the others here. GorillaWarfare 00:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter comment: esoteric sure, but worth testing. People on the internet often love esoteric tech that they might not understand at first.
  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter comment: I know this might seem esoteric, but it does have a visceral factor which most of our text-based projects do not, and could be very attractive to visually-oriented learners.
  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter comment: don't hate the math geeks, they occasionally help out :-)
  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...

Inspiring[edit]

Above and Beyond[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-18
landing page with 10 year anniversary noteComments:

  1. This is trademarked, also there's no ask in it, we've found that banners which say 'support us' or 'donate now' result in a better conversion rate. --Deniz (WMF) 00:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. sounds......presidential, something thats used in speech, too vague to have any association with Wikipedia, only suggests growth nothing else.Theo10011 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OAU/AAB[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-18
landing page with 10 year anniversary noteComments:

  1. Where are we going?Theo10011 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Places.  ono  02:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Been there, done that.;) Theo10011 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. LOL Theo. Anyway, isn't this slogan already trademarked somewhere? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dare to Know[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. This one is great.  ono  22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like this one, even though I'm not sure whether people are expecting a donation page to pop up :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Hey, "Stay curious" worked ;). I was surprised at that one getting the most clicks last week.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Good! V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. If you know, there is no more need for Wikipedia :) Otherwise, it doesn't look like a donation link, but rather to some kind of competition. Effeietsanders 10:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    Eh, it worked for "Stay curious", so worth a shot, I think.  fetchcomms 03:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Like it. Ocaasi 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Positive (after the results of "Stay Curious") Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support. Very nice. Paulmnguyen 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pretty good. --Cybercobra 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Everyone loves a dare, right? PrincessofLlyr 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. I love it. Simple and sharp. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Awesome, support. Anna Lincoln 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Not making me want to donate. Will probably make me stay on Wikipedia longer though. Anya 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. I love this but it wouldn't make me donate anything. Mr. R00t Talk 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  14. Approve. Chzz 00:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  15. I love this one, it leads you in, and most people would want to click, thinking it was a random article banner. --WolfnixTalk • 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    So far our tests have shown that drawing a person in with a intriguing banner does not lead to them donating once they arrive at the landing page. To make that conversion from clicking to donating, there needs to be an 'ask' in the message. --Deniz (WMF) 00:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  16. I do not support this suggestion. though i like it very much, it feels out of character with the survey and focus group results because: it is vague and does not clearly state an ask, which seemed to be most preferred. Philippe (WMF) 23:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Be 1 in XXX[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

'On landing page: today, xxxxxx people will use Wikipedia and 1 out of every YYYYYY will donate to support our community. You can be one of them.'
Note: This is great, we should play with it a bit, something along the lines of "only 1 in XXXX donate" or "your $__ donation supports bandwidth for XXXX people" --Dgultekin 22:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I really like the "your $____ donation provides bandwidth/access to XXXX people" Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we really say that? Sounds like very thin ice to me. But I do like the concretion of the donation. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • How big is X? This only works for large X. MER-C 02:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, Comscore calls it 388 Million unique viewers per month. So assuming they're evenly divided out, we can call that about 13 million per day. I'll ask Megan to post here with the total number of donors we have in an average month, because I don't have that number at my fingertips, though I probably should. Philippe (WMF) 21:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ehm, wut? I dont get it. Effeietsanders 10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Makes me think: "why don't these other XXX pay?" Basvb 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. For the 2009 fiscal year, we had an average of 21,782 donations/month (~726/day). Obviously that number is much higher for fundraising months but that's the yearly average. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
    • so, the ratio is 388,000,000 / 21782, or roughly 1:18,000,000. Philippe (WMF) 00:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. combined with additional information on the landingpage, it would be worth a shot. I would like to test that one in Germany aswell. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I might be a bit late to comment, but I am not sure about this one. I know the intention is not this but I think it undermines a benefactors contribution, its not saying that you are "special" unless they see the landing page. if someone sees it randomly they would assume that the message is saying that we don't value individuality.Theo10011 07:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Campaign[edit]

Wiki now Wiki later[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Don't know if this is correct english but in dutch it sais: "wiki nu, wiki straks". Other version: Use Wikipedia now, use Wikipedia later. Mvg, Basvb 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure if this really suggests anything. It sounds more to me like asking people to edit than donate. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To attract non-financial contributions.

Powered by volunteers[edit]


Proposed by:  – mike@meta:~$ . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Too back-alley robbery "your life or your wallet". Suggest rewording: "Meta is powered by volunteers and your donations" Renata3 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do like the option -- to edit or to donate. GorillaWarfare 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not perfect[edit]


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-14
Comments:
Whether "or press 'edit'" should be there is open for discussion. Effeietsanders 09:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. I think these banners should also try to get people to edit and improve Wikipedia this I like the press edit bit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. This sounds too indirectly negative or demanding. (If you don't like it, do it yourself!") — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. No; I dislike code/showing the insides of Wikipedia. Let's keep the donate message simple. No options, just $$$. Chzz 03:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like these. 71.198.176.22 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

One small edit[edit]


Proposed by: Ktr101. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • To me, this seems to conflate edits with donations. Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It does, but maybe effectively. User:Ocaasi 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the end of it is missing something: ... and be the chage you want to see in the world! ?
Sounds like a good idea to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Us vs. you[edit]

Help us help you.[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. As I mentioned above, us/them/you dichotomy is probably bad. See my previous comments. Gigs 00:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We provide the knowledge, you the funding?[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Grammatically correct? Mvg, Basvb 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I'd just add in a second provide, "we provide the knowledge, you provide the funding" I like the flow, but worry that it's a bit 'we' vs. 'you'--Deniz (WMF) 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Grammatically it's, "We provide the knowledge. You provide the funding." using either a period or semicolon. "Will you provide" would be more appropriate since it's a question. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Like some of the previous banners, creating a dichotomy between "editor" and "patron" is probably a bad idea. The people who are donating are probably those who at least have made small edits in the past. We shouldn't challenge the nascent self-identity of the person right as we ask them to affirm their commitment to the success of the project by donating money. We want to affirm that they are the kind of person that supports Wikipedia, they are the kind of person that would make a donation. Gigs 00:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Gigs and Deniz. We should absolutely avoid this. The same for #Help us help you.. --Nemo 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Community[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Oh, no, wikicommunity may be a horrible place, sorry. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't get it. Also "give us some money" is not the nicest way to ask, is it? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sort of based after a radio slogan. Doesn't sound too good to me after another few read-throughs.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. No. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. We are inclusive. We wish our readers join us. No us verses them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. I agree.--Bodnotbod 11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Long. Complicated. Worth a test though. Effeietsanders 09:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I don't like the message; it's not clear enough. I don't think it's worth a test. It might, however, be good inspiration for similar messages. :) The underlying idea is nice. Nihiltres(t.u) 19:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This sounds like something a fakey mobster would use to advertise his protection racket. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. The Wikipedia community chiefly serves for the purpose of managing Wikipedia articles; it is not the Chinese Communist Party in that it should freely disregard any and all outside pressure and influence. MuZemike 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Way too wordy and somewhat demanding. "Give us money." — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Give us support? Still a forceful statement --Deniz (WMF) 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Yeah, too pushy. Gigs 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Too complicated. Keep in mind the ADD crowd. Sven Manguard 02:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. Sorry, I don't like this one. It seems to make everything about money whether a community or the "world" thats against the principles of an open and free encyclopedia. Theo10011 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Some give their time[edit]


Proposed by: Sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Not sure how I feel about this. It kind of makes me feel like only experts are editing, which is intimidating. Maybe discouraging for potential new editors? Megan Hernandez (WMF)

Well, a lot of us who are certainly not experts expend huge amounts of time fighting vandalism/clerking/finding sources as I do. What I meant to make clear was that there are three ways to give: time, knowledge, money- and any of the three is most appreciated. sonia 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I really like the three-way-approach - even though the call for action is a little bit cautious. It would be interesting if that light approach would work (maybe with a synonym for expertise?). Till Mletzko (WMDE) 11:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "knowledge" would be more universal and less intimidating? sonia 01:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)