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

Payments from India[edit]

Can people donate from India with Oxigen, Paytm, MobiKwik, RuPay? See Digital payments soar by up to 300% after demonetisation. --Nemo 16:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Text of Dutch e-mail leads to suspicion of phishing[edit]

A got a message from a Dutch donor (through OTRS) who thought the mail he received was phising/fraud. This was because of 1 particular sentence: "Mensen hebben me gewaarschuwd dat ik spijt zou krijgen, <name of the donor>". Personally I must say I wouldn't trust an e-mail starting with that sentence either. Mbch331 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I'm also curious where this sentence comes from: I can't find it in the translation system.[1] --Nemo 13:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey @Mbch331:, what would you recommend as an alternative? Seddon (WMF) (talk)
A ping without a timestamp won't work. So pinging @Mbch331: again. Stryn (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Insults are a bad way to get donations[edit]

Please remove the comment about "the price of a cup of coffee" from the Israel version. When you write that our money is so meaningless that we should consider 15 shekels to be the price of a cup of coffee (the actual price being 6 shekels), you're probably not helping get donations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We hadn't heard that from any of our Israeli reviewers, but after doing a bit more research we have removed that line from the banners. We also have some tests lined up to see the effect of asking for lower amounts. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Donor records[edit]

I'm a bit surprised by the outcome at wmf:Resolution:Approval for the Document Retention Policy#Part B - Fundraising Department. Storing records for millions of donors for 10 years doesn't sound like a good idea: that's a lot of subpoena potential! Is there really such an excessive requirement by any applicable law? In Italy for instance most records can be deleted after 5 years, and I'd expect USA federal laws to have some minimum threshold on donation amount. It would be nice to reduce the amount or duration of the information recorded, e.g. for people who donated less than 10 $ (or whatever other threshold would exclude, say, 95 % of the donors). --Nemo 08:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Nemo bis:, I want to double check my response with legal to confirm but our data retention policy relating to donor records is in line with charitable best practice for the State of California. In the United States, document retention policies are typically shaped by the statute of limitation that applies to a certain activity, which can be set at both Federal and, most importantly in this case, State level. California which has one of the longest statutes of limitation for charitable activities within the United States at 10 years. So you are correct in that the retention policy is longer than usual in comparison to most charities and non-profits, but it is the norm for those based within the State of California. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia thriving[edit]

2017 USA fundraising banner, red letter followup.png
2017 USA fundraising banner, sponsored content followup.png

Maybe saying that donations "keep Wikipedia thriving" was an attempt at replacing the "keep servers running" deceitful implications, but the new phrase is even worse. There are two possible ways this can be read:

  • additional donations are a necessary condition – quite false statement, because we could have a surge in contributions for reasons independent from the WMF work;
  • additional donations are a sufficient condition – disastrous defectionist statement which induces potential contributors to boycott our community by telling them that only money matters, not content contributions.

I wish Wikimedia Foundation stopped its anti-Wikipedia propaganda on Wikipedia. --Nemo 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The nagging is ridiculous[edit]

So I open wikipedia, see a banner on top. Shrugs, normal annoying donation thing, close the banner.

Go to another page, now there is a banner inline with the text. Oh come on. Block with element hiding.

And then on the next page there is another one on the left side. Seriously three??? Blocked again and now I'm angry.

How can you possibly think that nagging the user three times on three pages, when they explicitly closed the banner the first time, would be a good idea? How is it that somehow, Wikipedia has become more annoying than actual ads without getting any of the money from actual ads?