Talk:Fundraising 2010/Messages

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Can we make banners less big at least on this page? Otherwise it's difficult to use it. we should add to {{Banner-test}} some flags and info (discussed or not, considered "on scope" or not by consensus, tested or not [and how long], proved income-generating or not, discarded or not). --Nemo 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the suggestions. Emijrp 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's better to create a subpage for each proposal, to have a talk for each one? --Nemo 20:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see them on the same page. There's going to be a lot of submissions and I hate to think of all the clicking and watchlisting that would be required if we split them all up. --Bodnotbod 10:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia free[edit]


We previously used text like "keep wikipedia free by donating" but Wikipedia is free and will be free even after the Wikimedia Foundation would stop working, we have lots of mirrorsites and other ways where Wikipedia is.

When we use text like that we are telling our readers something and maybe because of that they will donate, and maybe it works... Last year it worked, two years ago it worked. But I rather keep away from text like that because the fundraising is all about keeping the foundation online, not our content free.


Huib talk Abigor 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Ziko 16:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of interesting... we did some banner testing a month or so ago, you may remember... and overwhelmingly, the "free" message resonated (that is, people clicked the banners and took an action step... in that case, filling out a survey). Philippe (WMF) 18:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Huib. Yes, there are mirrors so it could be argued, technically, that if nobody donated and the WMF imploded that Wikipedia would still exist in a free state in some form. But I don't think expressing our ideals of freedom of knowledge should be ignored, suppressed or ruled out on those grounds. The fact that we're a free source of knowledge is a huge part of both what we're about and what draws people to read our content and, hopefully, donate. So I think, if anything, we should push that aspect of Wikipedia more strongly, not less. --Bodnotbod 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implicitly, if the foundation runs out of money, the content will either disappear online or become ad-supported (effectively not free). Since most people would never want the content to disappear online, the 'threat' is actually a real one, however unlikely. The salient point is that the freedom of this encyclopedia to be created by its user's whims and no one else's is dependent on continuing donations. If you don't take it so literally, I think it makes more sense. Ocaasi 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with ad's on our page we give free knowledge, donating doesn't keep the content free the license does... Huib talk Abigor 23:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An idea...[edit]

We could try appeals by users, targetting non-users. Short and sweet appeals from users from different backgrounds. For example, in the Spanish Wikipedia, appeals from a Spanish woman, a mexican man, a chilean student, an argentinian old person... Saying in few words how important they feel Wikipedia is and encouraging people to donate. And below the message, maybe a line saying "User X. Wikipedian since 20XX". Could get the community involved in the fundraising process. And well, people like personal stories. Maybe it'd make them more agreeable to donating their money. Just a thought. Raystorm 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last year people donated just because they thought they could get their quote on the banners. And personal stories from readers should resonate well with other readers (depending on the quote that is). I think that the notion of readers being able to add quotes to banners fits in well with the notion of "edit this fundraiser." Anya 17:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day[edit]

Could it be technically done to use the picture of the day in a banner? We host very very very much images, and I know people that know the Wikimedia Foundation because they host free images. We could use the picture of the day with a banner like:

This image and many more are hosted by us, help us keep them online"

This will reach other people than people interested in text. Huib talk Abigor 17:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old "banners" revived?[edit]

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

WP share banner

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

WP universal banner

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

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

 fetchcomms 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters and countries banners[edit]

A good ideia is have different banners in countries when we have chapters tell people what the chapters is doing, and another type focus on a single country (whit local community help, of course). Béria Lima Msg 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're not sure, Philippe said that such proposals are much appreciated. --Nemo 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Funny" banners[edit]

When it comes to donating, people prefer being approached in a serious way, It is important that readers will get such an impression about us. By the way, I am not a native of English, but I could imagine there are many people who dislike expressions such as "suck"... --Ziko 17:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jimbo said it first. Also, I think that a lighter tone is something we need to approach, because it could draw in more people. We're not a "Please donate thanks" boring project, we're serious but have fun too. Boring banners are easily ignored.  fetchcomms 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we really know how to talk to readers - as opposed to the people who feel directly connected to the movement. We don't really know what works. That's why I think it's important to test them!  :) Philippe (WMF) 06:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, we can actually test only revenue, not communication effectiveness. To make people understand that we are non-profit, what are our core values etc., what's the better approach? A post-mortem survey is way too slow, and useless to drive decisions during the fundraising. Perhaps we would need some message rating system to assess non-financial effectiveness ("WMF is a non-profit! Click here if you've discovered something new/Was this interesting?"), at least for non-revenue oriented messages (which are currently described in Fundraising_2010#Non-financial_contributions as means of getting new editors; perhaps this is too narrow). --Nemo 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be explored using technologies commonly used in the social media campaign that's being planned. I know many people are pro-privacy and all that for ads, but collecting some sort of anonymous response data based on clicks, referring websites, etc. could be very helpful indeed, if implemented well.  fetchcomms 19:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nemo, there are some other methods we could try... for instance, focus grouping. Philippe (WMF) 18:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand Nemo correctly, but if the suggestion is to provide on-banner opportunities for feedback then I totally disagree. We want the banner to achieve one thing; to get a donation. If we start adding "what do you think of this banner?" it will clutter the message. The banners should be One Use objects. I believe we have technical facilities in place to track outcomes. Let's not dilute our message by adding links that have other purposes to the banners. --Bodnotbod 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't my main point, and I can agree with you; Philippe's suggestion of focus groups may be the way. I think that these "non-revenue oriented messages" can be very important in this campaign, and who knows, maybe communicating our values better is also the best way to raise more money, the two things are hopefully not too diverging. --Nemo 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Just to follow up on this, we're doing a focus group this week.  :) Philippe (WMF) 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency and return rate[edit]

I think that this is our main point: Wikimedia is very efficient. Wikimedia Foundation doesn only a fraction of the work, and the tech side is incredibly cost-efficient. Currently we communicate this only with the staff number: standard reaction "What? I thought that Wikipedia was a big corporation, and it has only n employees!". But I don't think that this is very effective, and actually it's quite difficult to explain what some staffers do and why they're needed (especially to chapters members, by the way).
How can we improve on this? Random data: UNESCO 2010-2011 budget, 653 000 000 $ [1]; Facebook 1400 employees, 800 M$ budget; Google 21 805 employees, ~15 G$ expenses. But we can't make a populistic campaign like "look at UNESCO budget, isn't this a huge waste compared to WMF?", and probably we can't compare us to Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/Facebook without being simplistic or making unfair "advertising". --Nemo 07:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be relevant (but I don't think it's very useful): strategy:Nonprofit revenue comparison. --Nemo 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a very interesting point. How about an interactive advert, a radio box survey: "How many employees do you think the Wikimedia Foundation has?" (four numbers that are all higher than the answer) "N people. Help us keep {{{project}}} running." sonia 09:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little research on this a few months ago... Table follows. Disclaimer: data is several months old now. Philippe (WMF) 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranking employees company (subsidiary sites)
1 20000 Google (YouTube, Blogger, etc)
2 93000 Microsoft (MSN, Hotmail, etc)
3 14000 Yahoo! (Hotjobs, Flickr , etc)
4 1000 Facebook (Facebook)
5 50 Wikimedia (Wikipedia, Wiktionary)
6 8000 AOL LLC AOL
7 15,500 eBay (eBay, Paypal, Skype)
8 21,000 Amazon Sites (Amazon, Alexa, iMBD, Kindle)
9 ?? Ask Network (
10 2080 CBS Interactive (,, GameSpot)
Thank you, Philippe. Sonia's suggestion may work, but a) I think that providing only wrong answers means cheating the reader, b) as I said, I think that we should try to find also some way other than the number of employees to make this point. --Nemo 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It'd be good to gather some now to form a large part of the fundraiser- I sort of envision it as banners saying "{{{project}}} changes lives. Read {{{name}}}'s story here.", leading to a page with a short testimonial from a reader or contributor and a donate form. This would mean a restructuring of the donation processNot the best phrasing, sorry as each sitebanner will link to a different page, a different project-specific story. This is really wishful thinking but if we could get a reader and a writer from each project to volunteer their story, that would be fantastic. (obviously, as proposer I suppose I've just volunteered myself... :P) sonia 09:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did that before, quoting comments from people who donated. Should be fairly easy to do (cycle through a few banners, update them every week or two).  fetchcomms 17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but not donation comments, full testimonials. On one hand the real solid facts approach is good, like the one with the number of staff- but on the other hand I think we need a few to tug at heartstrings. Perhaps these testimonials could include staff? sonia 08:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully in support of using testimonials. I worry slightly about the long-form ones; would it mean that the banner takes the user through to the long testimonial? I think I'd rather all banner content go to the donations window. --Bodnotbod 10:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonials extracted from contribution history[edit]

I'm going to browse through the donation log looking for comments left which might make good banners. My question is, would we include the name of the donor? Can we assume they would be OK for us to use their name? Does the donations page extract this information from the user? --Bodnotbod 10:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to extract all the raw messages, and post them in a subpage to rate them. That page only shows 50 per time. Emijrp 11:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly make things easier; a rating system (eg, just click to vote for a testimonial) would be great - it would definitely encourage people to participate with testimonial promotion. And if your proposed subpage only extracted donations that included some user input so much the better, as the raw list shows all donations and most donors do not leave a message. Who should we contact about this proposal? --Bodnotbod 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a subpage to dump any testimonials you like that you've discovered in the donation log. I will visit the page from time to time and format additions to the list to save folk time, though you are of course welcome to do the formatting yourself. The formatting is intentionally left simple rather than pretty so that people can add lots of content quickly. We can worry about beauty at some later stage when we've come to a means of deciding which we would like to use and in what form. --Bodnotbod 15:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running a bot which is loading all the messages. In a few minutes I will paste them. Emijrp 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Emijrp 16:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx :))) Przykuta 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Emijrp. I will go through it today and remove any nonsensical or otherwise useless entries. What would be good then is to use the list as a basis for community ranking of entries. Anyone have any ideas on this? Something like Google Moderator would be good. Perhaps we can use that? --Bodnotbod 08:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More languages[edit]

I have added a section for people who is not so good writing in English ; ). Emijrp 08:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a bot which post messages in all Wikipedias when needed. Can it post a message requesting for help for the language section? Emijrp 08:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the over-running three line banners?[edit]

It seems a sizable number of messages don't even fit. Can we make it clear for people to check that the message stays on two lines? I'm assuming this isn't just my browser, but if it is, I'm running Firefox 3.5 on Windows XP. Ocaasi 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no guarantee as to the visual direction of the banner yet: it could end up in a design where three lines would fit, or the text would be smaller. Just not sure yet. Besides, I like the brainstorming. :) Philippe (WMF) 18:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best Practice last Fundraiser[edit]

Maybe I just don´t know where to find it but is there a summary on what banners went good, the best and not so good last year? In the US and in the participating countries? It would help to see what approach was successful in terms of donations and banner clicks for the creation of new banners and messages for this year. If there is no such summary yet, could the WMF provide us with one? Till Mletzko (WMDE) 09:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some data on the WMF blog.[2] [3] [4] [5] --Nemo 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there is some data, it's sort of sketchy.... No ones fault, but the testing wasn't rigorous enough, and the tech not there yet, to do a great deal of substantive reporting. We are doing some analysis on it now and will happily share that, but it will be so broad as to probably not be of great use. Philippe (WMF) 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some data on results is still needed, otherwise we don't know where we need to improve and where we've done well... See Talk:Fundraising_2010#Fundraising_2009_report. --Nemo 08:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on messages[edit]

Ones that I think appeal most to me:

social justic
  • [Project] is free. Our bandwidth isn't.
  • Freedom isn't free. Donate today.
Free Information Revolution
  • Help us change the world.
  • Keep the information free
  • Wikipedia is changing lives. Be a part of the revolution.
  • One day people will look back and think, this website changed the world.
  • One day people will look back and wonder what it was like not to know.
  • [Edit] the world. Donate Today.

--Alecmconroy 07:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy video[edit]

Hi. Where is the Jimmy's video of previous years? I don't find it. Emijrp 07:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here [6] [7] [8] Emijrp 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testing banners with TYPOS?[edit]

NO.... The great banner including "If you make one gift this year, make it the gift ofknowledge." -- Nelson Mandela" has a missing space between of and knowledge. Please fix it so that we are testing proper messages! Thanks! Ocaasi 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a space there, but it's part of the hyperlink- that looks messy when clicked. sonia 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phillipe said it was some display glitch, but... fixed! Ocaasi 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh the banner design[edit]

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

Could we use the new drop shadow CSS properties this year? They really help the message stand out and appear visually distinct from the article, which is beneficial both for getting people to look at the banners, and for distinguishing sitenotices from our content. The effect adheres to all web standards and works in all browsers except Internet Explorer, in which it will appear as before. I think it looks great with the new Vector theme, without being too dramatic. Pretzels 01:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks even better if we match the border to Vector's electric blue page border. Pretzels 02:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing all banner messages[edit]

I like the message page re-organization, especially that banner-box thingy which breaks the long list into types. But it'd still be nice to see the whole list in one place. Is that still possible? User:Ocaasi07:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't, but it will be shortly :) Philippe (WMF) 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we testing only 4 at a time?[edit]

I glanced at the test results and it looks like only 4 at a time are being tested. Can we have a variable sized testing pool with each message tallied individually for as long as it takes to get a statistically significant set of presentation/click-through/conversion ratios? It seems needlessly restrictive to only have four in the hopper at any one time. 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we only tested four the first week. We've been increasing the number tested each week, as we know the technology underneath it (which has been totally rewritten) is stable. Philippe (WMF) 00:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

  • Where should new banner ideas go: a) in the right banner category or b) on the newly submitted list?
I had intended for them to go on the "newly submitted" list, so that more eyes hit the new stuff. But I've learned one thing from Wikis, which is that you watch to see where people naturally put stuff and then build processes around that. So.... I dont know. Philippe (WMF) 00:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Building it now. It's at Fundraising 2010/Messages/All Philippe (WMF) 00:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good feedback from WMF on these things is oh so important and it's been great so far. Ocaasi 09:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's really great to hear. Philippe (WMF) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings between suggestions[edit]

It is to hard to figure out were to add comments. Can we add subheadings?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Deniz (WMF) 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting System[edit]

I think it might help if guidelines directed contributors to express support or opposition towards messages with their vote mentioned at the start of their comment(like traditional Wikipedia voting model). It would make the final process of enumerating support vs. opposition much more straight-forward. Voters can either express either strong or weak support or opposition for a particular banner which could be tallied up in the end.--Theo10011 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a vote, it's a discussion/critiquing. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 22:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya but in terms of tallying it up, if it were to have vote before their comments, It would streamline the process. either way its prob. a bit late to enact that system.--Theo10011 03:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to have a vote, in any case... votes tend to discourage discussion. I like the concept of open discussion better. Philippe (WMF) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the money go?[edit]

I know that people wonder, and I have wondered, that why does WP need money when "all its work" is done by unpaid volunteers. I remember trying to find it out probably two years back during a fund-raising campaign and getting frustrated in not finding an answer. I think that the fund-raising page should mention this issue prominently and extensively. N6n 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation's budget is public, you can look up every years financial information. you can take a look here [9] or [10], most of this information is available on Meta and the foundation Wiki.Theo10011 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are lots of costs that go into running one of the most popular websites in the world, there is the bandwidth cost, technical staff to maintain the servers, contractors, some researchers who make the projects more accessible and user friendly. Yes, most of the contribution is done by volunteers but there is a lot that goes into just keeping it all online and helping its growth.--Theo10011 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my title is misleading--I am not asking for an answer. I have been editing WP and WQ for some time now, so I (now) can see where money is needed. The public-at-large wouldn't know this, and I know that at least some will appreciate if it is mentioned "prominently and extensively". N6n 02:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Some people were working on re-vamping the fundraising FAQ that would answer questions like those. I don't know what the current status is but I we will try and link it from most places. It gives a breakdown with answers and links to info you are concerned about.Theo10011 05:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.N6n 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the finance report is typical fuzzy feelgood uselessness. Better data is to be had with KPMG audit for example, but there are somewhat disturbing statments like "During fiscal year 2008, Wikia, Inc. reimbursed the Foundation $5,000 for shared hosting and bandwidth

costs through December 31, 2007. This was recorded as an offset to the Foundation’s Internet hosting expense.", with no measurement of the bandwidth comparison, or whose time went into maintaing those servers. Additionally vague statements like "Operating expenses : 618,600" are not helpful. When we see large quantities of money with vague labels, it doesn't instill us with confidence in the way the money is being spent. "Travel: 98,254" -- thats a lot for a website. That would pay for a round-the-world trip (incl acommodation) for every employee, once per year.

My point is, the answers just are not there -- we have very pretty pie-charts and glossy (if it wasn't a PDF) pictures of generic corporate imagery, but we do not know where this money goes. Better communication is needed. A "page history", if you will, of expenses would greatly assist people in trusting the organisation with their money -- particularly for larger sums, where it is worthwhile investigating the benefits of a donation (think philanthropic deceased estates, for example). 14:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why would I bother to donate to a site whose administrators have a more draconian view of copyright law than CNET or PC Magazine? See [11]. Tijfo098 08:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP can only follow the law, however unjust. Donate to both EFF and WP! Also, you and the editor who removed it, have equal rights. N6n 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us are part of the WP community, EFF is also a good organization but this is home for many of us. I would suggest not giving up on the entire community because of some bad admins.Theo10011 05:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India strategy[edit]

I dont know if it is seen negative by the Indians, but a banner message written in en:Indian English could be a help to boost donations from non- western English speaking countrys. If there would be a link to an Indian chapter or the Indian office of the foundation, we could address the indian wikimedeans and inform them about our India strategy too. Maybe we would get some attention from india newspaper too. --Goldzahn 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer this for you. The chapter and the foundation offices in India aren't functional at the moment, the chapter has not been approved. I think we can wait till next year to consider Messages in Hinglish, also messages in "Indian english" would not be considered respectable especially in Wikipedia's context they would only alienate.--Theo10011 19:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. --Goldzahn 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best practices / tips[edit]

What about creating a list of best practices for messages at Fundraising 2010/Messages/Best practices? Both results from banner testing and existing general fundraising knowledge (professional fundraisers, I'm looking at you ;)) can be used. For example: whether it's better to directly ask for (or even demand) donations, or drive users to a landing page first. Regards, --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make the banner a button[edit]

Clickthrough rates would surely go through the roof if we made the whole banner a link to the donation page (except the "Close" link). This should be simple to achieve as I'm sure we can use raw HTML/CSS in the CentralNotice, it doesn't have to be wikicode. This also opens the door to an enticing hover effect and an active link effect, making the link more appealing to click. Pretzels 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, we are working on this now! --Deniz (WMF) 18:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can vandalize this page[edit]

You can vandalize this page ... but only if we can pay the bills ... Donate Today!

OK, I've spent far too many hours on vandal patrol recently, but it would be nice to get something back from them :) Kiore 03:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Lilaroja banner refusing to close[edit]

See en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Banners refuse to close. Thanks, –xeno 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved by staff[?] already.)  fetchcomms 01:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Collaboration is at the center of this campaign" Then why are all the banners that have been run so far not been any of the ones from this page? Why waste everyone's time working on these things if you are just going to go off and do your own thing anyway? Gigs 17:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the bogus "testing" that you did of them. You ran tiny blue unformatted text only banners vs the massive image banners? Unbelievable. It's clear to me this whole thing was a ruse to solicit and then discard community input. Gigs 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]