What is the appeal of getting them to cut costs down to nothing? It seems weird to me that people resent a budget of $70 million/year for the most useful website in existence. What would you rather the money be spent on?
Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
51–60 of 123 posts
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#52What is the appeal of getting them to cut costs down to nothing? It seems weird to me that people resent a budget of $70 million/year for the most useful website in existence. What would you rather the money be spent on?
The two issues I have are:
By having a high expense situation and constantly begging for donations, it puts wikipedia, the main venture, at risk if other wikimedia ventures don't pan out.
If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself, but if it's for wikimedia to expand other projects with questionable benefits, I'm not inclined, and portraying the latter as the former rubs people seriously the wrong way.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#53What is the appeal of getting them to cut costs down to nothing? It seems weird to me that people resent a budget of $70 million/year for the most useful website in existence. What would you rather the money be spent on?
The two issues I have are: By having a high expense situation and constantly begging for donations, it puts wikipedia, the main venture, at risk if other wikimedia ventures don't pan out. If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself, but if it's for wikimedia to expand other projects with questionable benefits, I'm not inclined, and portraying the latter as the former rubs people s…
> If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself
Isn't that kind of problematic too though? The idea that donations may only go to organizations that would struggle otherwise? (I know I'm inferring something you didn't explicitly say, but I do think that is a fairly common sentiment as well)
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#54What is the appeal of getting them to cut costs down to nothing? It seems weird to me that people resent a budget of $70 million/year for the most useful website in existence. What would you rather the money be spent on?
The two issues I have are: By having a high expense situation and constantly begging for donations, it puts wikipedia, the main venture, at risk if other wikimedia ventures don't pan out. If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself, but if it's for wikimedia to expand other projects with questionable benefits, I'm not inclined, and portraying the latter as the former rubs people s…
That makes sense, thanks. I have actually run into a use for one of the side projects (Wikidata) so I may be more optimistic about the foundation’s chances of doing something else useful with a big budget.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikimedia has sufficient assets to host Wikipedia in perpetuity ($91 million @ 4 percent withdrawal rate = $3.64 million, ~$1 million above their current hosting tech and people costs). As long as Wikipedia text and media dumps are archived in the Internet Archive, it's not going to disappear even if Wikimedia Foundation goes defunct. No further fundraising is required, ever, if properly managed.
Provided continuing funding for the Internet Archive, of course.
[deleted]
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two issues I have are: By having a high expense situation and constantly begging for donations, it puts wikipedia, the main venture, at risk if other wikimedia ventures don't pan out. If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself, but if it's for wikimedia to expand other projects with questionable benefits, I'm not inclined, and portraying the latter as the former rubs people s…
> If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself Isn't that kind of problematic too though? The idea that donations may only go to organizations that would struggle otherwise? (I know I'm inferring something you didn't explicitly say, but I do think that is a fairly common sentiment as well)
Then it wouldn't be a charity donation. Giving money to successful projects is better done as an investment (or
maybe purchase.)
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. This is an area I think many technologists tend to glance over: "They paid how much to a 'brand consultancy' to replace an M with a P??" And while these types of things can get "fluffy", if this branding change results in just a small percentage of additional people becoming more aware of the broader goals and projects of Wiki(m/p)edia, it was money well spent.
But they don’t advertise in the banners that they spend the money in such a way. I may have a partial match in goals with Wikipedia. If 20% of the money goes to goals I support and 80% goes to goals I do not support or that are even contrary to my goals, how much should I give? I decided for me to donate to projects that better serve my goals.
You raise a valid concern. How will you know If wikimedia's branding interests ultimately help them to deliver more of the goals you relate to? The means they take to improve their messaging may ultimately help them to coordinate resources more effectively and deliver more of what you support. Would the ends justify the means in that case?
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're only well-funded for now. That funding can go away if enough people, such as yourself, complain about this. They need to sustain themselves, just like any other organization. If they are a net negative in the world, I would withhold donations. For producing material like this? It's still a net positive and therefore still worthy of donating to.
I understand the need to do things that aren't the specific thing you want them to do (i.e. run Wikipedia). But I don't see the need for this. What is actually bad about people not recognizing your brand correctly? They sure as shit recognize the product. If someone can provide an actual reason why this should help the foundation carry out its work, I can be convinced to be in favor of it. If they are a net negative…
What is actually bad about people not recognizing your brand correctly
Yeah I'm sure Cuke and Papsi would have no problem with that as their coca-cola soft drink products are instantly recognizable as soon as you drink them.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#59This is a very nice brand research project, based on this they obviously had problems. “Wikimedia is a Social Media Video site” is a quote from the research. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Global_W...
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#60The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creating material like this. Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustai…
Just because Wikipedia is a non-profit doesn't mean that brand outreach and other administrative/meta work isn't important. These are as important in non-profit as in for-profit organizations and are a normal part of business. As a past donor I'm happy that they're spending resources in this area.
I am not sure about 'brand outreach'.
From the article:
More than 80% of internet users in North America and Europe have heard of it, and in nations where internet access is expanding rapidly, awareness of Wikipedia is growing quickly. Since 2016, for example, Wikipedia awareness in Nigeria has nearly doubled from 27% to 48% of internet users.
How can you realistically be an 'internet user' and NOT know of Wikipedia? Yet we are hovering around one in five internet users not knowing of Wikipedia. Unless 20% of the 'internet users' are under five I don't see how that goes. Even people who are not 'internet users', e.g. the geriatric crew with Alzheimer's and round the clock care assistants that can't get their children's names right have heard of Wikipedia.
I don't know how they get that 80% brand recognition up to 100%, even spending an infinite sum of money would not get them there. You have got to chuckle though, particularly with the statistic for Nigeria - again we are talking 'internet users' not some people who don't even have the telephone yet and have never seen a TV.