Банерите, които показваме по време на дарителската кампания, са нашият шанс да привлечем вниманието на потенциалните дарители. Въпреки че Фондация Уикимедия Foundation е ангажирала някои консултанти по публични послания (обозначени с “Watershed” или “OMP” в потребителското си име), опитът показва, че уикимедианската общност често предлага най-креативните и новаторски послания за банерите.
Всички послания за тазгодишната дарителска акция, както тези на общността, така и тези на консултантите, се предлагат и обсъждат на тези страници. Имаме нужда от вашия принос, затова моля дискутирайте и предлагайте идеи за банери. Банерите, които ще пуснем накрая, ще бъдат определени от множество фактори, включително приходите, които са докарали по време на нашите банерни изпитания в четвъртъците, от информацията, която събираме с фокус групи и чрез проследяване на кликанията.
Банерите, които използваме, трябва да представят кои сме ние като общност и какви са нашите водещи ценности и принципи.
Ще правим изпитанията от рано и начесто. Банерите, които ще бъдат използвани, ще бъдат онези, които са най-добре оптимизирани за ползване от наша страна.
Сътрудничеството е ядрото на кампанията: банерите ще бъдат публично обсъждани, ще се приемат идеи от всеки, който предложи нещо страхотно, ще бъдат изпробвани, локализирани от отделните общности и всички тези данни ще бъдат публично достъпни за анализиране от страна на общностите.
Забележка: Освен в случаите, когато банерите ясно обозначават, че са предназначени за конкретен проект, то приемете, че имената на конкретни проекти служат само за илюстрация и следва да се разглеждат като променливи (placeholders). Глобалните съобщения ще се визуализират на всички сайтове, но проектно специфичните съобщения ще се появяват само на проектите, за които са предназначени.
Perhaps adding "stay curious" to the end instead of "donate to wikipedia" might be worth considering, it tested pretty well earlier and does fit in to the message.Theo1001113:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I can look it up in a book. Nice Idea like your other one above with rotating facts. Maybe add the "quickest" or the "easiest" way of looking up [rotating facts], just a suggestion but it works either way.Theo1001105:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I assumed from the treaty of Paris and motto of Argentina to be random possible facts one can look up in a book. Also, Mr. Obama is the president of US, I am sure his real name would also show up in a lot of books but I will give you Lady gaga:) But how would you feed the rotating facts that only relate to a selective category? Theo1001118:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but I don't think it'll work. You have to choose something that all people know, and what they most likely learned on Wikipedia. Considering our diverse readership, that's very difficult --Church of emacstalk · contrib18:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would click on a link to see the answer to the fact, if I knew it or not. So, I think the "fact" should also be a link to the donate page, but a version of the page with the answer at the top, if that is possible. Ie a parameterised donation page needed that shows the param at the top.--83.141.89.15411:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but how will it read on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is brought to you by the same folks who make Wikipedia..." Is that the intention? Is that awkward? Ocaasi10:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, the big sister is by far the most famous. Remember we are primarily appealing to readers in the general public, not contributors who may have strong feelings about project identity and independence. For the sake of public appearances, I think it is beneficial to present Wikimedia projects as one big, happy family. ~ Ningauble17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yair rand; I was quite surprised when I understood that this was meant for non-Wikipedia projects... You're not considering that if someone is reading a banner on a website this is because he knows it and it finds it useful in itself. And anyway, I think that editors could be quite annoyed by this one (I would be). --Nemo07:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to acknowledge the contribution of a benefactor, If mine doesn't work I think others should consider a banner to acknowledge the benefactors with a rotating list of public donations. something along the lines of "Your search was sponsored by ..." or "the answer to your question was sponsored by...." or "Wikipedia is made possible by a donation from....and you can do the same" I think its one approach thats should be covered and is sorely missing above, putting names to our supporters.Theo1001118:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support it. When we featured donors' comments and names, we found here and there their warm reactions, not only with excitement but also appreciations. I'm sure it'll enhance a positive atmosphere which surrounds our fundraising campaign. I love it. --Aphaia19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know in the past people have donated just so they can troll the banners. (e.g. Putting Wikipedia Sucks as the comment for the donation.) I think we should probably screen the names in some way to avoid that problem. Nn12364512:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
theres already a donor's comment page located below the messages page. There are logs and donor suggested messages for every year, I understand that some would want their contribution to be private but consider the impact of reading a message about someone from Johannesburg or Mumbai donating even a small sum of $5, I think it would definitely showcase the diversity and the reach of the projects and should get people on the sidelines to donate even a small amount which they wouldn't have otherwise. We would only use donors who have made their donations public and would not object to it. Theo1001116:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea, as long as whatever system is used to do it is smart enough to filter out anonymous contributions: "Wikipedia is brought to you today [by] Anonymous" would be too much of a win for 4chan's ilk for my taste. :P Nihiltres(t.u)23:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really great. Some suggestions: change to Name from Location eg John from Alaska. Also could be worded as "Wikipedia was brought to you today by" and "This page was paid for today by". Pretzels20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretzels, that was the original idea, "x from location" and I would want it to be that. It would showcase the diversity of our supporter base, and hopefully encourage them not to hesitate donating even a small amount by telling that others have done the same.Theo1001122:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it very much. How about merging it with #Every dollar donated? (Wikipedia is brought to you and other <(DONATION / 10) * 150,000> people by a <amount> donation from [[Name of Benefactor]]. You can do the same for someone else.)--OsamaK16:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea here is to exploit the nascent self-identity of people who have made small edits in the past, i.e. nearly everyone. We convince them that they are the kind of person that supports and contributes to Wikipedia, and we point out an action to them that is congruent with this positive self-identity, donation.
I kind of like the original more, the latter implies that Wikipedia or {{SITENAME}} is finished, which obviously isn't the case. Additionally on smaller projects where there is a huge potential for growth (i.e. Wikipedias with less than 10,000 articles) it isn't nearly as impressive. Nn12364512:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this. Rome collapsed under its own weight, it expanded to the point where it was impossible to manage. Do we really want to invoke that here? 206.248.204.12115:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Rome wasn't built in a day" doesn't have to do with its collapse, afaik, just its rising. In any case, it's a recognizable phrase, and I think that 99% of people wouldn't think about Rome's collapse. fetchcomms☛01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, but the first sentence gives the impression that 'something is wrong' (at least that's how we use it in Arabic). I'd vote for another 'introduction'.--OsamaK11:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...finally. Not to nitpick but do you mind changing the heart with the red one used above and maybe trying a different font style. Thanks Theo1001115:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how widely recognised outside of the English-speaking world is the "I (heart) xxx" format? That's not being critical, it's a genuine question, as I don't know the answer. I know that English, American, Australians, etc, readers would recognise the format - but would Japanese, Bokmål/Riksmål, Indonesian, Cebuano, etc, readers? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Fetchcomms, and only for English Wikipedia. I don't think I'd love to see it on EnWQ. On the other hand, I suppose it'll be understood in many other language community but it'll be hard to translated, and I'm not sure if it conveys a right message on what we are to put a certain foreign language banner and none of the other languages. --Aphaia19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great one. I think this is almost universal. Two questions: Two lines or one line (no break)? Also for a tagline/ask, how about: Do you? Or, simply, on a second line: Donate today. Ocaasi07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "I heart __" thing is basically universal, from my experience. I have my doubts over WP=Wikipedia connecting for most readers though. sonia23:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one. I doubt it will supersede WP:NOT ;). It is a handbook in a metaphorical sense, as a big guide to information, even if it's not a how-to manual. Ocaasi07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. If Wikimedia is about to "disappear from the web", why the hell am I investing my time into building it? I'll have nothing to show for it. Guilt-tripping donors works sometimes, but not when you're also discouraging editors. sonia07:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an equation, showing the consequences of no donations, using simple terms. I think it's great, and I don't think it implies anything about WMF solvency. My76Strat02:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that using technical error codes is a goood idea, although error 404 is the best known. And I agree with Ocaasi. --Nemo07:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a line break, but I still don't get it. Sounds more like a plea for content. What if you replaced "Help us apply our knowledge." with "Do... so that we may continue" GHarshfield13:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very nice addition. Should we keep in mind the grammatical issue: 'that' refers to things, but 'who' to people--so correctly, it would be, "Those who know, do. Those who understand, teach. To those who donate, thank you." Ocaasi69.142.154.1015:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ocassi, thats an unedited quote from Aristotle, altering it would be paraphrasing and essentially make it a "non-quote". I understand your suggestion but it would lose its value as a quote from Aristotle. this and the one below can run on Wikiquote. Theo1001115:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if 'sharing means' (as in riches) is one of our goals. I'm afraid it might give many people the wrong idea.--OsamaK10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This option is best out of four pieces. Enumeration of useful things that Wiki can give is rooted in memory easily. --Da voli19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bothered to mock this up, but it's just an idea;
There is an incredibly famous poster of Lord Kitchener, from World War I, asking 'your country needs you'. Mr. Wales, pointing at us, telling us that "Wikipedia needs YOU" - with a big moustache...I think this would be a winner. It's been used as parody for all kinds of things; I believe that the problems of 'war' connotation are dated enough to be negligible; it's light, amusing, and eye-catching. Not necessarily as a banner; I appreciate pics might not work. Still, I thought the idea worth mentioning; forgive me if I am too far off-base. Chzz01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, this poster is not as famous as the Uncle Sam one used for recruitment by the US army. Second, the concept itself seems cheesy and trite, it has been used very frequently in the american media historically. The "war" and the "big brother" connotations are too strong to consider this, it can draw a very vocal negative reaction from the community.Theo1001116:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the US thing; that one is 'more famous' here, UK, for sure. But as the 'Uncle Sam' is so well-known in US, that helps, actually, surely? I understand the connotations thing, but really, I don't think that is a problem - I can't honestly see anyone taking offence. Or offense. And I mostly just want to see Jimbo with either a big floppy moustache or a goatee. Chzz02:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA is insider lingo that should probably be avoided
Not sure about "When war is but a history project", there are still ongoing wars today, still not sure how it ties up to being a featured article on Wikipedia or how that would get me to donate. Sorry, its a bit confusing.Theo1001116:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea, but the images need better presentation or organization with the banner text, they just seem tacked on to the message. I like the concept. Theo1001116:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea behind it very much. It's just that I'm afraid it would give the wrong impression that we don't get/want corporate giving.--OsamaK10:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clean of what? Controversial articles, topics "we" don't like, different opinions? Sounds more like something all those "One Truth" mongers are propagating to keep the "filthy other" out. --94.134.192.236
Submitted on: 2010-10-06 Comments:
Based on the total operating budget of $20.4 million and 525,600 minutes in a year (the exact number is $38.81). Obviously the numbers are tweakable for different time/donation. Mr.Z-man02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a neat fact, but it actually sounds kind of discouraging as phrased. $39 dollars is a lot of money, and 1 minute sounds small next to it. Maybe it can be rewritten to emphasize that 'all of Wikimedia' can be kept running for 'only' one $39 donation. Also, since $35 is the lowest preset option, maybe we could fudge it a little and use $35. Great that someone's donation could make them feel like the next Wikimedia/Wikipedia minute is funded by them. Which is not too shabby. Ocaasi69.142.154.1015:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should focus on the large effects of small donations not the other way around, this one seems to be disparaging a small donation in the big scheme of things, sponsoring for one minute of uptime seems rather denigrating to a benefactor. Theo1001117:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love it. "Circle of Knowledge" if you want to consider another heading, I do agree with Ocassi above-'keep knowledge flowing' sounds more organic there. You might also want to consider adding 'repeat' as a stage at the end. Theo1001117:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Circle of knowledge was what I was thinking. I think it could be snappier if we replace curiosity with something shorter, but I couldn't think of a better word. GoEThe11:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with "wonder," which beat out "question". It flows much better with all verbs (although both of those suggestions can also be nouns, which is a little confusing at the beginning of the ad). There was also an extra period at the end of it, but I felt it work would better as an ellipses, continuing the theme of continuity. HereToHelp (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the vision statement is a bit long for a bumper sticker. I was trying to make it fit on one line for many typical display screens. Perhaps un-bolding instead would work better (bold catches the eye, but is harder to read). In general, using a headline font for the whole message makes it difficult to say more than fits in a headline. Is the vision statement is just too long and complex for an appeal to readers of, say, an encyclopedia? ~ Ningauble13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be exact from the vision statement? "every single human being" seems rather redundant and verbose, you could replace it with 'everyone' for a shorter statement- "Imagine a world in which everyone(/anyone) can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Theo1001117:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a shorter version would work better, and be catchier for the context too. "Imagine if every single human being could freely share all knowledge." Pretzels19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I considered opening this with "And now,..." or "First,..." as heard on TV and radio, but I don't think they enhance the ask. If I were to add a temporal lead-in it would be "It's time for..." or simply "Time for..." because they lend immediacy to the ask, i.e. it's time for you to do this now. ~ Ningauble14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one appeals to me, we are the one's that write it and pay for it and it is good to be reminded about that. Short and very much to the point, and very easy to understand, most everyone will get it. Ulflarsen16:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it but you might want to rephrase "in the hands of people" to something related to pageviews, like dispense or access etc.. Theo1001117:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I based this message on a long-running thing here in Manila: my peers think I have a monopoly on knowledge because I edit Wikipedia. Time to prove them wrong. xP --Sky Harbor(talk)07:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no tie-in between the two sentences, they seem unrelated whatever their context might be. Sorry, it doesn't sound right. Theo1001117:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking otherwise: it's true that one of the ultimate aims of Wikipedia is to encourage ordinary people to be Wikipedians as well, and to contribute their knowledge to improving Wikipedia content. But what if they can't do that? I was thinking donations have the same effect, since it likewise proves that supporting the website is not the domain of a few people, but of every person who wishes to get involved. --Sky Harbor(talk)07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. The statement of "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish" implies the undying need to gain knowledge - the tagline has been used as it was made irrefutably famous by Steve Jobs in his Stanford Convocation address in 2005. The reason Steve Jobs is being used here is to position Wikipedia both implicitly and explicitly as being a global community having an iconic/cult backing of users (rather than simply implying the backing of editors) akin to the iconic status of Jobs in the 'users' of his products.
2. The statement "Stay Free" brings together the philosophies of attempting to be ad-free, at the same time emphasizing the point that Wikipedia propagates the emphatic "free" flow of information, than one which is sponsored or ad-driven!
3. At the same time, the power of the "Stay Free!" tagline allows the users to empathise with Wikipedia, considering the project their own (notice the difference from writing "Keep Wikipedia free" to writing "Stay Free". In other words, let us - you, me and Wikipedia - stay free). The term "Stay Free" also has a revolutionary touch to it, promoting a 'cause' that our users would want to contribute to. In the sense that the term "Stay Free" also provides pointers to readers on how they should lead their lives - uncontrolled by external monies/lobbies. Quite motivating, I should say immodestly, as the philosophies of freedom and independence being promoted by the 'Stay Free' tagline immediately stamp a patriotic fervor to the movement - the movement that is Wikipedia!
4. Shrewdly, the point of growth has been left out. That is, nowhere is it written that "donate to ensure Wikipedia becomes the world's largest encyclopedia" or anything similar to that. The conjecture has deliberately been restricted to, "Let's keep 'our' project free for independent/free usage of information."
5. But the most important part is the absence of any agenda (except the agenda of keeping it free and donating money). There is no agenda that is evident or perceivable (for example, it is not written that keep Wikipedia free and ensure children of tomorrow become more literate; or similar propositions).
6. "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. Stay Free" is a direct, flat, gimmick-free message that donors would understand. There're no bright coloured neon-lit characters; there're no complicated conjectures being propagated. One message; one behavior expected.
This implies that a)No donation, no Wikipedia; b)No Wikipedia, no research papers. The former is passable, the latter is a rather flimsy link. sonia21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And many schools/universities won't even accept Wikipedia as a source on research papers (unfortunately... although not entirely without justification, I have to admit). Hersfold(talk)07:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be trivialising Wikipedia. Well many use Wikipedia for their research papers, but that's not the reason why we came about in the first place. AngChenrui12:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It confuses 'free as in freedom' and 'free as in beer' (I think we should always make banners that reflect both interpretations).--OsamaK11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That only works in languages having a homonym for "without cost" and "without restraint". (I don't know how projects without such homonyms handle the "free encyclopedia" tagline.) "Cheap" is also a homonym, meaning both "inexpensive" and "worthless". Perhaps this banner is only suitable for English projects. Your donation does keep it free of charge and free of sponsor-imposed restraints. ~ Ningauble20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From E pluribus unum, the motto of the United States inscribed on most US currencies. it would translate to "out of many, Wiki"- also possible is "E pluribus, Unus Wiki" or one wiki but that might sound to limiting. Needless to say it is very US centric but worth considering. Theo1001118:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good one for US visitors but I'm pretty sure that people in other parts of the world won't be able to easily understand it (If you agree, please move it to the by geography page).--OsamaK11:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be (somewhat) localized for other geographies whose motto is also the equivalent of E pluribus unum. For example, I was thinking it can be Bhinneka Tunggal Wiki in Indonesia, since it is the same motto/slogan, only localized for that particular area of the world. --Sky Harbor(talk)02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one. (I added a wikilink to the English Wikipedia article and I moved the second sentence into a new line).--OsamaK11:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern about this haiku, and the two above, is that it's not immediately obvious it's poetry (no rhyme, rhythm takes a bit to figure out), so the reader may be left wondering why the lines/punctuation are broken up so oddly. Also, the wording seems a bit ... awkward. I really like the concept, but I'm wondering if it's the most effective appeal. Tempodivalse[talk]03:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For knowledge you come to the Wiki,
From the neat to the dull to the icky,
But running this site, peeps,
It sure isn't that cheaps, Each little bit helps, we're not picky!
This was a lot harder than the haikus. Hopefully it'll attract attention, though. The three article links I picked because I think the seven wonders are neat to read about, I think it funny that there's a town called Boring, and when doing a google search for "icky", that album came up and it's actually a surprisingly well written album article. Hersfold(talk)07:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epic. Although, the rhythm would be more limerick-like imo if the two middle lines were shortened to "to run this, peeps/Sure ain't that cheaps"- but that isn't quite as clear. :) sonia10:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the limerick form requires the third and fourth lines to have two feet of three syllables each (six total); while I do agree with you, what I have sounds a little long, the lines you suggest only have four syllables each, so don't fit. Hersfold(talk)00:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if adopted, this should be English-only. I'm not sure if it can be translated easily with the same tone! Anyway I really like the "we're not picky" part and I hope we will see it in one final banner.--OsamaK19:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. But slightly longish, making the banner obnoxiously tall. It will work if the font size can be adjusted in the actual banner testing. fetchcomms☛22:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this and the Haikus above must have taken a lot of time and effort. I really like these, but I think they would work better on Wikiquotes or specific projects, most people might not even realize that they are Haikus or limerick from a quick glance, they might not even realize that they conform to poetic meters and Moraes. Theo1001122:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea, but the two middle lines read a little bit contrived. How about: "But the money, you see, / We can't grow it on trees" ? Lexicografía15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the vast majority of people who see these banners are readers, that won't matter too much. Vector was generally well-received from a Usability perspective by readers and those who only edit infrequently. PeterSymonds21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, good interfaces are invisible in the sense that users quickly cease to pay them any attention and, instead, focus on what they are trying to accomplish. When someone does stop to think about an interface, it is usually because they are experiencing some frustration. ~ Ningauble19:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed by: The Earwig. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
Submitted on: 2010-10-10 Comments:
I really like this, as an improvement on an earlier suggestion which was just "Wikipedia[donation needed]". It think the juxtaposition of 'free' and 'donation' is perfect here, setting the right 'subtle tone'; it's not it-your-face, it is slightly amusing, and...well, I think this is a winner, and hope we can give it a try. Chzz18:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one a lot! And I agree with Wolfnix -- I think most people know the Wikipedia/citation needed connection, while people may not know, say, what a FA is. GorillaWarfare23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to propose this. Among those who know Wikipedia enough to recognize the reference, it seems like it would get an extremely positive response. Ejak9100:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be fetchcomms's reasoning, but to me it seems somewhat hypocritical. Call them what we want, but these banners are still advertisements in a way. I think that we'd annoy a lot of readers if they saw something saying "No ads!" at the top of every other page they read. Hersfold(talk)22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't need to keep bringing it up over and over again, thats the annoying thing about ads, attaching a "no ads" banner to every page would be an oxymoron, technically its an ad itself. Theo1001121:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concise but why mention ads again or "premium" subscription? Its a constant fear among the community and benefactors, we shouldnt keep reminding them of that. Theo1001122:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant as a threat, but as a reminder that we're different to almost every other big site on the Internet - and that's why we rely on donations. Also readers with ad-blockers might not even realise we don't have ads. the wub"?!"00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is suitable. Aside from the un-PC factor, I'm not sure this connects to an appeal effectively (i.e., it doesn't really give a good reason why the reader should donate). Tempodivalse[talk]19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its on the right track, but whats my motivation for donating? Just because a 100 people did it, maybe add some personal or geographic information to motivate others to not hesitate with donations.Theo1001121:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed than to then in the second sentence. Anyway, would it really work if we say a project like Wikipedia is a "reliable source"? Perhaps this is misleading. I'm thinking of w:WP:RS's definition here: "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." — The Earwig(talk)20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. Besides the reliability issue, Wiktionary aims to be a dictionary, Wikiquote aims to be a quote collection; no project aims to be a source for everything. Mr.Z-man01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea. Maybe change "greatest" to "largest" for accuracy? While Wikipedia is first in terms of amount of information, using "greatest" could be understood to mean it's also the best in terms of quality, which is only an opinion, as opposed to statistical fact. That, and I'm unsure the logo is absolutely necessary ... but good ideas. Tempodivalse[talk]20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer plain text hearts (faster loading), and the abbreviations aren't completely obvious to everyone. But I proposed something similar a long time ago, with the addition of "Do you?" and a donate link after the "I love [project]" part. fetchcomms☛22:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! These are far too big, and look terribly similar to "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Also, I don't know if people will get the WN, WB, WM etc. abbreviations, even if they do understand WP. Lexicografía14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do these have an apparent message/request for donations? That doesn't seem immediately obvious to me. If we do go with hearts though, I'd prefer something a bit smaller... Tempodivalse[talk]16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea but I don't think the narrative connects, I understand the 10 years accomplishment which is admirable but it doesn;t connect with the rest of the lines. how about "10 years of constant......... brought you Wikipedia, lets keep going" or "10 years....We are Wikipedia, lets keep going for 10 more years". Theo1001122:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but maybe with your explanatory text: "Look at what we have accomplished. We can do better." I also question the irony of this over an article that is dismally bad. sonia12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a bad article, this would work, I think. We can be humble to say that there is still a lot of work to do. How about: "We can still do better."? Or "Did you find what you were looking for? We can still do better." GoEThe10:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that that would give them the impression that wikipedia contains bad articles. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jijo925 (talk)
"We can do better" and "Look at what we've done" could easily be taken to mean that our work has been poor so far. Maybe something along the lines of "We can still do better with your help" is less ambiguous? Tempodivalse[talk]17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge is now quickly, easily and freely available...
This one being not obviously WMF-related, I can forsee misunderstandings when it's atop certain articles. To make it clearer, how about something like "For {Project}, the sky's the limit. Take us there." ? sonia23:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... and that concludes our today's history lesson kids. Some years ago you would still have been able to visit Wikipedia for a well sourced and neutral article on WW2 ... but today extra and well documented knowledge costs money." - History ain't written yet. Donate, or future events might be predictable!
Too many negative connotations. People who hate fast food and people who hate that documentary will both be turned off. Lose lose. Gigs18:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no end to knowledge, no end to learning, no end to curiosity and no end to what we can do with your help. Donate to the largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of man.
[citation needed] As above; it's a risky business saying Wikipedia is the "largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of man". Lexicografía14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<"Americans watch roughly two hundred billion hours of TV every year. That represents about two thousand Wikipedias’ projects’ worth of time annually." Stop Watching TV, unless it is helping you write an article. >
Quanne ha state funnate Tarde? ... 706 n.C.! Quande muttette canusce d'a lènga nostre? 'U mè, ce ne uè ccu sè sembre de cchiù, aiute a Uicchipèdie, lassene quacche turnise purcé tenime da dicere angore 'nu sbuènne de cose
"One world" was placed first because it sounded better and the world is more important than Wikipedia even though this is a fundraiser. Simple variations: add to the front the following words to all lines: "Just" ("Just one world," etc.), "Our," ("Our world," etc.), "Your," ("Your world," etc.); the words "helps to bring" or "helping in bringing" could also be used ("helps bring" is not grammatically correct), but that sounds too wordy compared to the first two lines, and I did not like the sound of it anyway. — CobraWiki( jabber | stuff )01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Motivating, concise, cleverly expressed. Worthy of Wikipedia. -- OneAmongBillions
Nom nom. I think the point behind optic fiber was connecting it to dietary fiber, but I can't speak for the Portuguese folks who proposed this. Lexicografía02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on Lexi, except that I carry a Brazilian passport ;) Moreover, I think the image of something solid helps people connect to the feeling of throwing a puppy a bone. --Solstag05:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice: Wikipedia must raise $16,000,000 in 360 days to remain ad free. (After each day or donation have the number of days left and the amount donated change accordingly)
за предстояща пробация.
_in_Amritsar,_India.jpg)
