9 ms·

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

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.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
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.
- lixtra 8y ago
  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.
  - jonnydubowsky 8y ago
    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?
    - lixtra 8y ago
      I would be okay if they used 20% of my donation to venture for goals that I don’t know yet I will possibly support in the future. That also applies to messaging. But as said the rate is more 80%.
Theodores 8y ago
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.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

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.

lixtra 8y ago
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.
- jonnydubowsky 8y ago
  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?
  - lixtra 8y ago
    I would be okay if they used 20% of my donation to venture for goals that I don’t know yet I will possibly support in the future. That also applies to messaging. But as said the rate is more 80%.

Theodores 8y ago

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.