5 ms·

> Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? I am not negative about Wikipedia, but about its management. The add campaign was distasteful and I

> Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? I am not negative about Wikipedia, but about its management. The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales. The real Wikipedia is the thousands of faceless people who write the articles.

patio11 16y ago
The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales They published the results of the split tests: Jimmy Wales ROFLstomped all their other creatives. It blows my mind, too, but there you go: the people who matter (i.e. people who donate to the foundation) want to Jimmy's rugged and photoshopped good looks, and all he has to do is glance in their general direction and their wallets open.
- quickpost 16y ago
  Good call. This post sums it up quite nicely: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behind-wikipedias-jimmy-appeal/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behin... EDIT: Raw Data here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...
- Untitled 16y ago
  Maybe, but there are other factors. Firstly, the question is the size. Were all the advertisements the same size? (i.e. were they all images or were some text - like google adwords?). Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). The third problem is the damage to the image of WP. An idiot on the top of every page begging for money really knocks the image for me.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). That's an important point that is harder to reveal through A/B testing. What would Wikipedia's fundraising look like if there were another online encyclopedia that appeared to be a credible contender? Is Wikipedia Google in this space, or is it AltaVista?
- miniatureape 16y ago
  Suspecting A/B tests, I actually waited until I got one of the photos of Mr. Wales looking off in the distance before I donated (anything was better than the glaring full-on eyes). I didn't see any of the volunteer ads until after I donated.
- chc 16y ago
  My theory: I think people feel more like they owe the "Wikipedia Founder" (or at least would derive some benefit themselves) than some random author named Kartika.
prawn 16y ago
'Thousands of faceless people' generally don't make great donation drives, advertising campaigns, etc. Sounds like the ad campaign was effective to me and nothing to do with Wales' ego.

patio11 16y ago

The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales They published the results of the split tests: Jimmy Wales ROFLstomped all their other creatives. It blows my mind, too, but there you go: the people who matter (i.e. people who donate to the foundation) want to Jimmy's rugged and photoshopped good looks, and all he has to do is glance in their general direction and their wallets open.

quickpost 16y ago
Good call. This post sums it up quite nicely: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behind-wikipedias-jimmy-appeal/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behin... EDIT: Raw Data here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...
Untitled 16y ago
Maybe, but there are other factors. Firstly, the question is the size. Were all the advertisements the same size? (i.e. were they all images or were some text - like google adwords?). Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). The third problem is the damage to the image of WP. An idiot on the top of every page begging for money really knocks the image for me.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). That's an important point that is harder to reveal through A/B testing. What would Wikipedia's fundraising look like if there were another online encyclopedia that appeared to be a credible contender? Is Wikipedia Google in this space, or is it AltaVista?
miniatureape 16y ago
Suspecting A/B tests, I actually waited until I got one of the photos of Mr. Wales looking off in the distance before I donated (anything was better than the glaring full-on eyes). I didn't see any of the volunteer ads until after I donated.
chc 16y ago
My theory: I think people feel more like they owe the "Wikipedia Founder" (or at least would derive some benefit themselves) than some random author named Kartika.

prawn 16y ago

'Thousands of faceless people' generally don't make great donation drives, advertising campaigns, etc. Sounds like the ad campaign was effective to me and nothing to do with Wales' ego.