Brilliant headline.<p>But man, I would love to help Wikipedia optimize their campaign.<p>I know they work on CRO internally but on this page, for instance, I see 30%+ sitting on the table with:<p>a) Fix the headline - Wikimedia's headline is "From Wikipedia programmer Brandon Harris". The OP in this thread fixed by taking the very compelling first line "I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary." Still needs an action for scanners (80% of your readers).<p>b) Call to Action Needs to be More Obvious - The call to action doesn't appear as a link in the copy, users will miss the box on top right. Eye @ end of article flows to the "give monthly" link. The box at the top right falls into the deadzone of visual attention. An arrow would be cheesy, but effective, as would hyperlinks in the text w/strong call to action text.<p>c) Edit the Copy & Formatting - The copy concept is outstanding. The formatting and paragraph structure needs to be edited down. The old "If I'd had more time i would have written you a shorter letter" - eg word economy. Could be as powerful or more-so with moderate editing. Needs sub-headlines, just something like "How can you help?" lets scanners quickly read the headline, first paragraph and jump right into donate mode.<p>d) Humanize Brandon - Get a picture of Brandon on there for goodness sakes. Humanizing the page with an actual image almost always works.<p>e) Fix Your CC Page - The click through to the donate page is bizarrely formatted with the form on the far right. Why introduce more ad-copy when somebody has indicated they want to donate? Reduce friction, don't introduce more. Better yet partner w/Amazon or somebody to process donations that's trusted and makes payments absurdly easy (PayPal doesn't count)<p>f) Leverage the Exit Action - I get that Wikipedia is a foundation but hit some of the basic fun commerce drivers like a little javascript exit pop like "Want to help but don't have the cash? Donate 60 seconds instead." and drive to a simple FB / Twitter screen to have people push to social on the drive.<p>g) Tweak your Buttons - These buttons feel like government issue desks. You might argue that this helps give them credibility as a charity to look a little off-the-shelf, but that is one of the most basic things to tweak. Build a button people can't resist rolling over, and they'll click it more and take more actions. Period.<p>I love Wikipedia, I want to help. Who do I go bother?<p>If anybody from Wikipedia is out there I am raising my hand, I want to donate time and expertise. Contact me via profile.
Given that it costs less than $20 million to run Wikipedia (cite: <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL_10_11From_KPMG.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL_...</a>), that seems completely attainable without needing to change the nature of Wikipedia by introducing advertising.<p>A lone rich donor could cover the budget for an entire year, and many people who could afford that wouldn't even be mentioned in Wikipedia, so there would be little opportunity for any conflict of interest. Even if someone high profile donated a large sum that would only be one profile to monitor for any potential bias.<p>Here's why I think ads would be a terrible idea:<p>_________<p>ADVERTISING<p>Pros:<p>More Money<p>Cons:<p>Integrity possibly compromised<p>Contributors might leave<p>Readers might trust Wikipedia less<p>-----------------<p>DONORS<p>Pros:<p>Maintains editorial independence<p>Maintains trust of readers and contributors<p>Cons:<p>Harder to raise money<p>__________<p>Ads are a lazy solution. I can't think of a single benefit to Wikipedia or its users other than "it would be so easy to meet the budget."
Every industrialised nation in the world has benefited from the educational value Wikipedia brings. If at their next meeting the G20 countries were to donate a dollar for every schoolchild in their country then Wikipedia would have an endowment that could cover their costs for the long term.
I don't understand people moaning about "why don't they show us ads already". I am using wikipedia a lot and I think I got a lot of value from it. Admittedly I was using it more as a student, but now I can afford to give something back for that. I have no problem with donating.<p>We have ads everywhere, some are scammy some are annoying, advertising companies track us with them. Why would you want to put them on wikipedia when you can prevent that by just sending a couple of bucks?
What make me sad about wikipedia is that year after year, they will have to make this 'begging'. And jokes about Jim Wales will appear all over the web, and some more begging, and people complaining about some rich dude who 'only' donate 500 larges.<p>Well, Wikipedia has to find a sustainable model, they do not want ads or propaganda, but some new model has to be found, books, classes, especial encyclopedias, I don't know. But they need to stop doing this every year.
The idea behind Wikipedia is to be made by users. With our time, and our money. It's good to know that it doesn't just run with content from other users like me (and mine), but also their money (and mine).
Interesting dilemma I suppose, I think what they are worried about is the slippery slope, Wikipedia is used to this frugal operation where theoretically they have minimal pressure and influence as far as what is published on their site. As others have pointed out, they could easily run ads on just a small number of pages and start raking in cash. They could even limit themselves to "good" or "neutral" ads, those that meet certain guidelines (no ads from questionable companies / for questionable products, etc) but then what happens? They get used to having this cash flow, they hire more people, get nicer offices and then there could be pressure to start bringing in more money, lowering the standard of ads. I think its more a testament to the beliefs of the people who run Wikipedia as to the power of human greed and corruption as they seem to feel that an infusion of excess cash could put Wikipedia on a negative path.
I don't understand how advertisers would in any way influence the content of Wikipedia.<p>I would argue that donors wield more control over an organization than advertisers.<p>Advertisers pay money to an organization and receive ad placement in return.<p>Donors (especially large ones) pay money to an organization and are more likely to ask for some sort of favor in return.
There are several great organizations that have no way to make money, so they rely on donations. Wikipedia isn't in that situation. They could sell ads that were clearly marked as such. A simple small text ad on each page would give them more money than they would ever need.<p>They're costs seem to be low enough and the value of ad space is high enough that they wouldn't have to put up with anyone trying to extort them or take away there independence.<p>If they are worried that the surplus of money would corrupt their organization, then they can give the surplus away or just limit the number of ads they sell (but maybe hire a couple more devs first).<p>That is why I will not donate.
"We don’t run ads because doing so would sacrifice our independence. The site is not and should never be a propaganda tool."<p>I really don't understand wikipedia's continued hesitation to accept advertising--nor the argument that it would sacrifice their independence--anyone can edit it already, so I question whether sponsorship needs to have any impact on article content whatsoever.<p>What's the problem with having a banner at the top saying "Wikipedia is brought to you today by McDonalds..." just something small, as a way of saying that they care about free access to knowledge too.
I don't get the reluctance to use advertising. Wikipedia could place one small, unobtrusive text ad on each page and they would have more than enough money to operate their business and pay their employees what they deserve. If there's money left over, they could offer scholarships or make charitable donations. I don't think that placing small ads on a page in an effort to keep information free and prosperous amounts to propaganda or a loss of independence.
I'm more worried that Wikipedia would feel compelled to ensure their content is not too critical to their big donors, than that wikipedia would become corrupted by advertisers.<p>I can understand how advertising could be a corrupting force, but Wikipedia needs to explain why attracting donors doesn't have the same problem if not bigger.
There are also people who refuse to give them anything since they believe that the CC-BY-SA license is not really "free" (the Share-Alike part prevents you from doing anything without licensing your work with the same license).
Wikipedia needs to stop begging and find a viable business model. It may not be easy, but it should be possible.<p>irony:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_begging" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_begging</a>
Well, a little bit of self-glorification is okay...<p>But seriously, is it wikipedia that's giving people access to knowledge or is it google (and other search engines)?<p>Without google, I'd guess wikipedia would get a fraction of the traffic it gets now. There is no use building a massive repository of knowledge if no one can navigate it easily.