News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free. Parent comment

Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by Untitled on Sunday January 02, 2011 @01:45AM (#2059594)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by patio11 on Sunday January 02, 2011 @03:00AM (#2059706)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by quickpost on Sunday January 02, 2011 @03:12AM (#2059726)
Good call. This post sums it up quite nicely:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behin...

EDIT: Raw Data here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by Untitled on Sunday January 02, 2011 @07:16AM (#2059926)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by tokenadult on Sunday January 02, 2011 @08:16AM (#2059974)
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?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by miniatureape on Sunday January 02, 2011 @10:09AM (#2060113)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by chc on Sunday January 02, 2011 @04:09PM (#2061046)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free by prawn on Sunday January 02, 2011 @07:16AM (#2059927)
'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.
[ Parent | on HN ]