Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-23/Fundraiser

Discuss this story

The article doesn't mention that the actual Wikipedia Forever banner (the one everyone hated the most) was pulled on the 18th. MER-C 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because, according to the stats it was used on a number of days from the 17 onwards. See here for instances of [1] and [2] being used. I didn't therefore feel confident enough to make the claim. Since Rand hasn't been posting updates recently, and since we reported it being placed into 20% rotation last week, and since I cobbled this together moments before publication, I figured it best to stick to certainties. Hiding T 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a bit of a slap in the face that Wikipedia paid an outside company to create an ad campaign when they have 11 million registered user who freely generate content. Many who both already understand the philosophy behind Wikipedia and are obviously willing to contribute.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They probably could have tossed it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design, tbh. --King Öomie 15:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I don't understand why the WMF prefers to use professionals who can be held accountable for their work rather than relying on the talents of our volunteer amateur designers. They did such a great job coming up with new designs for our main page after all. ROTFL! Kaldari (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, definitely, professionals who can be held accountable always do a much better job than volunteers. --Zvika (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikimedian would have tend to make banner for wikimedian. I think it's better to have some external pro to reach non-wikipeida-related people. DarkoNeko x 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        DarkoNeko, one would think that. However, we saw otherwise. Killiondude (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Why can't a volunteer be held accountable? Is it because the professional gets paid to do it (while volunteers, by definition, do not)? mike4ty4 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I was trying to be ironic. All of us here are doing what paid professionals ought to have been able to do better. --Zvika (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the donations have increased after a small start, so that's good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table doesn't match its source. Where are the numbers coming from? -- kenb215 talk 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the figures are taken from here. You have to knock a day off their stats, since I've followed the numbering from the last report. But beyond that, they matched as of some short time, no more than an hour before 11:41, 24 November 2009, although granted, there's been a little movement in the numbers since then, likely down to the technical issues mentioned in the two signpost reports. You'd have to check with Rand, because I know I transcribed the figures accurately. Hiding T 14:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]