This page was created on January 16, 2005 (one day after Wikipedia Day). It is the equivalent of MediaWiki:Sitenotice except that it shows up only for unregistered (anonymous) users. According to the developers, by either deleting this page or setting it to -, MediaWiki software will fall back to the SiteNotice. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we at least word this so we're no resorting to Jimmy's personal appeal, which will likely loose its meaning if we don't reserve it for when we really need it.--cj | talk 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest leaving it as is for a week, to try and gauge how much of a difference there is in focusing on anons only. After that, I would switch it to something simple like "Thank you for your continued donations." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-16 03:49
  • Jimmy's appeal has obviously led to an increase in donations. My concern is that in continuing to use his appeal now, when we really needn't, users of Wikipedia will be less responsive to a future personal appeal. Shouldn't we just direct readers to the donation page rather than over-use the appeal?--cj | talk 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The appeal has led to a big increase in donations. We are still very much in need of funds (if we plan on lasting for more than a year). I think this appeal is a one-time thing, since a second appeal would look kind of odd, as you suggeted. So, we should try to milk this thing for all we can. The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-16 04:43
      • Your claim is not consistant with previous statements and actions of the board.Geni 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you be more specific?? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-17 14:12

          We know that major appeals are regualar accurence. We also have this quote from mav:

          "The problem is that non-fundraiser donation totals are way, way smaller than is healthy. Look at October About as much was taken in that *whole month* as a below average *day* in this last fund drive. I would like to get at least several fund drive equivalent days per non-fund drive month. --mav 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)"

          It doesn't make much sense unless we assume plans for further funding drives.Geni 14:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • Of course there will be more fund drives. I'm talking about personal appeals from Jimbo. There won't be more personal appeals, I don't think, unless they are absolutely necessary. This is the first time Jimbo has done such a thing, and it really stimulated the fundraiser, but I doubt he could repeatedly release such personal appeals and have the same effect. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-17 14:30

CJ, your concern is one that is held widely. However a small number of very vocal people - e.g. Brian - are choosing to ignore these concerns. You are, of course, absolutely right, but I for one am tired of battling those who cannot see other's points of view (and seem to pull stuff out of thin air, like the statement "The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds", which is pure conjecture). Dan100 (Talk) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit overdramatic, don't you think? I only suggested the wording remain for a while so we could see what sort of an effect switching from all-users to anon-only would have. I really doubt that Jimbo is going to regularly put out such desperate appeals. The only time I could see him putting out another one is when we are really in need of funding, such as.... when the site is about to go down. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-17 14:12

Maybe we can decide on a lower limit. As soon as donations drop below that point, we could say that the personal appeal has served its purpose, and move on to something else. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-17 14:15

This is having an unfortunate side effect of appearing in all Google searches. Wikipedia results now start "Please read Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales's personal appeal. ... " before giving any details about the topic. I think this is a significant problem. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever we place in there will also be on Google. Jimbo seemed to like it, as his name now has more hits than Jesus and the Beatles combined :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-25 20:36
• The only thing I can think of to solve this is to turn it into a picture. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-25 20:38
• According to Brion, it can also be done with javascript. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-25 20:40
  • You know we could just do what de,fr,pl,ja,it,sv,nl,pt and es (ie all the other ones around the centeral globe) have done.Geni 23:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's really a problem. It's just more advertising for us, and really it's something Google needs to fix, not us (at least, that was the opinion the devs shared when I talked to them). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-26 00:16
      • I am holding my tongue on what I think of the recent decisions regarding this and the sitenotice by you and your fellow devs lest I get blocked for WP:NPA but I'll leave it to say that you guys are stuck in your own little world since very few people support your arbitary decisions both on this notice and on the sitenotice and you seem fit to push it on everyone with zero approval by lording the fact that your a dev over us. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]