zlacker

> Tell donors what they're funding

Wikimedia has a 100/100 transparency rating.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

>>shadow+(OP)
Notably none of the criteria measured in that rating consider their marketing. So yes their policies and filings exist, but those are not what they're presenting to potential donors, so do not prove the ads are not misleading

>>Macha+I
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

How is this misleading? They provide an incredibly large amount of information.

And more information can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Disputes

>>jasonl+yp
That is not the place donors get sent, nor the content of the ads shown to potential donors. The ads are screenshotted in the linked article and they lead here: https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi...

Yes, users can go elsewhere to find the information. The records are on file in the metaphorical filing cabinet downstairs. But if the messaging you're putting front and center contradicts said records, their existence doesn't counter criticism of the messaging

>>jasonl+yp
There are laws against fine print for a reason. The front page pop up ad tells a different story than a stack of text heavy articles that require no small amount of technical expertise to figure out.

>>Macha+xt
"Elsewhere" in this case is the FAQ link at the bottom of the donation page. If a person has questions, that's what an FAQ is for.

Calls to action are kept intentionally short because the research on human psychology is clear: every additional sentence beyond the first few decreases the odds of a conversion (that's adspeak for "closing the deal").

>>blulul+lu
> The are laws against fine print for a reason

Has Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation broken any?

>>shadow+hw
Yes, this is also why it lies, lying to make the situation seem more ominous also increases the odds of a conversion.

But effectiveness doesn't imply ethicality, so "but it's effective" is not a defense against criticism of ethics.

>>blulul+lu
They haven't broken any laws. And "text heavy articles" are bad now? They share this information, and it's very public.

Prove to me they are lying. Nothing on their donation page seems to be a lie.

Your comment on the other hand is very misleading.

>>Macha+az
In that case, your comment is a lie, and I can freely dismiss it.

>>Macha+xt
Your opinions are wrong.

Be careful, if you argue that your opinions are not wrong, you'll be admitting your comment here is wrong.