Talk:Wikimedia Apps/Team/iOS/Fundraising Experiment in the iOS App

Add your feedback for Idea #1

• If there is a badge system for specific articles, I think this has the possibility for people to be confused about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation vs volunteers. I think there's the very real risk that people would think that by using this system they'd be supporting the individual editors that wrote said article. Given that the English Wikipedia has a long track record with being concerned about how fundraising is done (e.g. banners), I suppose I just worry that this could be the next big conflict and I'd just prefer to raise this as something to think about. Clovermoss (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm also noting that I mentioned this on the English Wikipedia's Village Pump [1] because I seriously am concerned about this not being buried here. Clovermoss (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just off the top of my head, there's other possible issues with this too. What if someone wants to support one of the many topics we have on controversial subjects? Or even just the placement... that's usually where one would expect an indicator of quality like an FA/GA symbol or the edit button. I'm not as familiar with iOS given I've always used the android version of the app, but I know that the latter has an option to donate in the overflow menu. Does the iOS app have the same feature? If it does, I'm not sure why this is being proposed as a feature. Is it a visibility thing? I genuinely do see the general community reacting to this very poorly and it's honestly making me a bit anxious. I know that this is in very early stages and I'm trying to keep that in mind but please think about what I'm saying here. Clovermoss (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps the feature can be disabled on the contentious topics? SCP-2000 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Contentious topics don't cover everything that you might not want this to pop up on though. For example, articles on suicide aren't labelled as contentious topics under this system. I think it'd be immensely difficult to filter this and then you'd have to consider the angles of censorship/how Wikipedia generally doesn't have disclaimers. Clovermoss (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then there's also the aspect where if money can influence how an article appears, even if it's minimal like this, it might set a worrying precedent where people think Wikipedia can be bought. I personally think that blurring the lines here should not be done. Clovermoss (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think it would be better if the number of people who had donated from that article was not shared publicly (like in this image)? If we removed that aspect of it, users would only see their own personal actions reflected in the article view, not the cumulative actions of others. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I genuinely don't think this feature should be implemented at all and that there would be an extremely negative community reaction to it if it was. Clovermoss (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @HNordeen (WMF): I'm talking very extensive community backlash here. I'm trying to warn you that this will not be recieved well at all. I don't say this lightly. I'm trying to prevent a public relations disaster. Clovermoss (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also think this should not be implemented. Generally, the people who reply here and at w:WP:VPWMF are either a) interested in new ideas from the WMF and developers or b) people like me who dislike the new ideas and are here to whinge about them (at least, I'm here to whinge. Other people might actually be productive). If the response from both groups a and b is negative, the response from the community overall is also not going to be good. Cremastra (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've never outright said to the foundation that something shouldn't be done before. I wouldn't say it now if I wasn't genuinely concerned about the way the general community would react. I know that your hearts are in the right place and I'm glad we're having this discussion now rather when this could have been further developed. Things have been improving with WMF-community relations the last few years and I'd be devastated to see that sort of progress take several steps back. Clovermoss (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Clovermoss@SCP-2000 re: Controversial subjects and contentious topics: I hear you that this feature may require special considerations: especially if we have a prompt to introduce it to users. For initial testing, we could trial this on a set of articles, to gather initial data on how donors react to this feature on non-controversial articles. How does that sound? HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for sharing these thoughts, @Clovermoss. I appreciate you spreading the word about this project page, and I want to assure you that we’ll only move forward with any development and testing of any ideas after considering and accounting for the concerns raised by yourself & others.

  Our goal is to try out other ways of fundraising in the App beyond just banners – hopefully in ways that recognize existing donors, and reach new donors. The concept presented on this page is just one alternative fundraising idea, but our hypothesis this quarter is to brainstorm ideas together with the community, and hopefully pick one for further testing. If you have alternative ideas that you would like to see workshopped for testing in the apps, they are welcome! This initial feedback phase is until the end of August, then we’re planning to share updated designs (based on feedback), and schedule consultations and interviews for the second phase of feedback, into mid-to-late September. I’ll be sure to send you an invite when those are scheduled.

  We, too, had been thinking through the possibility that readers might interpret that donations are supporting individual editors that worked on the article, and that is one of the reasons we wanted to share this idea early to workshop it together and hear alternative ideas before choosing one to develop. Below are a few of the steps we took when thinking about ensuring that the user is aware their donation is going to the Wikimedia Foundation, and not directly to the editors of that article, or towards improvements in the content of the article. I’m curious to hear if you think these types of changes are worthy of testing & finding out how users are perceiving it? Or are there other modifications you think that would help make it clearer?

  • All users would be presented with an introductory screen with the Wikimedia Foundation logo and information about how donations are used. This would be shown before the user can proceed with the donation, with the goal of clarifying that their donation is about to go to the Wikimedia Foundation before they complete it.
  • The feature would be clear to say they are “Donating from this article” as opposed to “Donating to this article.” We have a few suggestions for wording and icons above (champion this article, appreciate this article, honor this article), in your opinion do any of those succeed in not implying that the donation goes to individual editors? Or do you have any other wordings that you think are more ideal?
  • The screen where users can see a list of their articles that they’ve donated from in the past is optional. Do you think it would be better to remove or change that aspect?

  Do your thoughts on this concept change if the primary focus was around recognizing donors for the contributions that they are already making on the platform? A sort of time-stamp and recognition for their decision to donate on that article “You donated to the Wikimedia Foundation from this article in May 2024.” instead of focusing on the donation as a way to express appreciation for the article itself? With fundraising banners and existing sidebar donate links, users already decide to donate while they are on a certain article. It might be because of that certain article, or because it’s the right time and they were prompted. When they return to that article, they are not currently recognized for their past donation. We hope to convey that their donations were appreciation for access to the articles, and the work that the Foundation does in running the data servers, providing website security and stability, developing MediaWiki, and building the software that supports reading and editing.

  Again, if you have any alternative ideas that you think would be motivating and engaging to readers, we would really like to hear them. We’re interested in experimenting with an idea that is bold enough to catch readers’ attention, but more integrated into the app than the fundraising banners.HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• I like the idea of showing appreciation for articles and communicating the value from readers to editors. However, as Clovermoss stated, the current design may lead readers to be confused, as they may think that they are donating to the editor who contributed the article, rather than WMF. There should be clear language and interface indicating that donations are for the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than for individual editors. Additionally, it is weird to link the appreciation for editors and articles with the money donation to the WMF, as they are two separate things. Thanks for your effort on this experiment and fundraising. SCP-2000 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback @SCP-2000, please see my response to Clovermoss above about the steps we took when thinking about ensuring that the user is aware their donation is going to the Wikimedia Foundation, and not directly to the editors of that article & let us know your thoughts! If you have alternative ideas that you would like to see workshopped for testing in the apps, please feel free to share. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t think that the donation button should be appearing on any article (content pages), at least if without clear indication that it isn’t actually for the individual editors of those specific articles. But maybe OK to put a link in the sidebar menu or at the bottom of the app main page instead? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, like on the android app you have to click "more" on the main page before the donate button appears. I can see a donate button at the end of a page being a more reasonable alternative as it'd still be visible but also clearly separated from article content itself. Donate shows up on the side of a page in desktop so it wouldn't be without precedent, either. Clovermoss (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Ericliu1912, @Clovermoss, regarding the location of the feature: Here is a visual of the current article view in the iOS app. There is precedent for a donation option being visible while readers are on an article on Web, but it has been part of the overall menu, instead of the article-level menu. The essence of this idea is to try adding a donation entry point in the article-level menu within the App, and I hear you that clarity on where the donation goes is a requirement when adding an entry point into the article view.

  • Another option for the placement could be in the Article Toolbar or its overflow menu. There isn’t currently a symbol in this location at the top of the page, to the right of the title, where the wireframes have shown the potential donate option. To donate from the article view, users would need to click back to the main view, open the Settings gear, and then click Donate.
  • The idea of having this feature visually separated, but at the end of the article is interesting, thanks @Clovermoss! It may give us the space to give context, while still having it within the article view. The downside would be that fewer users reach the end of the article, and it would be more difficult to see an impact from initial testing.

  We plan to share mockups of what these might look like. A note that the iOS app is undergoing a larger Navigation refresh this coming year, and the current Donate option in Settings may move as part of that. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Ericliu1912 thank you for the feedback, please see the response above to Clovermoss about adding clear indication of where donations go & let me know your feedback! Additional suggestions for how we can add clarity, or alternative fundraising ideas you might like to see trialed in the app are also welcome. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @HNordeen (WMF): Thanks for the update! Looking forward to the improvement. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• As alluring as this proposal may seem at first glance, I think it's ultimately better if things stay as they are right now. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• What would happen if an article gets deleted or merged? I don’t have a philosophical issue against readers expressing appreciation to an article. Promotional/personal motivations for editing an article happen anyways and as long as there is no undisclosed paid editing it is permitted. The more attention any article has, the less harmful this could be. So restricting support to popular/more established articles would reduce friction there. Still, sponsoring an article should not bestow some editorial/speedy entitlement to edit requests. We have enough donors on English Wikipedia who think their funding supports editors directly. Shushugah (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for raising this issue @Shushugah. Cases of article deletions, merges, or moves would all need to be considered if this idea were to move into the development phase— I’ll add it into the Considerations section above. It's a good idea to consider restricting this feature to established articles, and we could consider that for any initial testing. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• As many above have pointed out, this is liable to make readers think they're rewarding the volunteers, who do the work, rather than the WMF. I also don't think "gamifying" donations is a good idea, and overall I don't see the advantage of having this over a "donate" button. Cremastra (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am going to nitpick this statement: I do not doubt for a moment that this has the potential to increase donations, which would be an advantage. The question is whether this is a (morally) good way to do so. If so, I think it is worth an A/B test. HouseBlaster (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point. Cremastra (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• I will start by saying thank you to the staff who worked on this idea, and fundraising in general. It is a thankless task, but getting money to run the servers is an essential part of making Wikimedia happen. We are all on the same side, after all: free-as-in-speech knowledge for all :)
  It would need to be crystal clear that donations collected this way go to the WMF. In particular, it does not support the people who wrote whatever article they are reading, and it does not support the subject of the article (for instance, donating on the page for a political campaign does not send that money to the political campaign). It would also need to be clear that a donation does not do anything to the article: an article that attracts donations does not automatically become a higher priority for editors to work on, nor does it prioritize the article in search results.
  But my primary concern is with the potential to advertise that X people donated to an article. I would strongly oppose something like that, which would be a massive violation of due weight. If we are prominently displaying that Coke has more supporters than Pepsi, that is a NPOV problem.
  I am not entirely sure that it is possible to make it clear enough that supporting an individual article does not directly affect that article in any way. After all, there is a high burden to explain that "supporting" an article does nothing to directly support that article and has the exact same effect as supporting a different article. As such, I do not believe that I can get to a point where I could support even trying this idea. But displaying the number of donors who supported an article is an absolute nonstarter. Best, HouseBlaster (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you HouseBlasterfor the kind words & for sharing your thoughts. I updated the requirements and risks sections above to include the ones you identified. I hear that you're saying you aren't in favor of trying this idea in general, and that you are expressly opposed to the display of the number of people who have donated from an article. I'm curious to know: does the phrasing “appreciate this article” feel any more clear to you than “support this article”? Also, if you have any other ideas for what we could try in the Apps, please share below. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I could get behind the idea of "appreciate this article". It is more specific, and I think it conveys the intention in a way that gets the effect across. I still strongly oppose anything which changes how other people see the article, but this is something I could get behind. HouseBlaster (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't really get the point of dividing donations to every article either. It doesn't make sense, and I don't see this being used to brag to other people. If we want a display of donations, just centralize that and put badges on the homepage or something.
  Also, shouldn't feedback be subsections for each idea? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the idea about putting the badge on the homepage @Aaron Liu. I'll document it in the other ideas section below, feel free to expand on this. We know from in-app data that users overwhelmingly spend their time in the article view within the App, so the idea came from trying to develop a donation CTA that could make sense from the article view to reach users where they are. Do you have any thoughts on how it makes sense to inspire readers to donate while they are reading an article? HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think designing a donation thing in article view is something that should be prioritized, especially not with some confusing division of funds between articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding this donation path within the App, given the recent discussions concerning Apple and the Patreon app, can it be clarified what proportion of a donation will actually reach Wikimedia vs what portion will be retained as a platform fee? AllyD (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't there already a way to donate in the app? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 05:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Ericliu1912, yes there is currently a way to donate from the iOS App. From the Main view > Settings > Donate. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @AllyD, Apple does not take a percentage of donations made within the App, as donations are not in-app purchases. If a donor uses ApplePay, their donation is subject to the fees assessed for the specific payment type in their wallet. All of our donation methods have transaction fees associated, and the foundation has negotiated to ensure that they are roughly equal across all methods. Does that make sense? HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  It does, though I would have regarded Patreon donations as similar, and we now see what is happening there. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• absolutely not. this is a terrible idea. see reddit for why. Ltbdl (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Ltbdl: Could you please provide the link of discussion on Reddit? Thanks. SCP-2000 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  This kind of explains the monetization aspect that Reddit used to have with badges. This explains the widespread community backlash to Reddit not valuing their volunteers (the former wasn't really directly caused by the latter but did partially involve changes that were driven by a desire not to improve the site, but to boost revenue). I do not think it's wise to emulate Reddit here. I think that the WMF should be more ethical than other places on the Internet and trying to gamify donations goes against those values. [2] People should donate simply because they want to. Clovermoss (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  what i meant that this is kind of the model that reddit uses, with their “awards” and “gold upvotes”, and it results in people begging for them. Ltbdl (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well the award system they used to have got removed and people were upset because things they paid for were being taken away from them. [3] If we were to do anything like an A/B test, what would we do when it ends? As I said before, I think it's best that lines are just not blurred here. Clovermoss (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Another thing to keep in mind is that historically, we had a huge fork when people thought that monetization was a possible threat to Wikipedia [4] Clovermoss (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn't donate to people. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Ltbdland @Clovermoss for sharing the info on Reddit's coins feature. I'm hearing that you're worried about monetization, gamification and concerned about how we could test a feature like this for only a set period of time. Our intention in proposing this experiment is to honor requests from existing donors to recognize their monetary contributions and make it easier for donors to give when they feel appreciation for Wikipedia. It's useful to learn from examples of other sites' implementations of badge-type features. Trying to separate out concepts: do your concerns in this area ease if the aspect of displaying the number of donations on each article is removed, and the badge is only visible to the individual user? HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. I think it shouldn't be implemented at all. Clovermoss (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @HNordeen (WMF): my concerns would be eased if you drop the idea and never look back. Ltbdl (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Uh... no. Bad idea. Quit putting together the idea of donations to WMF having anything to do with the content of en.wp 50.201.228.202 07:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment on the English Wikipedia

I'm largely indifferent to the idea of mobile fundraising in general, and was surprised it wasn't already well established. I'm also mostly indifferent to the idea of donations tied to articles. What I have a quite strong opinion about is what happens when someone donates "to" an article. To the point: there should be no direct connection between donations and the appearance of a Wikipedia article for anyone other than the donor. No matter how it's framed (badges, stickers, sponsors, endorsements, pictures, text, etc.), if there's any way to affect the appearance of the article with money, there will emerge metacommunicative/signalling strategies to manipulate the system in unacceptable ways. On some level, I like the idea of audiences being better able to communicate appreciation to contributors, but it has to be divorced from money. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To the point: there should be no direct connection between donations and the appearance of a Wikipedia article for anyone other than the donor.

Agreed. I also see that the WMF recognises at least some of issues this could cause, saying Safeguards should be added to prevent inappropriate usage of the feature on sensitive articles, but I don’t think they’ve thought through the complexity of accurately classifying articles as sensitive.

Alternatively, if they have already succeeded in doing so in a robust manner, can they please release the tool, as it will be very helpful in general? BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the safeguards comment was in regards to the concerns that I and other people expressed at the page itself on why you wouldn't want something like this on controversial articles. As far as I'm aware, this is just an idea and nothing has actually been implemented. That would mean that there isn't a way to filter this content out yet either. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned this could lead people to incorrectly think that they are donating to the article's writers, rather than the WMF. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

don’t worry, they already think that. ltbdl☃ (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that I've copied some comments left locally on the English Wikipedia to be present above. Clovermoss (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia want from its readers? $$ vs edits

I like the idea of giving people more of a connection with articles they read a lot or find particularly valuable. I don't think it's a bad thing for the WMF to be considering ways to spur donations other than banners. However, this specific concept has a number of issues. I concur with what Rhododentrites wrote above. I also think it raises a fundamental issue: what does Wikipedia want from its readers? The WMF wants money from its readers, without bugging them too much. But what Wikipedia actually *needs* is for readers to become editors. That is the only way to ensure the long-term health of the project.

In the wireframe examples above, a prominent space directly next to the article titles is dedicated to gathering funds for the WMF, not encouraging readers to edit and improve the encyclopedia. I don't begrudge the WMF's existence or need to support itself, but ultimately it is dependent, like everything else, on a healthy editor base. This project seems to imply a different prioritization which could prove harmful to the movement in the long run. --Ganesha811 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Cremastra (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Building on this point, the project's justification cites the Feb 2024 results of the non-editing participation survey. Among 93 new Wikipedia account-holders, only three (3.2%) said they expected "donation-related features or information". Beyond being a rare response, that category could range from seeking these sorts of public-facing article badges to a private list of their past site-wide donations. The only provided quote from a response in this category is from someone expecting a "section with donation info," furthering the latter interpretation. On a behavioral economics level, quantifying donation-based support on an article-by-article basis probably would increase contributions by providing permanent visual feedback, but this unavoidably preys on the donor's misconception of supporting a specific piece of content, regardless of whatever warnings are provided. BluePenguin18 (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Add your (other) ideas here

If you have an alternative idea that you would like to share for discussion, please add it below! The Article Badge is just one idea for an experiment within the Mobile Apps. We want to hear from you: What are your ideas for an experimental donation format in the apps that will motivate Wikipedia readers to engage and donate?

• I'd just reiterate what I said above about maybe placing a donate option beside or at the end of a page (comparable to how this is done on desktop). It would solve the issue of the donate button being buried in an overflow menu without drawing extensive backlash from the general community. Clovermoss (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  ↑👍 —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 18:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've taken a look at commons:Category:Wikipedia iOS app screenshots to see the layout of the iOS app pages and this is probably the best idea. Just a small bar at the bottom of the article, or, if there's room, a discreet button at the toolbar on the bottom, would work. Also, it's simple, so it can be implemented relatively quickly. Cremastra (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support Clovermoss's idea. It is recommended that this idea be experimented with in the further user test, to explore whether it can become a viable alternative option. SCP-2000 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think that something I wrote earlier might impact the viability of testing something like this: If we were to do anything like an A/B test, what would we do when it ends. People tend to be upset if you take things they've paid for away from them. Are we prepared to support something like this indefinitely and should we even blur the lines in the first place? In my opinion, no. Clovermoss (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for raising this concern, @Clovermoss. We'd need to be creative with a solution that would make us comfortable with initial testing for any kind of idea that gives donors some sort of change in the app after donation.

  A few ways we could go about it:

  • We could explicitly mark the feature as “Beta” or “Experimental”
  • Have badges only last for 30 days, or some set time period, and ensure users know that as they earn one
  • We ask users if they would like to opt-in to a time-bound experiment, and only display the feature to those folks

  How does that sound? HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I really am not comfortable with the idea of doing this at all. I understand why you're trying to come up with some sort of compromise but there's a myriad of reasons something like this should never be done and it's going to make a lot of people upset if you implement it in any form whatsoever. Clovermoss (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm usually for compromises, but this is something that I think shouldn't be implemented at all; the length of the trial period won't affect the level of harm it could cause. Some things, if you trial them or dilute them, are less problematic. This is not one of those things, unfortunately. Cremastra (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you @Clovermoss, @Ericliu1912, @Cremastra, @SCP-200, I documented your suggestions that we focus on finding a more visible location for the Donate button from the article as a first experiment. If we were to test a simple donation button move, what are your thoughts on trying a variant where it changes colors for only the donor after their donation? (Without being tied to any article) HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think that we should move these discussions above into the talk page, as there's no need to mark translation 10 times a day. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. @HNordeen (WMF): Perhaps move these discussions into the talk page? Thanks. SCP-2000 (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion @SCP-2000 and @Ericliu1912, I've moved things over. HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Try a centralized badge on the homepage (restating @Aaron Liu's suggestion) HNordeen (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• I am all for offering alternative app icons behind some paywall. It is a solely aesthetic feature that does not diminish the reading/editing experience of those that cannot donate. BluePenguin18 (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)