7 comments

[ 84.1 ms ] story [ 2403 ms ] thread
You're using Wikipedia's goodwill for personal gain, which doesn't seem very nice to me.
The author is not very transparent that 40% of the profit also goes to themselves.
Every poster is $40. They come in A2 size, 420 × 594mm. Print costs $9, shipping costs $9 (I'm from Europe). That's $18. 60% of the $22 goes directly to Wikipedia.

and

I want to pay up a small amount of debt I got into (less than 1k), and I figured I could throw 3 hours into this experiment to see if I could pay a part of that debt and do something good for Wikipedia. The lean way!

Seems fairly transparent to me.

"Posters for your walls & money for Wikipedia" & "Buy poster and support wikipedia" seems to strongly imply that the money is directly supporting Wikipedia. Sure he posts the figures but in an overly confusing manner and as part of the small print. If he's going to be pushing the fact that your money is supporting Wikipedia then he needs to be very clear about the cut he is getting. At no point does he directly state he is getting a cut, or how much - he leaves it up to the purchaser to work out.
Come on.

That "small print" is at the top of the page. Apart from the title it is the only text!

Still less than half the size of the main text.

If I had it on a donation bucket with "Cancer research" and then below it I had "Bucket cost $5, stickers for bucket cost $2. That's $7. 60% of the $10 average donation will go directly to Cancer Research." in much smaller font - do you think people wouldn't feel misled that I'm getting 40% of the profit?

My opinion: You should be less transparant about the costs/profit, and you'll probably get less resistance for the fact that you're making some profit on it.

If you would just say "$10 of every sale goes to Wikipedia" people wouldn't know, but also wouldn't care that you're actually making a small profit.

Test it out using some A/B tests.