Such banners have long been criticised by the volunteer editor community, but historically, the Wikimedia Foundation has mostly ignored them.
I use a 2015 15-inch MacBook Pro.
Example of large banner: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/347540926933106702/1043306739015106640/Screen_Shot_2022-11-19_at_1.28.07_AM.png
As you can see, the article text is completely pushed offscreen, but I would still consider it large if the article text is merely mostly pushed offscreen.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ277 | |
| 2 | Ṁ33 | |
| 3 | Ṁ8 | |
| 4 | Ṁ8 | |
| 5 | Ṁ7 |
People are also trading
@Yev Yes, but I am now seeing that the WMF is going ahead with running the large banners in the main campaign, so there is now no more ambiguity about how the market should resolve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_banners#Update_and_starting_banners
On my derivative market about this, Benjamin said they'd consider going by the consensus among traders about how they interpreted this market. So let's get such a consensus.
If you voted according to whether any banner was displayed, and you would have expected this to resolve to YES upon you seeing such a banner, respond to this comment with "Any banner".
If you voted under the understanding that tests would be ignored, and you would have expected someone seeing a banner to not necessarily make this resolve YES, respond with "only banners displayed to everyone".
@IsaacKing This appears to be the "planned low-level weekend test"; Benjamin, do you intend to resolve this market as True if any banners are shown? or only if they're shown broadly, to all users?
@Adam Showing broadly is what I had in mind; I should have made that more clear initially.
@BenjaminIkuta FWIW I too had seen a banner like this, before I saw this market, and bought yes in this market on that basis
This is a kind of interesting situation, and I think it does a good job of highlighting the dangers of more "casual" markets that don't have extremely specific and unambiguous resolution criteria. (Not saying they're bad; most of my markets are also described by that. But they carry an inherent risk of arguments over resolution when something unforeseen comes up.)
Going by the article title, this should clearly resolve YES; Wikipedia did in fact display large fundraising banners this year. The description doesn't directly state anything to the contrary; it doesn't mention that it has to be part of the main fundraising drive or anything.
But it does kind of imply it. The description and linked Twitter post point to the "spirit of the market" being about whether Wikipedia runs a fundraising drive with its aggressive/intrusive banners, not whether they perform a test of it. Personally, I didn't consider the fact that the banner I was seeing might be a test, I thought that meant Wikipedia had decided to go ahead with the main fundraising drive.
If this were my market, I think I'd resolve it YES. I'm of the opinion that market creators should stick to the criteria they chose, since that's what's fairest to traders, and after all it's extremely easy to just make a new market about what they were really trying to ask.
But I could also see N/A being reasonable. I'd be a little annoyed about having sold out of other markets into order to invest here since I thought this was going to resolve to YES right away, but I do bear some responsibility for not considering the fact that what I was seeing could be a test.
Waiting until Wikipedia makes their decision and then potentially resolving this to NO does not seem reasonable to me, and I think I'd flag that as an improperly resolved market. Traders aren't going to want to participate in a creator's markets if that creator might decide to resolve differently from what their title and description say.
Either way @BenjaminIkuta, you should clarify your intentions here so we know what to do. And if the market is going to resolve YES or N/A, there's no reason to continue delaying.