Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Fundraising 2009
General
Design and message (Meta)
Translations
Live donation pages (WMFwiki)
Raw statistics
Other
This template: view · edit

This page is for discussion of the 2009 Annual Fundraiser launch.

We acknowledge a few things won't be perfect upon launch:

  1. Not all project specific notices will be in place.
  2. Geo IP and chapter giving pages will be coming on after launch.
  3. We may have imperfect and incomplete translations. We are, of course, trying to translate everything and will do our best to rectify any problems.

Please comment on any problems, questions, or thoughts you have here. Rand Montoya 23:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See also (may not be reviewed by WMF)
Archives

Contents

[edit] The working model is ok but not perfect

We considered a corporate donation last year but we held back. The working model is ok but not perfect. Our company (VeriPic, Inc.) is dominant in it's field yet several editors, due to their lack of expertise in our field, had never heard of us so they removed a page about our company that our fans and customers put up. How could three people undo what tens of thousands of our customers and users do? After all, these people are unreleated to our company and meet your editorial requirements.

Exactly the point I am trying to make for years! How can an unemployed school drop out from his mom's basement undo work of a Ph. D.? Well, this is Wikipedia, where everything is possible if you 1) have enough time on your hands (which unemployed school drop outs from his mom's basement has) and 2) registered with Wikipedia, thus can work your way into 'officialdom' of editor, coordinator or moderator or whatever status allows you to undo other's work.

At the same time, several competitors which were much smaller and less significant than us, got to keep their pages. This doesn't make any sense. The data on all the companies are available on D&B. Why not adapt a more sensible model of what companies are considered significant buy using a neutral third party like D&B or better yet, use earth mapping websites and automatically view the company's address to see how big the buildings are or use public records to figure out that a given company is significant enough to have a Wiki page. I guess we are still disappointed that we don't have a company page but several competitors less than 10% of our size have pages. We will hold off on a donation this year and reconsider whether editorial methods improve before we do a corporate donation next year.

Preferably articles are created by people not affiliated with the subjects, due to an inherent inevitable bias. What surely determines that an article stays is reliable sources - if you post third-party articles written about your company then it could pass the criteria for notability. -- Mentifisto 08:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You are being simply dishonest, Mentifisto. The 'third party' is not sufficient, those sources should also pass the personal agenda filter of anyone registered with wikipedia as an editor, who has vested interest in the article. Which in the instance above may be one of the competitors. This model is just not working, or plainly speaking, wikipedia does not have a model, rather a sick joke mocking real science.

[edit] Inconsistent style in English version of appeal

In the English version of Jimbo's appeal, I think "More than 340 million people use Wikipedia every month - almost a third..." should read "More than 340 million people use Wikipedia every month – almost a third...." Note that a hyphen is used in the first version ("month - almost"), whereas an endash is used in the version I've suggested. The inconsistency is especially noticeable because endashes are properly used later in the appeal. Emw 15:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

--!!!!

We live in a cycnical world.How much do you pocket?

[edit] Craigslist advert

(Note: I copied the first comment below from en:Wikipedia talk:Advertisements. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

What the heck? I don't mind Wikipedia pushing this donations scheme - clearly it is vital to keep the project going and also amazing to see the speed with which the money is being raised. But surely endorsements, such as that by 'Craig from Craiglist' which appears at the top of my watchlist right now are perilously close to - or could even be considered as - adverts? The endorsement promotes Craiglist over other similar services or websites, it suggests some sort of relationship between the two organisations etc. Can I now consider the Craiglist entry to be neutral? Would Craig remove his support if the content of that article changed? More importantly, who decided to places this advert on Wikipedia? Pretty Green (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

en:Craigslist. I liked the banner with the endorsement from Craig of Craigslist when I first saw it because I know that endorsements help raise money. But you make some good points. The Craigslist advert is a mandatory ad for unregistered users, and an opt-out ad for registered users (via the hide link on the banner).
Ads button.png This user supports an on/off button for opt-in ads on a nonprofit Wikipedia.


If we are going to run defacto ads, then I much prefer opt-in ads over opt-out ads. I support opt-in ads. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't really frequent here as a social entity but I'm placing this on another identity, on another wiki :)
Hell, if you're going to run defacto ads, you may as well run real ads, and let billionaire corporations fund Wikipedia rather than users. If I'm going to see a banner asking for my money on every page, it makes no difference who it's coming from. --117.53.136.79 00:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
While we're at it let's sell our lives to billionaire coorporations too.

[edit] Jimmy Wales

I am so sick of seeing his face in these pestering "appeals" that abuse his charm to market Wikipedia under the guise of donation. Wikipedia peaked; no amount of money is going to make a fundamental change to its usability or function. If you want everyone to have instant access to information the next step isn't to make Wikipedia bigger, it's to give more people the internet and make it more easily accessible. 68.174.31.93 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still growing worldwide in the number of articles, readers and page views. Also, there are many existing projects, and many proposed projects, that need money, servers, and staff. See: Category:Proposed projects and Proposals for new projects.
As for "usability or function" there is a basic need to pay more developers to fix the 4000+ bugs listed in the Bugzilla Weekly Reports. There are also the basic needs such as expanding bandwidth, servers, and maintenance staff worldwide. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Those are all basic, not fundamental changes. They don't create "a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge." 68.174.31.93 03:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, partly; in every appeal he always uses "I created" which sounds very pompous for an individual promoting a collective project. Yes, Jim is a very important part of Wikipedia, but using the "I" when referring to "His" creation, and then using "us" and "we" in the rest of the appeal really puts me off. Yes, Jimmy created it, but it's the people who keep it going, not him, and it is the people who write the articles and it's the people who make the donations. Jimmy gets paid. He is a figure head.

So, if the appeal is to the masses to keep this thing going, stop Jimmy from saying "I". The first sentence is fine, but this one after all the "we"s and "us" says "The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization I created in 2003 to operate, grow, nurture, and protect Wikipedia." Take out the "I" and let it read, "The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization created in 2003 (...)" There may be others, but really I am sick of that face to and always pushing that "he created" the most wonderful site in the world. It is, but, come on. Without the people, it would be nothing. And, I think there were others involved in "creating" this project, anyway as I remember a silly spat about a partner that had a hand in its creation.

It's pompous, self-righteous, egotistical, etc., etc. -- which can and does put others off (it does me) -- especially when after that it says how much the "fewer than 35 people" get paid to run it. --Paul from OH

Bingo. In fact, the only reason why I'm here is to explain why I decided (at the last minute) not to donate -- I'm all for supporting the nameless hordes of people who actually do the work, but I'm not going to pay for a bunch of JimmyJimmy™. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that I even know his name... but that's what happens when people use traditional marketing to promote new media. -- YWO from CA
For the record, he's not paid. Jimmy is a volunteer just like the rest of us (and the rest of the board members; the people who are paid are listed on wmf:Staff. However, your other comments about I are valid and I'll be sure that they're noted for next year. Cbrown1023 talk 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

the thing is jimmy didnt create it, at least not by himself. not in any sense of the word, hes a cofounder. Elmuhfuh 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a "cult of Jimmy Wales" type thing going on. Why else does he refere to himself by name, or as "I", in a page asking for money? And what is the money actually for? If it is needed in 2009, why won't another appeal be necessary next year, and the year after? I use wikipedia a lot, but I regret that I cannot support this appeal.

Here's a thought, how about not quoting yourself like a pompous ass, super-imposing it over a 'soulful' picture of yourself and slapping it above a letter you yourself wrote. Also that world, that you mention in your actually not-as-deep-as-it's-trying-to-sound quote is not something wikipedia is going to ever achieve.
Seconded. Why is this still not being addressed? "A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" is still there. Who is in charge of changing that? Isn't this an open project? How come that if I vandalize this very page someone will fix it within 30 seconds, and yet days pass and nothing is done about this.
Since no one seems to want it to matter. I had heard from a friend that there was controversey surrounding Wales, so I (of course!) went to his Wikipedia page to find out about it. Lo and behold, not a peep about it on his actual page. A few people brought it up in the talk page and the talk page here. Things like that make me highly suspicious of the project. Couple that with the manner in which this fundraiser is approached (gigantic ad at the top of all pages) and pitched (the letter comes off sounding like a politician talking about world peace) that I've decided to send my money elsewhere for my end of the year charitable donation. 35.9.187.46 13:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Could we have a separate page for feedback from registered, logged-in users? I don't have a problem with most complaints, but some of them are coming from trolls, and are not helpful. Dialog in good faith is needed, and that is much more likely to come from logged-in users who understand Wikipedia civility better. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Another attempt to silence the critics. Wikipedia at its best...85.75.168.189 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an attempt to silence the critics, rather an attempt to keep a page usable for its purpose. Cbrown1023 talk 23:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering how much silencing has actually happened on this very page, yes, it is silencing. You are 'wikipedian thugs' and fascist one no less. How do you spell 'censorship', Jimmy? How do you spell 'agenda-based'?
See /Archive 1 --Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
See, dude, it went over your wikipedian head. You can't even grasp the concept of censorship, because for that you have to be outside the system. You can't understand a system from within - only from outside. This is one of the laws of dialectic materialism which you probably heard of if you went to university. Notice, I am saying 'went', not 'graduated from'. Censors don't think of themselves as censors, just like fraudsters don't think they are criminals.
God gave you the right to label people as trolls or not, correct?
Or you could just not respond and move on. The best way to kill a troll is to ignore it. I'm sorry but with everything going on as it is, this is pretty suspect to ask for. 35.9.187.46 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How much has been donated?

This is an important question that everyone wants to know. Is this information even out there and if so, why is it hard to find? --Matt57 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't really have a straight answer for this, because the information that I can find includes all donations for this fiscal year, not just ones from this fundraising campaign. Here are some statistics pages we have: fundraiser statistics, all donations with public comment, contribution statistics, and tracking statistics. Keep in mind that these aren't that pretty because they're meant more for internal use.
If you'd like to see how much money we'd like to raise this campaign, see the FAQ. I hope this helps! Cbrown1023 talk 17:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's completely unacceptable. I hope you're more open regarding this next year. 35.9.187.46 13:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing, 32billion. They just reset the counter so they can lie on their IRS reports.

That wouldn't do much good since we're audited by a third-party company every year. Cbrown1023 talk 17:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but there used to be that donation meter e.g. 4/10 million raised. Where's that now? --Matt57 12:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It was manually updated, and probably isn't being updated when not immediately in use. Fundraiser statistics is automatic and shows $4.8M raised during the campaign so far this year. (I was pretty sure the goal was $7.5M from donors, not $10). Dragons flight 13:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
We are preparing a new site notice with a thermometer and the Jimmy Appeal. We hope to have it this week. At this time, we are at about $5.5M into our $7.5M fundraiser goal. Rand Montoya 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Good to know! --Matt57 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Million - Seriously?

The concept behind Wikipedia is that the "community" builds a virtualized shared editable encyclopedia. If your overhead costs have reached 10 Million Dollars per year - you are seriously doing something wrong. Wikipedia needs a handful of dedicated servers, a strong reliable internet connection, thats it. I will not send wikipedia one cent unless I have a detailed accounting of what this money is being spent on. I am not funding some piece of bloatware.

And I'm not even going to get started on the ridiculous messages / issues / comments I've had from administrators when I've tried to add referenced, sourcable information from actual written literature. Wake up, unbloat yourself, and make your finances transparent. I am not funding you for a 10 Million Dollar webpage run by volunteers unless I know where the money is going. I'm sorry but you have to look at this objectively - I fail to see the reasoning.

68.144.96.176 22:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
I'm sorry to hear you ran into trouble finding out what the money will be spent on. If you look at the "FAQs" box of our donation page, you'll find a link to our detailed FAQ. That page should hopefully answer your questions. If it doesn't, please don't hesitate to leave us another note here and we'll do our best to get you answers!
Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Cbrown1023 its people like you that are part of the problem. "That page should hopefully answer your questions." He had no questions, stop trying to act like your being helpful when all your really doing is trolling for a response like the one I'm giving you now. Thanks for answering his question that he DIDNT ask. 173.2.100.46 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm behind you on that. The crazy comments and deletion of hard written articles by people that like to ignore the discussion page and just delete; then just have the nerve to quote to you proper wiki procedures is INSAINE! I'm slowing coming under the impression that Wikipedia is now about of unemployed people that have nothing better to do then stop on those of use that have a hard working job AND we contribute our time.
They need to clean up the people not going through due process of discussing someone’s work before deleting it. I'm sick of how riddled Wikipedia is becoming with them. I remember coming here and you could do research and post citations on articles with out someone being defensive and treating the article your posting in like its their child! I look forward to the people that will put on their "helpful" face and reply with links to Wiki FAQs and Wikipedia due process links. Frustratedly, 173.2.100.46 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

thats the thing, wikimedia isnt just about the website wikipedia. what people should ask themselves is the wmf really needed to run an online encyclopedia or make it any better? im sure wmf does wonderful things, but the fact that they use wikipedia as a hostage to extort money for programs that in no way "protect" wikipedia from being overrun with ads makes me wary. on that note, ads arent such a bad thing. for years the community has made wikipedia what it is, ads could generate revenue to reward those contributors that do the "real" work. Elmuhfuh 01:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, how would you say the Wikimedia Foundation "uses Wikipedia as a hostage"? They could easily turn off Wikipedia for the day to solicit donations, but they don't. That would be holding it hostage.
The Wikimedia Foundation exists to support Wikipedia. It pays for the servers, system administrators, developers, outreach (finding new contributors, teaching people about Wikipedia), legal staff (lots of people think they should sue Wikipedia), press, fundraising staff, and much more. It's not like money that you donate "to Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation" is going to be spent on random other topics, it all has to do with Wikipedia and its sister projects. Please read the wmf:FAQ/en I linked above and see if it helps remove any of the questions you have. Cbrown1023 talk 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Standard method of donation not working in Norway and Sweden

Hi, I am Ulf Larsen, I have contributed to Wikipedia for over 5 years and just wanted to notice someone that can fix it that the standard method of contributing in Norway and Sweden do not work.

If you select the standard, in norwegian/swedish currency, you get this message:

Din transaksjon har blitt avvist.Kontakt kredittkortselskapet ditt for mer informasjon

Translated it says:

Your transaction has been declined. Contact your credicard company for more information.

So for anyone not persistent, they will just give up. Norway is a rich country, so is Sweden and I believe the Foundation could receive some funds if this is fixed. Ulflarsen 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ulflarsen and thanks for your message. How are you trying to donate? Are you doing it from wmf:Appeal2/en, wmf:Appeal2/nb, or another page? Are you donating with PayPal or with a credit card? You tried it with both SEK and NOK, right? If you can give us more information, I'll pass it on to our tech team to see if we can fix the issue. Thanks again for the note! Cbrown1023 talk 23:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I have replicated this error, five minutes ago, through wmf:Appeal2/sv using VISA and SEK. Paypal worked fine though. --Ainali 19:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did the shortest way, as a test after my girlfriend did not managed the similar procedure on the Swedish language wikipedia. You click on the donate banner, select the prepaid sum, in kroner, and VISA card - but it does not work and you get that message I translated above. And this is the same for both Norway and Sweden. Ulflarsen 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tried again to see if the problem is fixed, tried to use the most direct way of giving from the Norwegian language version of Wikipedia:

Nytt forsøk:

  • Clicked banner on top of page
  • Clicked Gi nå (give now)
  • Selected standard amount, in Norwegian currency
  • Clicked Gi med kredittkort (give with credit card)
  • Din transaksjon har blitt avvist.Kontakt kredittkortselskapet ditt for mer informasjon.

Does not work. This is most probably the main route most people use here and it does not work. And dont give me the crap that one can give by some other currency or by Paypal - I do that but the average donor does not, and besides, there is no way for them to know. Can't believe this is not working. Ulflarsen 05:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still not working. This is the most straightforward way to give from Norway and I would assume that Wikimedia Foundation have lost some money on this - should be corrected as quick as possible. Ulflarsen 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now called my bank, which issued my VISA card, the largest Norwegian bank, DnB NOR, and talked for some 5 minutes with the helpdesk there. I explained my problem, what I did, that I am a regular user of paying various services over the web and have not met a similar problem for a long time, and she could not see anything with my account that should give me a problem with the payment. Her verdict was that it is higly possible that the problem is with the solution behind the webpage and that is something that Wikimedia Foundation must fix - I can not do it from my side. Ulflarsen 15:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I encountered the same problem as user:Ulflarsen, using a VISA card issued by another Norwegian bank. I used this link, choosing "credit card" and "NOK - kr" as the currency. At least one more Norwegian user at no:Wikipedia:Tinget#BRANN_P.C3.85_DASS.21.21.21 has the same problem. This should be fixed ASAP. --Kjetil_r 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Same problem for me (Norwegian, logged in from a norwegian ISP, paying by Visa from a Norwegian bank). Looks like there's some problem on the foundation part. nsaa 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Foundation is aware and looking at the problem. I'll have an update later. Rand Montoya 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Isolated the problem ("Error Code 6: Invalid or unsupported currency code"...which is odd because it was working earlier) and now tracking back with our vendor for solutions. Rand Montoya 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems like PayPal got a new partner in Norway at approx the same time the problem appeared. I've phoned Payex Solutions and will do a follow up if they don't call back. 87.248.11.28 09:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Still not working, got this message: "Your credit card could not be validated. Please verify that all provided information matches your credit card profile, or try a different card. You can also use one of our other ways to give or contact us at donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your support."

I tried to pay with my VISA card, from within Norway and I have used the card today to pay something else on the web, so the problem must obviously be with the fundraising solution. Ulflarsen 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Update for 12/22/09: Still working with our vendor on a solution. We have gotten over 1200 CC donations in similar currencies since the start of the fundraiser...it's *not* a WMF problem, we must work with others to fix it. At this time, the solution may be to use our other portal: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DonateNonJS/en. Hopefully, we'll have this fixed soon or we'll have to take additional measures. Rand Montoya 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

svenska, bokmål, nynorsk. Cbrown1023 talk 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Still not working, as of 08:20 this morning: "Your credit card could not be validated. Please verify that all provided information matches your credit card profile, or try a different card. You can also use one of our other ways to give or contact us at donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your support." Ulflarsen 07:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Still not working, checked at 14:15 local Norwegian time and I got the same error message as above. Ulflarsen 13:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Works now, I manage to donate 200 dollars through the banner running on the Norwegian language version of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is completely correct. We know that the following currencies will work: AUD, CAD, EUR, GBP, JPY, and USD. We are pretty sure that the following do not: CHF, CZK, DKK, HKD, HUF, NZD, NOK, PLN, SGD, SEK, ILS. Again, this is preliminary and we are working on a solution with our vendor. Rand Montoya 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: We have determined that the following currencies will no longer be accepted by our vendor for direct credit card donations: CHF, CZK, DKK, HKD, HUF, NZD, NOK, PLN, SGD, SEK, ILS. We have implemented a quick fix of hiding the "Donate by Credit Card" button when one of those currencies is selected and hiding those currencies from the payments page.

You can still donate using the above currencies credit card after hitting the "Donate via Paypal" and going through Paypal to make a CC donation. You can also use last year's portal: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DonateNonJS/en.

Donations from AUD, CAD, EUR, GBP, JPY, and USD are all unaffected and will work properly through our credit card payments gateway.

We continue to work with our vendor to find a better solution to this. Rand Montoya 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I will translate this for the Norwegian community. Thanks! [1] Jeblad 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I just had success with donating 200 NOK. I used Visa and followed the most obviuos way to donate as described earlier. Merry Christmas :) Atluxity 03:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds like it's time for Wikipedia to die?

If the foundation can't stand on it's own two feet with so much free publicity and so many visitors then re-thinking the approach (get a business manager) is probably the right approach. After all, it's only hopeless people who beg right?

There are plenty of other open groups and organizations able to commodetize upon products with far less to offer than Wikipedia. It looks like all Wikipedia is currently lacking is a fresh set of ideas.

  • This post was not off topic it's on topic. It's related to raising funds and keeping Wikipedia running.

Some practical suggestions:

  • Licence Wikipedia content for commercial use
  • Package Wikipedia content for sale on store shelves
  • Partner with business creating portable Wikipedia information delivery devices
  • Sell t-shirts
  • Have editors package subject specific content (ie. mammalian species, nuclear physics etc.) and sell as e-books or printed material
  • Likewise commercial audio book encyclopedias
  • Work with third world countries to provide affordable educational materials
  • Commodetize upon the wikimedia software by providing commercial wikimedia support
  • Sell wikimedia access to companies interested in having a wiki but not running their own software
  • Create and sell sub-domain wikipedia / wikimedia information portals for use by commercial entities

Most of those are doable with very minimal effort. The point of this post is that raising funds just requires a little expertise in business. IMHO the campaign begging for money is a short term, net loss approach because the next meal isn't guaranteed and begging generates ill will. If this continues it's just a matter of time before Wikipedia is gone.

Wikipedia is run by a charity. It is perfectly normal for charities to ask the public for donations. --Tango 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Red Ink

So, as if PLEASE READ defaulted to not-hidden wasn't bad enough, some of the boxes are now highlighted with red borders. Is there a nuke about to overheat unless you get donations or something? Why does something like Wikipedia with such a huge user base (including alot of people who would make generous donations, and even more people who make smaller chip-ins that add up) need to appeal so aggressively?

A little bit late to finally make the post but I actually have to agree with this one, the red border that seems to be one of the random options is painful :( James (T|C) 03:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh, this is worse than anything

OK, I get the fact that Wikipedia cant function on its own, that is great, but, WHEN I CLICK HIDE I MEAN HIDE. I have already contributed as much as I feel needed, stop asking me. I even see TV ads for Wikipedia. Start selling stock or something. 76.205.65.205

TV Ads?? Oh my god... If wikipedia is viewed by 2/3 of the internet connected world, or whatever that ridiculous statistic is, why did they waste funds on a TV Ad?
    • J. Wales is desperate now - a clear reason for TV Ads.
Desperate for what, may I ask? Is such a widespread phenomena like wikipedia really in dire straits or are we on the brink of being taken by the unfeeling hand of avarice? That would be sad but completely unsuprising... I don't know if it's just my browser/computer, but the ads now are like 30 font size, with huge borders...
Thanks for your support! Sorry that the collapsed version of the banner is bothering you. We're at about $5.5M of $7.5M, so the banners will disappear soon.
Not acceptable. Set a damn cookie that hides the banner. Consider this for next year. 35.9.187.46 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is not running TV ads, by the way.--Eloquence 18:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. However you're asking for a substantial amount of money, and folks would like to know where it's going. This user has identified that he feels TV ads aren't necessary.

[edit] Angry and switching to Citizendium

The functionality of this banner has annoyed me so much that I swear to never again contribute to wikipedia. You don't NEEED $10M and are just being obnoxious about reaching your goals by making a banner that doesn't really hide, pops up on every new page, and can't be easily blocked by ad-block.

For those who want to block the banner using adblock:

wikipedia.org#div(id=siteNotice)


[edit] Thought police

I do not like the privacy policy of the donation campaign. Instead of gratitude you plan (or were forced?) to give contact information on users to government reports that are "not for public inspection". I do not want the donations used as evidence in courts against me. I do not want you playing thought police if you want my donation.

[edit] co-founder

Jimmy's a co-founder of Wikipedia, not The Founder. Nice NPOV fail though.

24.116.255.49 05:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I believe

I believe Wikipedia is contributing to the collective knowledge and experience of mankind. It's unique in the collective enterprises of people. I have contributed to various sites, have created others. And I've given a donation, and encourage other to do so. Like democracy, we take such things for granted --- until they vanish. Long live Wikipedia! 76.250.133.72 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha! If anything Wikipedia is a failure of an experiment in democracy. Like many others, I've had pages I've created and spent a lot of time on deleted for ridiculous reasons; always from citing some bullshit Wikipedia rules. They justify the deletion with a simple link to the rule and then delete your page forever. Wikipedia has been overtaken by an elitist minority. That's not democratic. 68.174.31.93 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
AGREED! Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously. No reputable college or high school would allow a student to cite wikipedia. It's an entertainment tool, not meant for education. Anyone who believes otherwise, well, go get a real education. 24.116.255.49 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That is why if possible Wikipedia should think of focusing on promoting other wikis as alternatives to these restrictive rules since as a very reasonable person I understand this as a measure for Wikipedia to keep its current goals and trying to reduce the amount of irritation against Wikipedia which would be a good way to help with the fundraisers since some of these other wikis are understaffed. I'm only suggesting this as a way of reducing the negative stress against Wikipedia which I understand well as a former registered user (who left out of disgust), but know something has to change which in turn should help the fundraising. -67.171.250.39 03:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Put an end to this

Has Jimmy taken a look at the feedback his appeal has incited? There is an almost universally negative response to the way he is asking for money. People find it alienating and not in line with the principles they felt they were supporting previously by using/contributing to Wikipedia. I see no reason Jimmy shouldn't just get rid of this mess and cut his losses. 68.174.31.93 07:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at wmf:Special:FundraiserStatistics - that's not universally negative feedback. That is a big spike (although not as impressive as last year - possibly because the rest of the fundraiser did so much better). --Tango 17:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk with the governments - they may solve this

Governments of democratic countries may help Wikipedia and even help to improve the contents and grant academic validations. Wikipedia nowadays is a knowledge source of general interest and so governments are concerned.

What about the potential influence they may have/want on articles? -- Mentifisto 08:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Funding should never come from a government source! Run ads, do something, but I would much rather see if Wikipedia can stand on its own merit. Also moderators/editors need to face issues and individual concerns rather than just delete post, ban IPs, and attach labels. Then, perhaps more people would be willing to donate, besides you never know who you might disgruntle by these actions.--119.166.221.84 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Government- approved charity in more countries?

I see that Wikipedia is an approved charity in the USA. Donations may be better if it were made a registered charity in more countries (Wikipedia is an international educational foundation, after alll). I admit that this will require lots of paperwork, but it it may be beneficial in the end.

[edit] Censorship

I see a number of threads removed from this page claimed to be of topic. Some people, including me, were even blocked after and just for putting back the removed threads (Az1568:"Disruptive trolling on feedback pages"). Looks like we all have to see the Wikipedia stretched arm for alms - in pink.

It's wikipedia, duh. Of course there is going to be censorship from people who have power here but are 30-year-old virgins in RL. --68.17.232.123 05:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where do the thermometer figures come from?

The thermometer is currently saying $5.8m - where did that figure come from? The number the WMF is reporting to chapters as their total as of the end of yesterday is $5.2m. If you add on what the chapters have made not including last week (which reports aren't in for yet) then you get about $5.8m, but seems strange to base the banners on such incomplete reports - is that what is going on? --Tango 17:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[off-topic rant removed --Tango 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)]
No, the thermometer shows the amount of money raised from individual gifts year-to-date, that is, it includes individual gifts received prior to the fundraiser.--Eloquence 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Is it just gifts of $10k or less? The year-to-date figure on wmf:Special:ContributionStatistics is far higher. --Tango 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it's all gifts from individuals, but does not include support from foundations.--Eloquence 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why not sell Wikipedia branded products/gifts thru e-bay/amazon/Kindle/wiki projects?

Maybe something like a list of featured/baselined articles classified by Wiki projects? I would love to buy Wikipedia CDs/USBs/Memory Cards/Printed Books for offline use. J mareeswaran (talk)

[edit] What to do if the goal is exceeded

I say we divide up the extra money and hand it out to admins who have edited in the past year, hire more coders to fix the bugzilla queue, staff bonuses for Foundation staff, and keep working on trying to get a full dump. 99.34.78.67 17:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, we could do the responsible thing, and save it for a rainy day. 70.234.104.24 19:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of thing already in the budget? 99.34.78.67 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Censoring Wikipedia

I will donate if someone apologizes for this: link. 173.30.87.16 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


ADD: Sorry did not know HOW to create a new spot to type this but I did want to say I feel the same as you. I'm tired of Wikipedia being so politicaly correct. If I wanted to donate money to something political I would donate to the political parties. We need straight talk and no and I mean NO withholding information that might offend something or somebody. Wikipedia should be free of personal thoughts and say ONLY truth. If this was the case you would have a lot more support. This means you might offend muslims, christians, athiests, republicans, Democrats, far right, far left etc... Freedom of speech, freedom of information should always be at the forefront of every wikipedia page...


Yes, this is exactly the reason I am not donating to Wikipedia. I cannot support an organization that supports censorship, even under seemingly benign circumstances.71.174.178.50 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Launch_Feedback"