Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Angry Red Ink[edit]

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)

I'd like to see it in green. 99.27.134.128 07:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

be easy[edit]

why complain.lets support wales and his team

Ugh, this is worse than anything[edit]

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)
Someone needs to write a greasemonkey script to prevent it from showing ever again. I prefer seeing ads rather than seeing a website beg.


The Wikimedia Foundation is not running TV ads, by the way.--Eloquence 18:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In all honesty, I would love to see a Wikimedia TV ad. Just to know you're measuring the cost effectiveness of the media. Also Wikipe-tan. 99.27.134.128 07:02, 3 January 2010 (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.

I too found the banner annoying. You can click "hide", but the banner comes back again a few days later. If I click "hide" on a banner, I want that banner and all others for the same campaign to disappear permanently. I have donated to Wikipedia in the past, and will do so again, but I am not donating to this annoyance campaign.--Srleffler 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "[hide]" link was setting cookies. Did you change browsers or clear your cookies? 99.27.134.128 07:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Angry and switching to Citizendium[edit]

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)
There is also a "[hide]" link for those not fortunate enough to know how to install adblock. 99.27.134.128 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought police[edit]

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.

What? Please elaborate. 99.27.134.128 06:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

co-founder[edit]

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

24.116.255.49 05:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree

'Co-Founder' is more correct

Larry Sanger was also a founder of Wikipedia

"A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" is not correct.

Larry Sanger is also founder of Citizendium.org, the alternative knowledge base with trustworthy content.

Thanks for allowing feedback.

LSr

If we can get him to write the appeal letter in November next year, I say we call him the "Supreme High and Holy Exalted Tutnum Founder." 99.27.134.128 06:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe[edit]

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)

Put an end to this[edit]

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)
Statistics are not feedback. 68.174.31.93 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
No, but the money is. Actions speak louder than words, remember. --Tango 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, take look at the feedback!!! We care for you, we know donations are nice, but we are in recession!!!! Kittykat1000 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I LOVE WIKIPEDIA BUT TEACHERS DONT ALLOW IT !!!!

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

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)
What about multiple government sources, would that be okay? 99.27.134.128 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect my local university to go begging to its students or my local hospital to ask for hand outs from its staff and patients so why does Wikipedia do this? Wikipedia should seek funding from governments around the world for its activities - knowledge is a resource and a human right and should be funded by governments just as education, health care, transportation and social security are - this is yet another reason why Wikimedia Foundation should move away from the United States and into the real world.--217.203.140.56 01:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikimedia was founded, built up and structured in the United States, thus why should it be moved elsewhere? The United States is where this program prospered. Such a program would never prosper elsewhere. The government, in any country, will and should keep it's hands off of Wikimedia. If you do not like that, stop using the service. Thank you. 72.39.210.23 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Government- approved charity in more countries?[edit]

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.

There idea is for local chapters to be registered charities in their country - there are already some and more are being created every year. --Tango 21:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship[edit]

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)

What a brilliant comment. That sums up the attitudes of administrators on Wikipedia perfectly!--Xania 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't know what censorship is until you try to put a {{POV}} tag on w:cold fusion.[1] 99.27.134.128 06:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do the thermometer figures come from?[edit]

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)

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

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)

I am waiting for the opportunity to buy my Wikimedia or Wikipedia-branded OLPC machine. CBrown? 99.27.134.128 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia Stifle 14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do if the goal is exceeded[edit]

Active admin flight is a serious problem, with serious consequences severely impacting quality. Active admins are plummeting as reader and editor growth continues. This proposal for active admin incentives is not a joke.

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)
Sure, but there's no harm in having more saved up. There are plenty of things any extra money can be spent on. Paying admins would be very problematic, but hiring more developers would be a good idea and is entirely feasible (I think the budget already includes a few more developers). --Tango 21:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Are there any organizations in education (e.g., UNICEF), communications (e.g., FAIR.org), or organizations with which senior staff have been associated (e.g., the Red Cross) providing fewer incentives for their most important volunteers than the Foundation's treatment of admins? Why are so few people advocating for a reasonable response to this problem? 76.254.65.110 23:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@RodBeckstrom on Twitter says ICANN will assign .wk or .wiki global top level domains for about $185,000. Not sure whether that is per-each or for both. Someone from the Foundation, please find out. Think of all the typing and screwing with tinyurl and bit.ly http://en.wk/Article could save. That works out to way under a penny per reader. 99.22.94.58 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Censoring Wikipedia[edit]

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)

If you want to talk about censorship on Wikipedia, there are a lot more compelling examples than some guy who was kidnapped in an international incident and involved in a precarious hostage situation. How exactly did the treatment of Rohdes in accordance with established BLP policies hurt anyone? 99.27.134.128 06:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A somewhat serious issue[edit]

click for detail

A colleague of mine, who uses Wikipedia as a reader but doesn't edit, contacted me wanting to know why Jimbo Wales had an opinion on a multi-level marketing organisation (he'd apparently clicked on a link from outside Wikipedia to view the article). I was a bit confused, so he sent me a link. I finally realised it had something to do with the fundraiser, so I started an alternative browser and saw this image.

My colleague said it did not look like a hyperlink and he came to the conclusion Jimbo was either wanting to warn him about the organisation, or to recommend it. Can the wording of this be fixed so that it's clear that it's not relating to the article below it? Orderinchaos 06:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

<u>Underlining</u> "A personal appeal" might clarify things. That would indicate a clickable link to most people. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Never in a million years would I give one cent to the marxist supporters at Wikipedia. Good luck. Let me know when the servers are unplugged & listed for on ebay.

Below Wikipedia is accused of being liberal democrat. Wikipedia transcends political categories. 99.22.94.150 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

Donate to Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Personal Project? no thanks, all this gangpedia sucks

It's no longer possible to read Wiki without being flooded with donate ads. FFS

And without the donate ads it would no longer be possible to read Wikipedia. --Tango 21:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
GREAT ! I'd much rather read it from the original source. WP has become a Goliath that needs to be put in check.
We love you anyway <3 99.22.94.150 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Then read it from the original source. Is Jimmy coming to your house and making you read WP?
I love reading original sources. Editing is so much more fun with secondary sources though. 99.27.134.128 06:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This work is done by viewers for FREE. If you pay us all for our contributions - sure. But I am not paying you for not doing any real work. Its a scam - do not pay for it.

Yeah right. And so it's ok in your opinion to spend over $3,000,000 on the salaries of just 35 staff? Wikiscam!--151.65.62.157 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The figure doesn't seem obviously excessive: the average is only $85k per employee.--Srleffler 22:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Truth or propaganda?[edit]

While I use Wiki all the time for non controversial subjects- I have been advised by a wiki editor, and found out by myself too, not to even bother going to areas such as global warming, climate gate, or intelligent design as these areas are totally 'owned' by one side of the debate. To say 'the science is settled' is just to prove you are not a scientist but a dogmatist, and to give only one side of argument may win you a few converts to your army, but makes you a propagandist rather than a sincere seeker after truth. Its particularly nefarious that you trade on your honesty and and reliability on most things to slide in this propagandizing. If you really cant see the difference between the two different things happening here, then you are truly lost, and giving you money will only contribute to your moral confusion.

-

Addition from a second poster (me):

For anything that carries no emotional baggage, Wikipedia seems reasonably useful and accurate. For any issue where somebody somewhere has a bone to pick, Wikipedia is toxic dezinformatsia.

The issue of "Climate Change" is a primary example of the latter. Author Lawrence Solomon has had a few run-ins with William Connolley and the other Climate Change zealots that run Wikipedia's pages, apparently with Jimmy Wales's enthusiastic approval.

Here are some URL's (in chronological order) for those who wish to know more about the controversy:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-climategate-at-wikipedia.aspx

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/tags/Oreskes/default.aspx


I'll bet this edit doesn't last long once Connolley's zombies find out about it.

I'd love to contribute to Wiki, but as long as Jimmy Wales gives William Connolley and his buddies the ability to co-opt Wikipedia for their own propaganda purposes, I won't give one thin dime.


Wikipedia unfortunately is turning out to be just another propoganda tool for Liberal Democrate politics. The Libs seem to have a bad habit of corrupting every institution they get thier paws on. A Few Examples: Our Colleges, The National Endowment of Arts, Hollywood, Climate Science, The Main Stream News Media, Our Healthcare System, WIKIPEDIA, The Democrate Party. Wikipedia is still very useful for lots of non-agenda driven or political information. If you don't beleive me then go check out the Global Warming section. It looks like the wanna-be scientist AL GORE wrote the whole thing. The IPCC (the main scientific organization for climate change science) has been exposed as a corrupt organization. They have used false data, manipulated the information, were caught red-handed in there own emails talking about various ways of "HIDING THE DECLINE". Even when you go to Climatgate section you will see the typical Liberal, Factcheck.org spinning style of the truth. I laugh every time I see this propoganda from the Left. Unfortunately there are alot of people who actually beleive that Wikipedia is the gospel on all information. Anybody reading this post must be careful and their own common sense when it comes to searching out the truth.

There is a widely-available alternative called "Conservapedia" for those who hold views and beliefs which have been found to be inconsistent with the secondary peer-reviewed literature. 99.22.94.150 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

--

I totally agree with this sentiment. If there can be no tolerance for both sides of this issue, then there is no room for my tax deductible donation.

Personally, I am all for objectivity and constructive exchange of ideas, but I find sickening the fact that Americans treat the greenhouse effect, a phenomenon which was scientifically proven years ago, as a political issue. You would have us believe that the theft of personal e-mails from a university lab on the eve of the climate summit meeting was incidental and is in no way propaganda of its own. You would have us believe that those scientists who are frustrated by their failure to predict the coutse of a well established phenomenon are making propaganda against the poor, defenseless multi-billion dollar oil companies which pretty much run the world's economy. Well good for you. This is not an issue of debate really. It's like arguing with the cigarette industry about the ill effects of smoking. Wake up, you're not alone on this planet and the rest of us don't give a #$@% about your politics.

Maybe when...[edit]

Maybe when Jimbo's paid legal yes-men pull their heads out of their asses regarding the issue of the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act, then I'll donate a buck or two. Until then, don't hold your breath... -- Guess who.

If I understand you correctly, you believe Fair Use extends beyond what "Jimbo's paid legal yes-men" believe? And you believe that those legal yes-men are being too anal about removing or preventing contributions that they (the yes-men) believe don't constitute Fair Use (but you do), or they don't even want to risk finding out in court whether it does or does not? (I ask because studying controversy around Fair Use is a hobby of mine.) 71.174.178.50 06:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

yep. and i'd like to say that maybe when i change something on here and it stays put i will think it's worth contributing some money. when you've spent a couple of hours sincerely, lovingly and honestly editing something on wikipedia just to have it removed without explanation, to be left offended and wonder why the hell you bothered, maybe then. oh, and when universities don't dock your grades for having used wikipedia in your bibliography.

hmm... wonder if i'll ever see this little bit again....

Copyright paranoia is a serious problem, akin to over-compulsive deletionism. 99.27.134.128 06:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Target reached?[edit]

The thermometer says that the foundation has reached 6M$ out of the 7.5M$. But the 7.5M$ isn't the target of the fundraiser: it's the target for donations throughout 09-10 and judging from http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics, that target has already been surpassed. Unless these stats include grant money or earned income (I'm pretty sure they don't) then the foundation is where it wanted to be: the 6.5M$ in <10K donations is there and the 1M$ in >10K will clearly be reached since the Omidyar Network matching programme should bring in close to the maximum 500K$. Am I missing something? If not, I hope the foundation will consider cutting the campaign short so that the annoying banners can be taken down. 24.202.237.128 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your message. From what I saw in the Annual Plan you linked and the FAQ ("How much money are you hoping to raise?"), the actual target for this campaign is US$7.5M and the target for the whole fiscal year is US$10.6M (with US$9.4M in expenses). The ContributionStatistics page also lists more than just money raised during this campaign, it includes all money raised so far in this fiscal year (including large contributions from our benefactors and other contributions not made during the fundraiser). So no, unfortunately, we're not at our goal yet.
However, if we do reach our goal ahead of time, we will most likely stop the campaign early. I'm pretty sure that that's what we ended up doing last year. I hope this helps and thanks again for the feedback. Cbrown1023 talk 20:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's incorrect. The annual plan sets the fundraising target (i.e. overall donations over the whole fiscal year) at 7.5M$ but there's no specific target for the fundraiser. The 10.4M$ you're referring to is the planned revenue from all sources and includes grants (1.8M$) as well as earned income (1.3M$). In the 08-09 plan, grants and major gifts were lumped into a single class but they're counted separately in the 09-10 plan. In fact the list of benefactors also clearly separates foundation grants. I suppose Rand Montoya could confirm this but I'm pretty sure the contributions statistics only include donations i.e. both "small donations" (<10K) and major gifts (>10K). For instance, look at this section of the log: the 550K$ gift from October is clearly listed as a gift from "anonymous" and as such, it can't be grant money or earned income. 24.202.237.128 21:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Extra note to Cbrown: I appreciate your work of answering questions for the foundation. But in this instance, you might want to contact Rand (or the rest of the fundraising team) directly so that we can get a precise picture of all this. 24.202.237.128 22:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Cbrown1023 pretty much has it correct, but I understand the confusion. The goal for the fundraiser is $7.5M, which is a combination of our Individual Giving ($6.5M of gifts <$10K) and our Major Giving ($1M of gifts >$10K). As of 12/28/09, we are a bit shy of $7M. The totals may vary from the stat pages as we include all gifts from this fiscal year (since 7/1/9) while some charts are only charting the progress of the fundraiser which started in mid-November. Rand Montoya 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm still puzzled. If 7.5M$ is the goal for the fundraiser, then why does the annual plan show a goal of 7.5M$ in total donations over the whole 09-10 budget year? And what does http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics include? Does it include grant money and earned income? Of course, the FundraiserStatistics are self-explanatory and it's easy to understand why that total is 1.5M$ behind the ContributionStatistics. What I want to understand is simply this: what is the current amount of (Individual Giving + Major Giving) received by the Foundation since July 1st? To be honest, the foundation should be a little more transparent on that front. For one thing, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_reports is way out of date and for an organization that's just raised 6.5M$ in 50 days, it feels oddly amateurish. 24.202.237.128 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Geo IP?[edit]

I went to en.wikipedia.org, and clicked on the fundraiser... only to be redirected to a wikimedia page in German, because my IP address happens to be in Germany.

Personally, I feel offended by Geo IP that I can't escape, as it assumes one's language is necessarily the same than the alleged location of his or her current IP address instead of the language of the project one is coming from to the fundraiser. I won't donate to Wikimedia this time for this precise reason. Geo IP needs to die, as it runs contrary to a global Internet, of which Wikipedia is a part. It has no place in a global world. -- 213.146.115.42 04:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey 213.146.115.42, first of all, thank you for signing your post! Not many people do that when they post messages here and it makes things a lot more confusing.
I'm sorry you are upset about the GeoIP extension that we're using for this fundraiser. We usually don't do things like that and people get linked to the donation page in the language they're interface is set to, but we had to change it up a bit this fundraiser. We're joining forces with our local chapters (independent organizations in other countries that support the work we do) this fundraiser to raise money that can be spent locally, so that you more easily see the benefits in your country. In doing this, we have to link to a local "chapter landing page" that will allow you to either donate to Wikimedia Deustchland or the Wikimedia Foundation on the same page. (Germany's is Global Support/de.) However, if someone's just a German-speaking living in the US, we don't want to link them to that page because they would never see money spent in Germany. That's the reason we're using GeoIP, not because we're trying to assume the language you speak best is German. Cbrown1023 talk 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you Cbrown1023, now I better understand the reason for this. Alright, I may reconsider contributing, even though I still intensely dislike GeoIP. Thanks for clarifying. -- 213.146.115.42 01:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
What about using the browser language? -- 187.40.231.190 02:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Staffing[edit]

  • Salary budget for 2010: $3,000,000 (plus an additional half million for staff development and awards).
  • Staff level: 35
  • If everyone was paid equally, average comp per person: $85,714
  • You know that not everyone is paid equally.
  • Hypothesis, some folks are making some good money working for this not-for-profit.
  • Number of staff involved in development and support of the system: 13 (including mobile and 4 folks dedicated for a year to UI improvements--anyone seen any?)
  • Ratio of non-tech staff to tech staff: 2:1
  • Hypothesis, the Foundation has too much overhead.--70.251.178.130 20:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Biggest accomplishment according to Executive Director's letter in last year's annual report: moving to San Francisco.--70.251.178.130 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What an effing crock... wish I could get paid while volunteers do my work. Hypothesis, wikipedia is a sham. How do you justify 35 employees and still need $10 million? Seriously? What an effing joke.
Not all of the money goes to employees, little of it does. Most if it goes to running the servers. The other parts go to things like outreach activities (finding new contributors, teaching people about Wikipedia, sharing the content in places it couldn't get before). There's also a reserve fund in case of emergencies.
The number quoted is directly from the budget presentation as 'salaries'
I wasn't addressing you with that response, I was addressing Mr. "Effing". It's difficult to make it clear who is being responded to since you guys don't use usernames. Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As for the salary budget question, my understanding from reading the Annual Plan is that that also includes the nine additional staff members. That salary quote may also include money spent on contractors for specific projects (this is more common with technical projects). For other common questions about the Annual plan, take a look at the Annual Plan FAQ.
It is customary to show contractor expenses as a separate line item. Companies don't want to get in the position Microsoft was in where they were accused of treating contractors as salaried staff to get around paying benefits.
As for the mobile comment, perhaps you haven't seen our new mobile gateway: m.wikipedia.org. If you access Wikipedia from a mobile phone (or something like an iPod Touch), you automatically get redirected there. We have around 70 localized versions of the mobile module (I just counted).
Nice
Going to the UI improvements, there have actually been a ton and there are more on the way. However they're still in beta testing and you need to have an account to try them. (They're not ready for all users yet.) You can see more information about the Usability releases on their website. If you'd like to test out the beta version yourself, visit "Special:UsabilityInitiativeOptIn" while you're logged in.
Glad to hear something is coming, but the annual report presentation powerpoint even admitted that progress in this area was below expectations. Clearly not as much progress has been made then was perhaps originally desired.
Or it was just more complicated than originally thought. Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have any more specific questions or concerns, I'd be happy to hear them. Cbrown1023 talk 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
  • Bottom line - Wikipedia runs as a charity, where its beneficiaries are its employees. The more, the merrier. Some .org like SIAM have public bookkeeping where each supporter can clearly see what amount of money was available for the past year and how it was spent. Wikipedia has FAQ where you cannot see anything relevant to funding and money spending.
The reason you exist as a charity is for the benefit of your employees? Really? Most charities are charged with existing for the benefit of their cause, not for their employees. For profit companies exist to benefit their employees and shareholders. I think you just made my case.
Who said anything about that? The employees exist to support the volunteers and the movement. They don't lead glamorous lives sitting around doing nothing, many of them work late into the night (with no overtime, it's a non-profit) and have to come in on weekends. I see nothing in what I've said, what my experiences with these people have shown, and what it says on our public websites that would make it seem like the charity exists for the benefit of its employees. Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If the stats at the start of this topic are right then this is disgusting. Nobody should make more than an average wage working for a non-profit organization. If you're that much of a greedy bastard then go and work for big business. And if Wikimedia cared about cutting costs then they'd move to a cheaper location where they could save money and be freer to state the truth rather than in the USA.--151.65.62.157 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The budget for staff development of $285K includes 2 all-staff meetings per year, funds for job-specific skills training and recruiting costs. Recruiting costs include expenses for non-local candidates and hires and other one-time costs related to searches for key positions. The $295K for awards and grants is completely unrelated to staff and represents donations by the Foundation to Wikimania as well as to chapters and individuals for projects proposed by them.

WMF strives to offer fair compensation to staff. This is quite challenging given its constraints as a non-profit organization and the reality of the salaries and benefits offered by for-profits with which we compete for staff. We compete with large for-profit organizations especially on the tech front but we have to compensate staff within our means as a non-profit. The bottom line is that our salaries are within range for non-profit organizations and the people who come to work for the Foundation do so for reasons other than the compensation.

The tech staff numbers do not reflect spending for contract work (over $200K) as well as several tech positions related to project-specific restricted grants.

In terms of overhead, the remaining non-tech positions are not all overhead positions. In fact, there are 4 positions out of the remaining 22 which are predominantly Administrative. Four out of thirty-five represents 11%.

Moving to San Francisco was significant because we’ve had a larger pool of qualified non-profit professionals and tech professionals to work with. Our ability to hire experienced fundraising staff helped the organization grow the fundraiser from donations of less than $2 million in 2007-08 to over $4.5 million in 2008-09. VeroniqueKessler 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Ms Kessler's defense is not persuading. As it was said before, a transparent public bookkeeping of the donated and spent money does not exist. San Francisco hardly could be accepted as the best place of a larger pool of qualified non-profit professionals and tech professionals to work with. To run such business in San Francisco is a bit more expensive than run it, for example, in the Naperville/Lisle area in Illinois, where does exist a larger pool of qualified non-profit professionals and tech professionals to work with. If altruism and non-profit reasons were the leading ideas, then Wikipedia shall even move to Bucharest, Romania (for example) where all this non-profit business would thrive just for a portion of the $85,714 a year per capita. If you're that much of a greedy bastard then go and work for big business - yeah, the big business expect results mapped into the quality of products. What is the quality of Wikipedia articles? How come that academic institutions disqualified Wikipedia as a reliable and a serious source of knowledge? --138.88.251.112 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Complainers[edit]

I am not an active member of the Wiki community, at least not in the sense that I actively edit or monitor or otherwise play a creative role as so many thousands of others do. I am, instead, a member of the USER community -- one of the millions who depend on Wikipedia daily. Having spent my career in journalism, I've watched while Wikipedia has evolved from a dubious, dicey, error- and partisanship-laden cacophony into a responsible, reliable, and authoritative source.

I say all this because the griping about staff, salaries, Jimmy Wales, etc., etc., seems hideously misplaced. The 35 people who have been able to direct the elevation of this extraordinary institution to its current status deserve our praise -- and our contributions. The fact that they earn an average of $85,000+ a year suggests to me (contrary to other posters) that they are underpaid, relative to content creators and managers at the encyclopedias and other reference sources that Wikipedia has supplanted. The fact that Wales uses his name and face to raise money to make it even better would seem to be offensive only to those who would prefer that less money be raised, less consciousness be spread around. What he's doing is called marketing, and if it's a) not dishonest, and b) in behalf of a worthy product, we should applaud it, not criticize it.

I've never met Wales or anyone else on Wikipedia's staff. I am simply an impressed and grateful user. Our voices need to be heard, too.

I agree with most of that but the Wikimedia Foundation's overhead costs can give a bad impression. Most people don't realize that most charities operate on the same pattern. When you give a dollar to the breast cancer foundation, you naively expect that this dollar goes to breast cancer research (whatever that means!). It's perfectly natural for donors to question that overhead and it's the Foundation's job to explain why these costs are a) necessary, b) kept under tight control and c) in a normal range compared to similar charities. I've given a bit of money and a lot of time to Wikipedia, I'm grateful for the Foundation's work to keep all these projects running, I think they've done decent work overall and I find most of the strident voices on this page are being unfair. But I'll continue to ask basic questions about overhead costs and to push for increased transparency about both spending and fundraising (see earlier thread in which my last question is still unanswered). 24.202.237.128 21:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not share your sympathy. Jimbo is not underpaid; after his work in Wikipedia he has plenty of opportunities to make all the money he wants. I am not convinced that Wikipedia isn't a horrible thing. Technology has advanced unbelievably during the past century, and as far as I know, there is no less poverty and people are more anxious and depressed than ever. Technology without accompanying spiritual development is doomed. Wikipedia does not "raise consciousness." 68.174.31.93 21:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't it? Thanks to Wikipedia, a lot of knowledge is available to anyone who has an internet connection, anywhere in the world. Other projects are working on making internet access more widely available in the developing world. Between the two, this can be truly transformative, providing a valuable resource for billions of people who would not otherwise have access to the kind of information we provide. If that isn't consciousness-raising, I don't know what is.--Srleffler 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No. Information does not raise consciousness. As stated above, information without a moral and spiritual context can be dangerous. It took a lot of knowledge to create the atom bomb, and that didn't raise any consciousness. If the people behind the atom bomb had kept their scientific progress in check by their spiritual development, they may not have decided to go through with the plans. Both Oppenheimer and Einstein regretted their work on it. 69.123.133.170 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Another complainer here... Why does Wales ask readers to imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge?

Does Wikipedia grant every single person on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge?
Does it grant this to even one person?
Is a world without Wikipedia also without free access to human knowledge?

What a load of over-hyped garbage. It's laughable to think that Wikipedia needs 10,000,000 USD to run an unreliable catastrophe.--Lacarids 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Annoying message and wrong language[edit]

I usually ignore the banner message in EN Wikipedia but today I clicked it as I was bored. Of course it then gives me Jimbo's brawl in Italian as it assumes that I'm Italian. This was English Wikipedia so please give me this kind of bullshit in English regardless of where I live. Websites which present adverts or other crap to me in Italian just because I live there really piss me off - this is the kind of bullshit that drives me nuts. And how can I permanently get rid of the message? I'm not going to donate to Wikipedia because it's run by idiots, registered in the USA (not exactly the best place to make an 'independent' encyclopedia) and because it should be publishing proper accounting reports if it expects our money.--151.65.62.157 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Quote:

Hey 213.146.115.42, first of all, thank you for signing your post! Not many people do that when they post messages here and it makes things a lot more confusing. I'm sorry you are upset about the GeoIP extension that we're using for this fundraiser. We usually don't do things like that and people get linked to the donation page in the language they're interface is set to, but we had to change it up a bit this fundraiser. We're joining forces with our local chapters (independent organizations in other countries that support the work we do) this fundraiser to raise money that can be spent locally, so that you more easily see the benefits in your country. In doing this, we have to link to a local "chapter landing page" that will allow you to either donate to Wikimedia Deustchland or the Wikimedia Foundation on the same page. (Germany's is Global Support/de.) However, if someone's just a German-speaking living in the US, we don't want to link them to that page because they would never see money spent in Germany. That's the reason we're using GeoIP, not because we're trying to assume the language you speak best is German. Cbrown1023 talk 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When responding to my messages never quote "policies" or previous replies to different questions. I read the page before I add comments so I'm aware of previous answers but it's still not a good response. Geo IP is not a good thing and goes against everything that the web ought to be about. Now also please remove the extremely annoying message which tops every page from Bimbo Wales - you've got your money so stop begging!--217.203.140.56 01:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of annoying message[edit]

Since the goal has been met, take it down. You got your money, stop pestering me about a "special message" from someone who really doesn't give a crap. 76.112.35.218 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When was the goal met? I say we leave it up for a couple weeks for a victory lap. In the mean time, check the upper-right corner: there's a "hide" link. 99.22.94.150 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why a javascript link?[edit]

Making the donation like a javascript link prevents me from using the 'open in new window' option. Clicking to donate overwrites the article I'm currently looking at. Why? This overwriting is made worse by the fact that the donation link is at the TOP of the article. ie. I pretty much have to click on it before I read the article I actually came here to see! Can this be changed for next year, please? --220.253.188.86 09:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that we have to use JavaScript to be able to facilitate multiple donation pages that change depending randomly and based on certain user data. But I totally agree with you here, I feel the same way. I added that to the list of "things to remember for next year" that we've been consolidating. Cbrown1023 talk 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely it's annoying but also annoying is the "personal message" from that publicity seeking king of Wiki and the use of Geo IP which pisses everybody off. Wikipedia's dying so there won't be many more begging sessions in the future.--Xania 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain what it is about Geo IP that annoys you? --Tango 19:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I never forgave the foundation for that steak incident[edit]

It's one thing to get caught wasting the money I've donated to you - it's another thing completely to claim it's not being wasted in the least bit. I never forgave you for that, you won't get any more money out of me. Sorry but I will not buy Jimmy's friends another steak.[citation needed] 71.59.192.76 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just had to. You got a cite for this? 96.27.83.36 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't find one readily but I'll sum it up for you. I remember quite well because it broke my heart when I was a prolific editor at the English Wikipedia. Jimmy and his friends went to a very expensive steak house on the Wikimedia foundation's dime. They got caught. The foundation said: "What's the problem?" The problem is that my money was donated to help the world, not Jimmy's stomach, nor his friends, nor Ruth's Chris (I actually don't know the steak house but it works for my rant). I don't know that it was covered in the press but it made it's way around the Wikipedia community at the time quite quickly. 71.59.192.76 04:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
After digging harder I found this [2] - it says the expense was ultimately denied and I can't find a citation of the foundation's original response. It injured me so much though that I'm never giving them a dime again. 71.59.192.76 04:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can get him to switch to poultry, the agricultural processes leading up to his meal will only be emitting about 1/7th as much greenhouse gas per pound. 99.22.94.150 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh[edit]

Back to this again I see. I'm disgusted by the lack of attribution on the "Personal Appeal from Jimbo Wales" page. Nary a mention about the other founder of Wikipedia. Lot's of "I did this" and "I created this". When is User:Jimbo going to let go of his ego, and properly attribute the creation of wikipedia? This started out as a GPL project, and is now a CC project, and does require proper attribution. To skip on that flies in the face of the GPL and the Creative Commons. Paranormal Skeptic January 1,2009 2248EST

Attribution is required by law, no license can change that. One day they will find out. Guido den Broeder 19:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If we can get him to write the appeal letter in November next year, I say we call him the "Supreme High and Holy Exalted Tutnum Founder." 99.27.134.128 06:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Theres got to be an easier way![edit]

I'd much rather have this come out of my taxes or bootleg money rather than be bothered with an annoying message to help pay for this stuff. I spend way too much time feeling sorry for Wikipedia when all I really care about is laughing at my imaginary friends after I prove them all wrong using Wikipedia as a reference. Why can't I use Wikipedia on Twitter, yahoo, google, facebook, earthlink, etc... I hate typing WIKIPEDA.ORG... I just want to type "Pigeon Hole" or "Hole in One" or "Ace Ventura" why do I have to type www.wikipedia.org, then wait, then type, "blah blah blah enter. If everyone else can pay for the Web 2.0, 3.0 ... infinity.0 web services for Wiki media stuff, then I wouldn't have to pay for it and be bothered and waste time whilst trying to save the universe. Why doesn't M$ word or office products and Sun products have a Web 2.0 interface for like M$ cool clipart thingy. Just type in a name and you get cool clipart. Well they should do the same with Wikimedia stuff... type in a word get some Wikitionary stuff, and some Encyclopedia stuff. Just do it!

We would significantly lose our neutrality if we became a government-run operation (which government would you choose, anyway?). I have Firefox configured to go straight to the Wikipedia article on X if I type "w X" in the location bar and hit enter - it's very easy to set up (Google "firefox bookmark keyword" to find out how). That would save you having the type the URL so often. Or, you could just bookmark the Wikipedia search page and make a button to it on a browser toolbar. --Tango 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Customize Google for Firefox is cool too, and provides one-click access from the top of Google search results to Wikipedia (even though the screenshots on mozilla.org don't show that!?!) and a bunch of places I never go. If you rename the Firefox extension to a .zip, you can see the codes and set up things like PubMed, Urban Dictionary, SciSearch, Merriam-Webster, Twitter, or any of your favorite local, professional, or whatever other kind of search engine you want to search after trying Google, with just one click. It's awesome! Apparently the people who are reviewing it saying it's not supported anymore are completely unaware that it's open source if you rename the file extension to a .zip. LOL. 99.22.94.150 23:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this just a Firefox thing, or does everyone have a Google search box beside the addy bar? Doesn't that Google logo, when clicked, show options for using other searches (Wikipedia included)? That probably isn't a clear way of asking it, but... Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Language translations at the Commons[edit]

See Commons talk:Galleries#Country galleries about the mw:Extension:LanguageSelector. We need help, paid developers, and time for them to work.

Please add a few more days to raise more money - for the many problems, bugs, MediaWiki improvements needed.. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Please leave it open at least until mid-January. 99.27.134.128 06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove the annoying message[edit]

You've got your money so stop begging now. The notice is very annoying and a sadministrator needs to remove it now. It's a pain for many reasons - 1. because you've reached your goal, 2. because it's a Java link so won't open in a new window, 3. because it uses Geo IP shit so keeps giving me the information in a different language just because that's where I live and 4. because I don't want to give to Wikimedia because as someone said before, you don't see hospitals begging their patients for money (except maybe in the USA) because they get their cash from governments and the same it should be for Wikimedia. Stop asking for money because most of us don't give a shit.--Xania 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The goal was reached, yay! I kind of like the thing. You can use the "hide" link, unless you are stuck on IE 3 or something. 99.22.94.150 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Or (for people with accounts) you can go into "my preferences" and completely hide the banners from there. --Tango 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikimedia is American based. The United States is not a communist country, thus every little website, every little organization, does not get money thrown at it from re-distributed wealth. Now if you like that in your country, wonderful, but that won't be tolerated in the United States. I agree that the banner is annoying, I'm sick of it myself, but take your ridiculous anti-American jabs elsewhere. 72.39.210.23 04:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
What if it was to support languages other than English? 76.254.68.100 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A second attempt[edit]

Since the goal has been reached, I suppose this page will soon go stale. So I'll try again to get an answer to the question I asked earlier.

If 7.5M$ is the goal for the fundraiser, then why does the annual plan show a goal of 7.5M$ in total donations over the whole 09-10 budget year? And what does http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics include? Does it include grant money and earned income? Of course, the FundraiserStatistics are self-explanatory and it's easy to understand why that total is 1.5M$ behind the ContributionStatistics. What I want to understand is simply this: what is the current amount of (Individual Giving + Major Giving) received by the Foundation since July 1st? To be honest, the foundation should be a little more transparent on that front. For one thing, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_reports is way out of date and for an organization that's just raised 6.5M$ in 50 days, it feels oddly amateurish.

On a related note, I think it would be good idea for the Foundation to quickly explain how it will use its extra cash. It seems pretty obvious that revenues for the year will be significantly higher than the expected 10.5M$. The current contributions total is at 9.2M$, there will be close to 500K$ coming from the matching program, earned income is still slated to be around 1.3M$, some if not most of the grant money is still to come and although the pace of donations is much slower without the fundraiser banners, the next 6 months will surely raise a few hundred K$. 24.202.237.128 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia you're on, but I'm still seeing the banners. 69.123.133.170 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
He understands that, he's saying that the fiscal year won't add for a few months after the banners go away and that's what he's referring to. Cbrown1023 talk 02:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The donations raised outside the main fundraising drive are pretty insignificant, so they don't really impact the goal. The $7.5m figure is just donations, it doesn't include grants or earned income. I don't know what the WMF will do with money raised in excess of targets - most of it will probably go into reserves and then the spending plans in the next budget will be increased accordingly. --Tango 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose this actually goes back to my (still unanswered) questions above. If the "Contribution Statistics" reflect donations (and not grants, or earned income) then over a million dollars were raised in the four months before the fundraiser. Of course, these numbers are skewed by two very large donations but are there good reasons to expect these major gifts only in the July-October period? I'm as happy as anyone to see the Foundation in a secure financial situation but I'm concerned with its lack of transparency on the issue and the apparent turnaround on ending the fundraiser early. 173.176.12.117 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that ContributionStatistics includes grants. I don't know about earned income. The off-fundraiser income from small donors is generally around $500k / yr if I recall correctly. That's not peanuts, but it is also not a large sum compared to the $7.5m from the fundraiser itself. Dragons flight 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is really a transparency issue - detailed financial reports are published twice a year and an annual plan is publish once a year and all these numbers are made clear in those. The problem is just reconciling the various numbers we have available at the moment. Some increased clarity with the real-time statistics would be a very good thing. --Tango 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Clarity would be very good and it would be a fairly simple (though boring) thing to do. Yet nobody seems to be answering these basic questions in a precise way and that makes real-time stats useless. As for the various reports, the fact is that the 08/09 report is overdue, the 09/10 financial plan's donations target of 7.5M$ is inconsistent with the stated 7.5M$ goal in the fundraiser (see last year's press release: the fundraiser stats page gives a total of 4.6M$ [3] but the press release concludes it generated 6.2M$ [4]), the report on the 2008 fundraiser is still incomplete [5] and it's not even linked to in the fundraising reports page. It just looks real sloppy. 173.176.12.117 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The 08/09 financial report is linked to here: wmf:Financial_reports#2008-2009_fiscal_year. I agree it would be nice if the fundraising report was actually completed, but it would appear that just isn't going to happen - that report isn't to do with financial transparency, though, it's more to do with learning lessons that will help future fundraisers raise more money. --Tango 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the information on Wiki confirmed in any way? Researched?[edit]

I love Wikipedia and often cite it as a source of information but I have stopped doing that since I was informed that the content is not tested or researched. Is this the case? I'd have a much easier time donating to Wiki if I were assured the content IS researched. Crackpots can inject purposely false content and Wiki users would be none the wiser.

I'll give you a "for instance" on the only subject I feel I'm enough of an authority in which to do so. If someone goes to an entry about "searing meat" and types "A cook will sear meat to seal in the juices," does someone go in and correct that? Searing meat to seal in juices was debunked. A cook will sear meat to carmelize the outer proteins, intensifying flavor, but searing will have no effect on how much juice is retained.

My point would be that if Wiki pops up in a search of "searing meat," a user could read "A cook will sear meat to seal in the juices," and take this as fact, when it's incorrect.

You have failed at understanding Wikipedia - Wikipedia has a firm rule that says you must never trust the content in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is nothing more than a wall where people can write down "facts" all of which are supposed to be include references. You follow the reference and trust that, never Wikipedia. Your problem does not exist. Please choose not to give the foundation money for the proper reasons such as they are squandering it. 71.59.192.76 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

HUH??

Please hire more MediaWiki developers with any extra funds raised[edit]

The MediaWiki software is overwhelmed with unfixed bugs. See Bugzilla Weekly Report. If any extra funds were raised beyond the goals of the yearly fundraiser, please pay rewards to volunteers who fix MediaWiki bugs. And please hire more MediaWiki developers. For an example of an important, recently-fixed bug that took far too long to fix, see this discussion at Commons:Graphics village pump --Timeshifter (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Timeshifter,
our technology team is growing. We've just hired Priyanka Dhanda as Code Maintenance Engineer, and Mark Hershberger as a contract engineer. We have to be careful in terms of scheduling hires so that their on-boarding, orientation and management can be properly managed. And, while there are plenty of open bugs, we have to carefully asses which positions are the most critical, as we're stretched thin in virtually all areas (e.g. we do not have a full-time database administrator on staff). We're also still in the process of placing the Chief Technical Officer position, which is of course essential going forward. I hope we'll be able to complete that process later this month.--Eloquence 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for the detailed reply. I had a feeling things were stretched. Maybe volunteers can be paid something, even a token amount, when they fix bugs. That recognition and appreciation might encourage the fixing of more bugs, and might be cost effective. I don't know how the Wikimedia websites manage to keep going with the huge and ever-increasing number of page views. Then there are the usability projects and proposed projects... I think the Wordpress.com model is worth considering. They use minimal (as in rarely seen) ads. It is a model that scales well. For more info see the link in the userbox:

Ads button.png I support on/off buttons for opt-in ads on a nonprofit Wikipedia for all readers (via cookies).


--Timeshifter (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how well you hide the adverts, it would still cast doubts on our neutrality. I don't think we would make much money from opt-in ads since so few people would opt-in - it would only be editors, not readers, and editors are a very small group compared to readers. --Tango 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Fewer and fewer people oppose opt-in ads. At least in village pump discussions. No one is forcing people to read, view, or listen to ads. More people may be mad about the huge fundraising banners.
Few ads are needed to raise money. Out of 300 million visitors a month it would take less than 1%, much less, to make a serious dent in our bills. Wordpress.com is doing well with few ads. It is very popular, and covers many viewpoints. I am not sure I have ever seen an ad on Wordpress.com it is so rare. At least rare to me. See: en:Wikipedia:Advertisements#Arguments for optional adverts. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason you have never seen an ad on wordpress.com is because there aren't any there. This "about wordpress.com" page says: "How do we pay for everything? WordPress.com is run by Automattic which currently makes money from the aforementioned upgrades, blog services, Akismet anti-spam technology, and hosting partnerships." No mention of ads, opt-in or otherwise. --Tango 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Precisely my point. The ads are so spread out that many people do not know that ads are used on WordPress.com. It doesn't take many people choosing ads to make a significant contribution. WordPress.com uses minimal as-needed ads. Most people don't know that the millions of free blogs (see the timeline charts) on the Wordpress.com site are funded partially by ads, since only a few ads are used throughout the many blogs. It is unlikely that most readers will ever notice an ad. From their "Features You’ll Love" page: "Advertising. To support the service we may occasionally show Google text ads on your blog, however we do this very rarely. You can remove ads from your blog for a low yearly fee." See also their advertising page: "To support the service (and keep free features free), we also sometimes run advertisements. If you would like to completely eliminate ads from appearing on your blog, we offer the No-Ads Upgrade." Wordpress.com is almost as popular as Wikipedia. It has a worldwide Alexa traffic rank of 20 compared to Wikipedia's rank of 6 (as of December 2009). [6][7]. Matt (Wordpress.com staff) explains their ad use that started in August 2006:

Why are we talking about ads here? This section is about hiring MediaWiki developers. A discussion about ads does not belong on this page at all, in fact, because it's a matter for the community and the board to decide. AFAIK, we've committed to no ads for the foreseeable future, so that's not something that's going to change, especially not by fundraising staffers/team members. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The difference between 6 and 20 on Alexa is pretty big - Wikipedia gets 4 times the pageviews wordpress.com gets (according to Alexa, which I don't consider a remotely reliable source due to a massively biased self-selecting sample). --Tango 13:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) User:Eloquence wrote: we're stretched thin in virtually all areas. There are over 4000 open bugs listed in the Bugzilla Weekly Report. It has been that way for a long time. We are not raising enough money. These are serious bugs.

In a comment dated March 7, 2008 on his Wikipedia talk page Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has stated

While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Wikipedia, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals. Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years.

There are many fundraising proposals that are not part of the binary yes/no discussion concerning non-optional, in-your-face ads. See: strategy:Advertising, strategy:Category:Proposals on funding through advertising, Opt-in Google-ads, etc.. There have been discussions on various Village Pumps. Fundraising staffers/members are part of the community that decides how to raise funds.

strategy:User:Eekim, who is leading the Wikimedia Strategic Planning process, wrote about the opt-in ads idea: "Great stuff, Timeshifter. I copied some of this information over to the advertising page, which also has additional links and context." See that discussion: Financial Sustainability Task Force Question 2/Timeshifter. Many people who don't follow the issue don't know that there have been many discussions where the opt-in ads idea has been brought up by many people. It is a common topic.

I just think we need more funds to pay to get many more bugs fixed. I'm open to ideas. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know what currency STO is?[edit]

on contribution stats page ContributionStatistics Zoothoney 01.11, 6 January 2010 (GMT) (sorry, I don't know how to sign off correctly, hope this acceptable)

It's an individual donation made in stock as opposed to cash.--Eloquence 01:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP-centric thank you notice[edit]

The "Thanks from Jimbo" notice, and the page it links to, are very Wikipedia-centric, and, where they appear on non-WP projects, strongly imply that they are part of Wikipedia, which is not true. Would it be possible to change all instances of "Wikipedia" to "Wikimedia" to make this notice more compatible WMF-wide? Tempodivalse [talk] 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree here. The banner is, bluntly, damaging to smaller projects that work very hard to establish a separate identity. The last thing I want is to contact the next FBI member on my list only to be told he doesn't deal with Wikipedia. How hard would it be to stick the proper logo onto each project's banner at the very least? Wikinews has come very close to issuing an apology to its readers over how they have been intentionally misled depite the protestations of our project, and I'll bet my left testicle we are not the only project to have requested something be done about it. Would make for some interesting media attention if the newswires covering the fundraiser got a look at some of the dicussions raging about this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree about this. Making the campaign come off as being Wikipedia-centric does spread a sense of alienation with the other projects, and as I've said to others, could cause users to be turned off because of undue confusion caused by the impression that project x, y or z is part of Wikipedia, when it indeed is not. Calvinhrn 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising[edit]

"This is where we protect Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by the people." how does one donate to one of the other projects? (i.e. wiktionary or wikibooks or something.)

Send in a check with a note to the Foundation saying, "Please use this only to support Wiktionary or Wikibooks," with the understanding that it is necessarily within the right of any U.S. corporation, profit or non-profit, to agree to and then change their mind about agreeing to such a request if it would not be cost-effective to carry out, whether or not the corporation's opinion of what is and is not cost-effective agrees with yours. Or, they can accept your request and offset it with discretionary funds as part of the normal adoption of the budget, which could nullify your request. The Foundation could also refuse your request and return your check if they thought you might be trying to set them up somehow. Also, if you send special instructions with a small donation, it might not even be cost effective for the Foundation to think about what to do with it, and they are within their rights to throw it away without even returning it. Dual Use 07:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But there is no way to donate directly to the other projects, only to wikipedia and ask them to share it with the other projects too? I click on "Donations" on wiktionary and it brings me to a wikipedia donations page with no mention anywhere of the other wiki projects.

Most of the money spent by the Foundation is on things that benefit all the projects (they all use the same software on the same server farm, for example, so most of the technology spending benefits them all, and that is a large proportion of total spending). The fundraising drive mostly talks about Wikipedia because that is the project most people know about, so we get more donations if we talk about it. --Tango 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

Dear Deletionmaster General. Because of having seen articles and contributions removed, I don't write articles nor contributioons anymore. Needless to say, I also don't waste any money on this project. Encyclopaedia Britannica is done professional and you will get even much more values for your money...

You may want Deletionpedia. Dual Use 07:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that deletions are getting increasingly disturbing. --Nevit 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two articles about why people are leaving wikipedia or stopping contribution.
* http://www.ischools.org/oc/conference08/pc/PO4_iconf08.pdf and
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/25/wikipedia-editors-decline
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/wikipedia-losing-disgruntled-editors
* http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10403467-93.html
* http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/clay-dillow/culture-buffet/wikipedia-decline-scientists-search-answers-wikipedias-numbers
The major reason seems to be the deletion of contributions by admins backed by wikimedia foundation.
--Nevit 20:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some way to gain money[edit]

You might have seen many web pages who use content and images from wiki sites without proper attribution. The creative commons license and GFDL automatically revoke when proper attribution is not done. But many users like me who contribute mainly by images and others do not have resources to fight those who use the content without attribution. However I might agree if wikipedia hires a lawyer to follow the copyviolations. I might even agree if wikipedia and the lawyer each want some share of the potential revenue. This is something to think about. Please take some time to evaluate it properly. Many users might agree like me, and this will benefit the 3 sides. --Nevit 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?

A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms.

More info: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

--Nevit 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Q-? Were is[edit]

Were is the "...public donor list." Listed ?

If the Public Donor List exist, were is it listed and why is it not linked to the line that allowes donators to select " Please list my name (next to my comment) on the public donor list." ? 11:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The public donor list is located at wmf:Special:ContributionHistory/en. You get linked to it after you donate, and it's also linked to on a few of the other fundraising pages. Cbrown1023 talk 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sister project donation pages[edit]

Currently, every English Wikimedia project has a "Donations" link in the sidebar, which links to foundation:Support Wikipedia/en. This page is titled "Support Wikipedia", has "Wikipedia Forever" in a huge banner at the top, and mentions Wikipedia specifically throughout the whole page ("This is where we protect Wikipedia...", "Wikipedia is a nonprofit project...", "Your donations keep Wikipedia going.", "Wikipedia has become...", "Even though Wikipedia is...", "Wikipedia is nonprofit and relies on..."). This is not appropriate for a page that is being used for all Wikimedia projects, and pushes the idea that the sister projects are part of Wikipedia. Can someone please make some separate donations pages for the other projects? --Yair rand 18:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative would be having another page that just said "Support Wikimedia" instead of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that this is on the list of things to remember for next year, by the way. Cbrown1023 talk 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
We can't leave all the projects linking to the WP donations page until the next fundraiser. Could someone with a foundation site account make an alternative donations page? --Yair rand 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Same trick, every year.[edit]

Yes, the same trick is up again this year. "A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales." And when we click on the link, what do we see?! You guessed it! The standard quote by the infamous Jimmy Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

Wikimedia is using a cheap trick to beg for money. I was considering donating last year, but not after this disaster of an advertisement.

Have a better trick? Because a lot of community members have spent a lot of time trying to find one. Tomorrow we're testing 50 more banners... Your input is welcome at FR2010. Philippe (WMF) 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
In addition, the reason it's the exact same trick as last year, is because the Fundraising team is testing a bunch of banners (new ones and old ones) to see which ones work better. They'll be using this information to determine what types of banners to make for this coming fundraiser. They're not being lazy and using the same old text as last year for the whole time; they're just testing with it to see if anything else can do better than it, and why those things do better. As Philippe said, your input is welcome on those pages! You seem like you have a few ideas of where to improve the banners, so please help out and join in on the discussion and/or propose your own banners! Cbrown1023 talk 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)