Talk:Fundraising

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


Payments from India[edit]

Can people donate from India with Oxigen, Paytm, MobiKwik, RuPay? See Digital payments soar by up to 300% after demonetisation. --Nemo 16:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Text of Dutch e-mail leads to suspicion of phishing[edit]

A got a message from a Dutch donor (through OTRS) who thought the mail he received was phising/fraud. This was because of 1 particular sentence: "Mensen hebben me gewaarschuwd dat ik spijt zou krijgen, <name of the donor>". Personally I must say I wouldn't trust an e-mail starting with that sentence either. Mbch331 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I'm also curious where this sentence comes from: I can't find it in the translation system.[1] --Nemo 13:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey @Mbch331:, what would you recommend as an alternative? Seddon (WMF) (talk)
A ping without a timestamp won't work. So pinging @Mbch331: again. Stryn (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Insults are a bad way to get donations[edit]

Please remove the comment about "the price of a cup of coffee" from the Israel version. When you write that our money is so meaningless that we should consider 15 shekels to be the price of a cup of coffee (the actual price being 6 shekels), you're probably not helping get donations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We hadn't heard that from any of our Israeli reviewers, but after doing a bit more research we have removed that line from the banners. We also have some tests lined up to see the effect of asking for lower amounts. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Donor records[edit]

I'm a bit surprised by the outcome at wmf:Resolution:Approval for the Document Retention Policy#Part B - Fundraising Department. Storing records for millions of donors for 10 years doesn't sound like a good idea: that's a lot of subpoena potential! Is there really such an excessive requirement by any applicable law? In Italy for instance most records can be deleted after 5 years, and I'd expect USA federal laws to have some minimum threshold on donation amount. It would be nice to reduce the amount or duration of the information recorded, e.g. for people who donated less than 10 $ (or whatever other threshold would exclude, say, 95 % of the donors). --Nemo 08:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Nemo bis:, I want to double check my response with legal to confirm but our data retention policy relating to donor records is in line with charitable best practice for the State of California. In the United States, document retention policies are typically shaped by the statute of limitation that applies to a certain activity, which can be set at both Federal and, most importantly in this case, State level. California which has one of the longest statutes of limitation for charitable activities within the United States at 10 years. So you are correct in that the retention policy is longer than usual in comparison to most charities and non-profits, but it is the norm for those based within the State of California. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia thriving[edit]

2017 USA fundraising banner, red letter followup.png
2017 USA fundraising banner, sponsored content followup.png

Maybe saying that donations "keep Wikipedia thriving" was an attempt at replacing the "keep servers running" deceitful implications, but the new phrase is even worse. There are two possible ways this can be read:

  • additional donations are a necessary condition – quite false statement, because we could have a surge in contributions for reasons independent from the WMF work;
  • additional donations are a sufficient condition – disastrous defectionist statement which induces potential contributors to boycott our community by telling them that only money matters, not content contributions.

I wish Wikimedia Foundation stopped its anti-Wikipedia propaganda on Wikipedia. --Nemo 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The nagging is ridiculous[edit]

So I open wikipedia, see a banner on top. Shrugs, normal annoying donation thing, close the banner.

Go to another page, now there is a banner inline with the text. Oh come on. Block with element hiding.

And then on the next page there is another one on the left side. Seriously three??? Blocked again and now I'm angry.

How can you possibly think that nagging the user three times on three pages, when they explicitly closed the banner the first time, would be a good idea? How is it that somehow, Wikipedia has become more annoying than actual ads without getting any of the money from actual ads?

I don't mind the nagging. Indeed, I find it astonishing that Wikipedia works at all. Wikipedia is admirable. It needs money. I get it.
However, for information, I remain unlikely to donate. Wikipedia is culturally Progressive during an era in which Progressivism grows increasingly totalitarian. Wikipedia-style Progressivism is not particularly nasty, I'll admit; but it is pervasive—as many, many others, on and off Wikipedia, have long noted. I have no idea how the problem could be any further ameliorated than it already is, but to fund the project is just not something I care to do.
Whether I speak only for myself or for a substantial number of Wikipedia's users is something you'll have to judge; but few Progressives appreciate the depth and breadth of the loathing their ideology inspires—and they do not appreciate it because they do not truly know of it—and they do not truly know of it is because of the (decreasingly effective, but nevertheless entrenched) punishments totalitarian Progressivism metes to dissenters who dare to speak. Mandatory ideologies will be resisted. It's a dilemma.
I do not believe that Wikipedia itself is the problem—indeed, Progressive Wikipedians though sometimes insufferably impenetrable are usually polite—but Wikipedia is substantially compromised by the problem, isn't it? At any rate, no funds are to be expected from me. Good luck. Tbtkorg (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia (US) Fundraising Banner from 30 November 2017[edit]

Wikipedia (US) Fundraising Banner from 30 November 2017 example.

I want to share one (modest) donor's first reaction to the text in the Fundraising banner displayed in late November 2017. I understand the power of customizing web content for user patterns, and it is clearly a huge business opportunity today. I know that privacy is probably a quaint notion in my/our world, and that ironically though I value my privacy, here I am posting something which can only serve to reduce it.

Still, when I first saw this banner with the following text (bold is mine) - the first part of it caused me to wonder, and perhaps worry a little that I was being tracked by an organization I have a deep respect for and trust in...

Hi reader in the U.S., it seems you use Wikipedia a lot; I think that's great and hope you find it useful. It's a little awkward to ask, but this Thursday we need your help. We depend on donations averaging $15, but fewer than 1% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $3, you would help keep Wikipedia thriving for years. That's right, the price of your Thursday coffee is all I ask. Please take a minute to keep Wikipedia growing. Thank you. — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder

I last donated (an amount which is above average I see) about a year ago. A second thought was, these statements are true, and indicate some insight about me, but doesn't acknowledge that I happen to be part of the 1%. I don't know whether my info is coming from the client side, or being derived from IP address on the server, but it is a mild concern for me. This won't stop me from making a year-end donation as is our habit, but I can imagine it turning some potential donors off. Overall the rest of the message speaks to me and I empathize with the awkwardness (and humility) of the ask. One person's impression, for what it's worth. R.a.dilly (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Donated, then account hacked 8 times[edit]

Donated to Wikimedia, CA on 1 Dec, 17. Account hacked 8 times in next 5 days from CA. Coincidence? Hmmmmm ...

[edit]

I think a balance needs to be struck between informing users and nagging them. For me, I know that the first banner I saw was very important since I didn't even know Wikipedia accepted donations. Whenever I see a banner now, I have two reactions: 1. "Oh yeah, that reminds me I wanted to give" and 2. "I don't like being bothered about it, so I'll give some time when they aren't running a banner." Because I can forget to give, I think quarterly reminders might be helpful. However, when I've decided to give or not give in a particular year, then banners are a nuisance. If banners are targeted to users, perhaps the option to set a time to be reminded (like next year) would be helpful. If not, I'd appreciate reduced frequency. Since I'm just one person, perhaps a poll should be set up to get the community opinion.