Talk:Fundraising/Archive 9

Welcome to the Fundraising team's talk page - content from 2022-2024 has moved to archive 8

The content has been moved to Archive 8. Please ask questions or start constructive discussions around the WMF’s fundraising on this talk page. If you would like to help with our translation and localisation efforts please ping me and I will get you on touch with the team. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed changes to fundraising banner tests

Dear all,

We would like to share with you our thoughts on running limited fundraising banner tests on English Wikipedia for non-logged-in readers, all year around.

Current situation:

Between July and December, we conduct banner tests on English Wikipedia for technical stability, payments, design, content, and other aspects, leading up to the End of Year “Big English” fundraising drive. These tests are limited in both their duration and percentage of readers who see them.  

As our fundraising program has evolved, we’ve realized that this timeframe provides limited opportunity for more in-depth testing, particularly on the technical and payments side of things, where our back-end development work is a constant and complex process. We can’t control the roadmaps of global banks and payment providers, which makes it even more important to align our testing with our own development cycles.

Starting January 2026:

To ensure we gather sufficient data for informed decisions to enable year-round optimization, especially regarding payments and technical systems, we would like to run limited banner tests on English Wikipedia during the full calendar year. This will help us to choose the right systems and features and make the donation experience smooth for our donors.

Recognizing that this shift may impact the on-wiki experience for some, we remain committed to not increasing fundraising banner impressions for non-logged in readers. Non-logged-in readers will see no more than 12 fundraising banner impressions during the testing phase of the year (January to November) on a single browser/device.

Please leave any comments you have below. Thank you, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi JBrungs. In what ways do the "roadmaps of global banks and payment providers" affect this issue? What are the limits on duration and percentage of readers who see them? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What % of readers typically see a banner in a "limited" test? Ganesha811 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, any frequent reader will see 12 so-called “test” banners on each browser/device they use, plus an unlimited number in December. That’s been my experience. 98.97.11.52 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What steps will you take to obtain the informed consent of your test subjects? 38.121.127.246 04:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

How often will people hit this 12 banner limit? How is it tracked? In any case, people already feel we ask for money too often. Extending this to year-round would only make that impression worse, whether or not the times they see the banner remain the same. ARandomName123 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

A reader will see 12 banners on any device/browser between January and November. We use CentralNotice’s built-in impression diet feature to set a max number of impressions. It is difficult to say when readers will hit this limit as it depends on their reading behaviour. Generally, banners will not be shown all the time on Wikipedia between January and November but only for short test windows throughout these months. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Just clarifying: is the current limit 12 banners between July and December? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, quick clarification. The current limit is 12 impressions per device/browser between July and November. A non logged in reader will then see banners again (if they have reached their banner impression limit) when the full fundraising campaign starts in December. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Unlike many nonprofits, we manage our own donation platform, donate.wikimedia.org, rather than relying on third party options. This gives us a lot more control to protect donor privacy, and helps us secure the most cost-effective processing rates. But it also means we take on additional work maintaining our own platform integrations with all the payment providers and banks we support around the world. This is full-time work, and has gotten more complex as we offer new methods, new donation types, and more markets. Payment providers and banks often update their systems on their own timelines—this could include changes to APIs, new security requirements, or the deprecation of older systems. Having the room to run banner tests year-round will help us ensure that the majority of donors in our big campaigns have the smoothest experience possible.

Regarding limits: during the testing phases (January–November), banners are shown to only a small percentage of non-logged-in readers for a limited period, for example 5% of English Wikipedia readers in the U.S. for 3 hours. We may run a longer test if, for example, we are testing adding a new donation method that needs more impressions to get enough transactions. We also cap impressions so that a non-logged-in reader will see a maximum of 12 banner views during this period on a given browser/device. We reset these parameters for the December campaign.

Hope this helps clarify, and happy to answer further!

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

How much revenue was collected from “test” fundraising in 2024? By how much is that expected to increase with these changes? 98.97.11.52 20:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The number of donations and total revenue we earn from any given testing window varies widely based on length of testing, % of traffic limiting, and what we are testing. Some tests generate a few thousand dollars in revenue, whereas there are others where the figure is higher. All revenue collected in pre-tests contributes to our annual goal for that region, and is reported in our annual Fundraising Report. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Payment methods are too exclusively American

I live in Belgium. I recently organised a small fundraiser at work and wanted to transfer the profits to the Foundation. I encountered the following difficulties.

1. As a European I was attracted by a possibility labeled SEPA because it carries the implicit promise of a cost-free transfer. Tried this multiple times, always hitting an error message.
2. I then tried to use my credit card but hit an error message again (yes, I checked the limits). Exasperated I wrote to the helpdesk, stating that I did not trust PayPal and how could I get rid of my money as easily as possible?
3. The help desk replied that the transfer by credit card had been made! Which is nice and worrying at the same time. If I get an error message on a payment I would expect the payment to have failed. I might even try again multiple times.
4. The donation page also contains a possibility to transfer to a UK bank account. However, since the UK is no longer in the EU (and they never adopted the Euro in the first place), this does not offer the promise of a cost-free transfer.

What is stopping the Foundation from opening an account in an EU Member State that uses the Euro? One of them even has English as a national language. It would save a lot of money on transfer costs. More importantly, it avoids technology that generates error messages, thereby increasing trust from potential benefactors. No mandates, no blank cheques, no sharks: just publish an IBAN account number with the corresponding BIC code and presto. What am I missing here?

Lieven Smits (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lieven Smits,

Thank you so much for your support of the Wikimedia Foundation, and for organizing a fundraiser on our behalf — we’re truly grateful. We’re also very sorry for the difficulties you encountered while trying to complete your donation, and we appreciate you taking the time to share your experience with us.

While we’re not able to offer a solution at this time, your input highlights the importance of continually reviewing our infrastructure and exploring ways to make the donation process more seamless for supporters around the world.

In the meantime, if you or others ever need assistance, our donor relations team is here to help. You can always reach them directly at donate@wikimedia.org, where they are happy to help you further and collect thoughtful feedback like yours to help guide future improvements.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, JBrungs. We're all doing the best we can :-)

Apart from continuous infrastructure improvements, would you give consideration to my proposal that you open an Irish bank account? According to the Fundraising/2023-24 Report the Foundation received $49,423,340.29 from Europe - which admittedly is not the same as the Eurozone, but that's still hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank fees we could save every year. Lieven Smits (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lieven Smits,

Thank you for your suggestion. I have passed this on to the team but we currently do not have plans to open an account in the Eurozone. For now, we offer the SEPA payment option for our EU donors. I am sorry that you ran into issues with this method and I hope this won't be the case again in the future. Thank you again for your donation and your thoughtful feedback. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lieven Smits: maybe it's an option for you to donate to the local chapter? Wikipedia:Donatie has information about giving to Wikimedia Belgium (and Wikimedia Netherlands). As the page explains, the focus of the local Wikimedia organizations is a bit different than that of the WMF, and their work in supporting locally is also very important for us. Thank you so much for your efforts, and thanks Julia for engaging in the conversation! Ciell (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Ciell, I will certainly consider that option when I organise something again. I will also have my thoughts when I see the banner next time. Lieven Smits (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Contributing just money, and not data

I was talking to a visitor who DID like to regularly contribute money during funding-drives, but he wondered: He just wants to be able to give money, but he doesn't see why he would have to contribute his data to do so. Why is that so? Mysha (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mysha,

Thank you for getting in touch. We collect and use various personal information from donors that includes: amount donated, address, donor comments and email address. Requesting this information from everyone best enables us to comply with U.S. laws as well as laws in other countries. Creating a single workflow for all donors, regardless of donor location or donation amount, is the most efficient use of donor dollars and WMF staff time.

Please note that we do not share, sell, or trade donor information with any other organizations or companies. For more information on what information we collect and how we use it, please see/share our Donor Privacy Policy. We also offer the option to unsubscribe from any future emails from the Foundation once the donor has received the initial tax receipt (tax receipts are sent to donors from the US) -- there's a link at the bottom of the email that takes you to our one-step opt-out option.

For an anonymous offline donation option, people can consider a postal money order, which may be purchased with cash. If this option is chosen, please make it out to 'Wikimedia Foundation' and send to: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. PO Box 98204 Washington, DC 20090-8204 USA

I hope this helps with the enquiry you got and please let me know if I can help further.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Not really; I'm not certain why you would value having a more efficient system over getting more money. But we've found a different solution: Not all ways to donate money to parts of Wikimedia do go through YOUR fundraising system.

Still, you earned the visitor's compliment for at least handling his question. Mysha (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but…

“…our fundraiser won’t last long” is a lie. Your fundraiser will last through the end of December, and apparently indefinitely beyond that. ~2025-29193-41 (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I am receiving three identical Wikimedia Foundation fundraising letters, all to the same address. I hate your wasting your funds on this duplication. How do I notify the committee? I've tried returning all three asking to be taken off the list, but they still arrive. There seems to be no way to talk directly to anyone. ~2025-31258-86 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you email donate@wikimedia.org where our donor relations team will make sure that our records for you are correct and unsubscribe you if this is your preferred choice? Best wishes, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

2025: was record, then a relative slump

I'm a bit worried about fundraising over the past week. We had record donations until a couple days ago, when the usual end of November/Giving Tuesday surge did not materialize. Data / Code. Splargle (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's unrealistic to try to exceed the 2020 and 2021 numbers. We are well above the 2024 numbers and should be thankful for that. ~2025-41974-76 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It turned out great; 2nd highest of all time, surpassing 2021 by $1.2 million:

• Total for 2020 at January 14, 2021: $126.7 million.
• Total for 2021 at January 14, 2022: $119.9 million....
• Total for 2024 at January 14, 2025: $118.2 million.
• Total for 2025 at January 14, 2026: $121.1 million.

(graph), (code for roll-into next Januaries). ~2026-31020-6 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we expect a 2024-25 fiscal year fundraising report to be published here in the near future?

@EHughes (WMF): I was looking for the most recent fundraising report, but only found old reports. Here are the publishing dates for the six latest reports and the person who did the publishing:

• 2018-19 September 30, 2019 SPatton (WMF)
• 2019-20 October 4, 2020 TSkaff (WMF)
• 2020-21 October 4, 2021 TSkaff (WMF)
• 2021-22 November 14, 2022 Pcoombe (WMF)
• 2022-23 November 8, 2023 EHughes (WMF)
• 2023-24 October 21, 2024 EHughes (WMF)

Is there any planned publishing date for the 2024-25 fundraising report? Larske (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Larske,

We have shifted the publication of the fundraising report to Q3 this year and it will be published in our Q3 from now going forward. We did publish some high level stats here in the meanwhile. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): Thanks for your prompt answer including a link to further information. However, I find it rather odd to place such important information as the change in the publishing ambition for the annual fundraising report hidden in a subpage titled "2025 banners" among the "ocean" of banner layout ideas and opinions and not closer to where the previous fundraising reports have been published.

Maybe you can add the currently planned release date for the report, preferably with a better precision than just "Q3", in a more relevant context, maybe under "Reports and Documents" on this Fundraising page.

You could also add a (red) link to the planned fundraising report for 2024-25 fiscal year to the Reports section of the template Template:Foundraising navigation/Content with an indication of the planned publishing date.

Like this: 2024-25 fiscal year (to be published on February 16, 2026) or whatever date that is in your current planning.

-- Larske (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion @Larske. I will add more information on this meta page early in the new year once we have a clearer idea about the exact publication date. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Larske,

Just a quick FYI, the fundraising report for 2024/25 is now published. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 Thanks! Larske (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

English campaign content feedback

Hi, maybe the text on the banners could be slightly changed. I think that the message "only 2% of readers donate, but we need the money" works against Wikipedia. It suggests that the majority of people do not donate and that this is therefore acceptable behaviour.

What about: "8 million people donate to Wikipedia, and they are becoming more numerous each year. Be one of them, and help us keep Wikipedia alive!" (feel free to adapt the wording and insert whatever numbers are accurate here)

With this, donors should feel encouraged that many people are donating, and that this is a desirable thing to do.

The idea is not out of the blue but based on simple behavioural psychology. I got it from the end of the chapter "Social Proof" in Robert Cialdini's masterpiece work "Influence". I for one would wager good money that this simple change could lift contributions measurably. Sommersdal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Messaging to Build Donor Trust

Hello all - I’m a regular Wikipedia user and small recurring donor (typically ~$25/year). I’m posting here to share my perspectives on fundraising messaging tone/tactics.

To be clear, this is not a complaint; I want fundraising drives to continue to succeed.

I’m also aware that the Wikimedia Foundation’s official fundraising principles now live as archived internal policy. This post is not an attempt to revise or replace those principles, but rather to offer a non-binding, community-authored perspective on public-facing messaging.

Context and Motivation

Wikipedia’s editorial independence is unusually rare and extraordinarily valuable. Unlike most large information platforms, it is not shaped by advertisers, shareholders, governments, or private equity. This editorial independence depends on continued public support from a large number of small donors - not because Wikipedia is currently insolvent, but because loss of broad public funding over time would eventually create incentives for concentrated funding and associated editorial pressure.

At the same time, many informed donors are aware that Wikimedia is financially stable and maintains reserves. When fundraising messaging compresses long-term structural risk into near-term urgency, some readers experience “trust dissonance” - even when the underlying concern (protecting independence) is valid and shared by donors.

My concern is not effectiveness in the short term, but credibility and trust over decades, especially with readers who value transparency and institutional resilience.

I think it is possible to improve the way that Wikipedia frames its appeals for donations by utilizing messaging meant to strengthen donor trust; in my humble opinion, this is a better way to build long-term support while also meeting the goals of fundraising communications directed at Wikipedia users.

Proposed messaging guidelines (community perspective)

The following draft guidelines are offered here as starting points for discussion, not as prescriptions.  That said, here they are:

• Be explicit that Wikimedia is financially stable today, while explaining why stability still depends on ongoing public participation.

• Describe the risk accurately as long-term capture risk, not near-term shutdown risk.

• Don't imply imminent collapse, shutdown, or desperation when none exists. Donors should never feel tricked after learning more.

• Frame the threat and timeline correctly; not insolvency tomorrow, but capture risk over time if public funding erodes and concentrated funding fills the gap.

• Appeal to stewardship and the simplicity of shared  responsibility, not panic.

• Make it clear that independence is not a one-time achievement but a condition that must be continuously maintained. Small donations matter because of how many people give, not because any one individual “saves” Wikipedia.

• Treat readers as adults capable of understanding structural risks, not as potential donors who must be emotionally cornered before they will take action. Ethical persuasion includes respect for autonomy; pressure backfires with informed audiences.

• Acknowledge that choosing not to donate is understandable; avoid guilt framing.

• Connect Wikipedia to the potential donor’s lived experience - not “support our mission,” but “support the fact that this page exists without ads, sponsors, paywalls, or agendas”.

Illustrative example (non-prescriptive)

The following is offered purely as an example of how these guidelines might manifest in a fundraising banner on a Wikipedia page:

Wikipedia is not for sale.

This page exists because millions of people like you choose to support it - not advertisers, not governments, not special interests.

Wikipedia is independent from influence because it is financially stable today. What keeps it independent tomorrow is broad public support that prevents any single interest from gaining leverage.

If you value an internet where knowledge isn’t shaped by profit or power, consider donating. Even a small contribution helps keep Wikipedia accountable only to its readers.

Donate to help keep Wikipedia independent.

That’s it. No countdowns. No guilt. No implication of imminent disaster.

Fear converts fast, but dissolves.

Trust compounds.

Invitation to discussion

I’d be genuinely interested in thoughts from fundraising staff, other donors, and community members in general.

If this perspective is useful, great. If not, ignore it. My intention is simply to contribute constructively to ongoing thinking about how the Wikimedia Foundation communicates its values to the public upon which it depends.

Thank you for reading, and for the work that goes into keeping Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation free to use, editorially independent, and agenda-free.

-An anonymous reader and donor ~2025-43807-52 (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting Wikipedia and for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback. The points you make are very much in line with our internal thinking: The Wikimedia movement is financially stable today; its editorial independence is its greatest asset; and credibility and trust over decades matter deeply. We also agree that we should never imply imminent shutdown or insolvency. The line you propose—“Wikipedia is independent from influence because it is financially stable today. What keeps it independent tomorrow is broad public support”—is a particularly clear and direct way to express this, and we are looking into testing this in our fundraising materials in the future, thank you.

On urgency and messaging tactics, we share your concern about trust dissonance, and we think carefully about how urgency is communicated. We’ve found that framing fundraising as time-bound, explaining that there is a limited window to give because we don’t fundraise all the time, and being clear that reaching a concrete goal matters, all significantly increase participation. We continue to test and iterate this approach through our testing methods across millions of interactions. One additional nuance worth clarifying is the distinction between long-term health and annual operational need. Most fundraising campaigns—especially banners and renewal emails—directly support the Wikimedia Foundation’s day-to-day work each year: hosting the servers that keep Wikipedia and its sister projects fast and reliable worldwide, investing in the technology that improves reading and editing, and responding to emerging threats. Annual fundraising is not about staving off collapse, but it is about sustaining the work that keeps Wikipedia running, reliable, and independent.

Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback. Best, ~~~~ JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Italian campaign feedback

the Italian translation of messages just sucks. I don't understand why Wikimedia Foundation refuses italian community feedback about languages and the tone of final messages is terrible. also the general vibes are off: people needs to hear "f*ck Grok, f*ck Elon, f*ck Pentagon-funded chatbots" to open their wallets and donate. --valepert (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we engage with the Italian community before our fundraising campaigns. We share a community collaboration page on the Village Pump, host a community call, and engage with the Chapter prior to the campaign. We share our banner and email copy for comments, corrections, and feedback with the Chapter and we share our banners with the community for comments and feedback. Additionally we have a community translator who helps with reviewing translations (done by a professional, Italian linguist) of content for the Italian campaign.

In the last couple of years, I have not seen any feedback regarding the banner campaign but I would be interested in you sharing this feedback. As this campaign is already live, it is now too late to change things but we can take constructive feedback on for our next campaign. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks @JBrungs (WMF):. sorry for my harsh comment, I don't want diminish the professional work by an Italian linguist, but on it.wiki community we have a specific style (example: we don't write "1 minuto" in an article but "un minuto") and I think these differences from banner and Wikipedia content sound strange (maybe the casual reader doesn't pinpoint the problem, but can understand that something is off...). we are lucky that we have translated messages (some communities still receive mails in English) but if the core message of the campaign come from WMF, I understand that users from the Italian Wikimedia movement doesn't engage with the process. maybe the next campaign will be more apt, but we need to gather opinions from the community now (and reassure the users that the comments will be addressed), not three months before publishing the banners. --valepert (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Valepert,

Please feel free to leave constructive comments on the community collaboration page now or at a later stage when they come to you. Our banner copy changes every year and I will not have the banners that will run in the next campaign until about 4 weeks before. But once I share them, the community has a couple of weeks to provide their feedback. As said, I am happy to take any feedback you have right now and share it with the team and we see if this can be implemented going forward. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign in Malaysia

Regarding the upcoming banner fundraising campaign in Malaysia, is there available context to why it is being restricted to just the English Wikipedia? If it is a matter of page views, is there significant overhead to extending it to other language wikis? Thanks, CMD (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Chipmunkdavis,

Just to let you know I have seen this question and I find out more for you. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I asked the team and the reason behind this is that we need a certain number of readers accessing Wikipedia in order to reach our goal (not everyone who sees a banner gives). The Malay Wikipedia does not have as many readers as the English Wikipedia in Malaysia (7m vs 45m per month) and we therefore priorities fundraising on the English Wikipedia in Malaysia. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for asking the team. That does explain why English, although it leaves unexplained why not the other languages. CMD (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. The stats for February show 7 million on Malay Wikipedia and 8 million on Chinese Wikipedia, which as a full third of the number of English readers I would consider fairly significant. Indonesian, Cantonese, and Tamil have lower but still large numbers. Are there significant costs to running a banner campaign in another language? Maybe translation? I'm really curious how many readers are required for a campaign to be "worth it". Toadspike [Talk] 14:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. I do not have an exact number of how many monthly users a Wikipedia version would need but, the costs for translation and adapting the banners to different languages is really high for us. With the lower number of readers in the other language Wikipedias in Malaysia, it will be difficult to recuperate these costs and raise funds for the movement. I hope this clarifies your questions. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If you'll pardon my continued inquiries: Why are banner campaigns country-based and not purely language-based? I don't see why Malaysia wasn't part of the Big English campaign. Then we could run one set of Chinese banners for readers of Chinese projects in all countries where the WMF is collecting donations, and another set of Bahasa banners (with variations as needed) for Malay and Indonesian (and potentially other) projects. Maybe this would be more efficient?

I'm also a little confused as to where the high cost comes from. Nowadays LLMs can perform near-flawless translations, meaning humans only need to proofread the output, and many organizations are getting rid of translators altogether. We should be taking advantage of this to run more campaigns in more languages. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

We cannot run campaigns in all countries as there are legal hurdles depending on each jurisdiction. You can see overleaf a selection of the countries where we can fundraise in. You can also find more details on our fundraising in the Fundraising Report. We work with professional translators to make sure our content is localised to the specific country we fundraise in (it also gets checked by movement translators and the local Affiliates). Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand, there is a legal hurdle to running an English campaign in Malaysia (and South Africa next?) alongside the other English campaigns, but no legal hurdle to running it separately now? CMD (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know, this is why I chose the wording "all countries where the WMF is collecting donations". Perhaps "all countries where the WMF is able to collect donations" would have be clearer. This unfortunately doesn't really answer either of my questions. Toadspike [Talk] 17:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Introducing the Fundraising Hub and a proposal to changes in banner fundraising on English Wikipedia

Hi everyone,

We created a new Fundraising Hub for English Wikipedia where you can engage with the fundraising team all year around on all aspects of fundraising. Our first post is already up and it would be great if you go across and share your thoughts on the proposed changes to banner fundraising. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF) These links don't lead to the right places. CMD (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@CMD sorry about that. JBrungs is away so I will share the correct links. Here is the Fundraising Hub and the link to the

first post about proposed changes to banner fundraising. Thanks, SPuri-WMF (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all. Just a quick note, I fixed the links in the original post as well. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Why is there a "Donate" button shown in the Finnish Wikipedia?

In your 2024–25 fundraising report, you mention that you've added a donate link to the desktop header menu. Why is this link also shown for Finnish users and in the Finnish Wikipedia? Wikimedia Foundation is not allowed to ask for donations in Finland, and thus banners begging for donations haven't been shown in the Finnish Wikipedia, or for Finnish users of other Wikipedias, for years. Clicking the donate button from a Finnish IP-address lands the user on this page, which just explains the users that they can't donate.

I suggest that the "Donate" -button is hidden from Finnish users, since it is completely pointless for them.

I've asked this before at Mediawiki, but the WMF folk there only acknowledged my question without answering it, so I'm asking again here. Valtaisa varpunen (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Valtaisa varpunen,

I just wanted to let you know that I have seen your message and am investigating what we can do. This may take a bit of time but I will try to get back to you as soon as possible. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Valtaisa varpunen,

I talked to the team and the donate button is part of the MediaWiki interface and we currently do not have a way to disable it for a specific country. If we disable it for Finnish Wikipedia, that would have the effect that people accessing Finnish Wikipedia from outside Finland would not see it either and would not have the opportunity to donate if they wish to do so.

If this changes in the future, I will get back to you. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Polish popular payment system missing

In Poland we have different popular payment systems. All are missing. You basically can only pay with a credit card directly or using a service that charges your credit card.

Popular systems in Poland:

• pl:PayU
• pl:Przelewy24

The most important is the BLIK system, both of the above support this type of payment. You can integrate the BLIK directly on the page; this is the easiest way to pay in Poland.

If you want to have donations from Poland, please implement systems Poles are using. Jcubic (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jcubic, just a quick note that I have seen this and will get more information for you from our team. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jcubic,

We do have BLIK available on our 'Other ways to give' page (here example when you go to 'one time donation'). For this campaign we did not have the time to integrate the BLIK option into banners as well but we will be working on this for the next campaign in 2027. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): thanks. Jcubic (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Warning to the Wikimedia Foundation

These banners that are asking for donations and making false claims about the website going bankrupt is "misleading and unacceptable" and is being used as a scare tactic to force editors to donate. These banners represent nothing but corporate greed and lies. The platform's fundraising strategy faces considerable public and internal critique: Substantial Reserves: Financial statements reveal the Wikimedia Foundation holds hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and investments, meaning it is not in danger of shutting down. Aggressive Language: Critics, and even some veteran Wikipedia editors, argue that the banners misleadingly imply the site is on the verge of going offline if readers do not donate immediately. Organizational Growth: A large portion of the budget goes toward expanding the Foundation’s bureaucratic footprint and funding adjacent non-profit grants rather than just maintaining the core website. another example: 1 July: Wikipedia still can't be sold You deserve an explanation, so please don't skip this 1-minute read. It's Wednesday, July 1st and you only had a small chance of seeing my message. This year, Wikipedia has had fewer visitors and fewer new supporters, so your visit today means a lot. I hope that Wikipedia's given you at least $2.75 of knowledge recently. If everyone who found Wikipedia useful gave $2.75, we'd hit our goal in a few hours. After nearly 25 years, Wikipedia is still the internet we were promised-created by people, not by machines. It's not perfect, but it's not here to push a point of view. It's run by a nonprofit, not a giant technology company or a billionare. (Lies) Less than 2% of our readers donate. The rare few who give do so because Wikipedia provides them with useful knowledge. If that sounds like you, please donate $2.75. Any contribution you make today helps. This is unacceptable. These banners are highly misleading, financially manipulative, and damaging to Wikipedia's reputation among the community. Thank you. ~2026-37825-93 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI w:Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#c-Nil NZ-20260701235300-~2026-37878-87-20260701225900. SCP-2000 03:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)