Talk:Fundraising 2007/2008-01

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

This looks bad, and is

Program Services 185 4% Legal 182 4% Board of Trustees 201 4%

how come different numbers of dollar with the same percentage?

200 / 5000 = 4%
185 / 5000 = 3.7%
182 / 5000 = 3.64%
All those percentages round to 4%. A greater degree of accuracy is not required. --Tango 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I added the figures in answer to the question, they aren't part of it. :)

A link on my webpage

I have donated to Wikimedia, and I would love to have some artwork or a logo that says I'm a supporter. Does anything exist?

Check if you like anything that's on this page :). PatríciaR 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not accept credit cards?

I'm keen to donate but don't want to sign up with Paypal.

It used to say on the front page "You don't need a Paypal account to donate" but it seems that this meant "... because you can create one now".

Please can you link in a normal credit-card processor, and let people like me donate through this? It's not like there will be much fraud, donating to this cause?!

Thanks, Thomas (thomasonline)


I have always contributed for wikipedia. I usually give 20 or 25 dollars, which is a really high amount ,given the status of developing country Brazil, where I live, has. Besides, in order to add furtherevidence that I have a really good will, I must say not only I don´t get a tax discount, but I pay the same quantity because this donation is considered as tax import. So, in total, I pay 40 or 50 dollars.

Now, I shall state the reasons of why I am not donating on this fundraising:

1. Spending money on moving HQ to other city is worthless, specialy an expesive one. Wikipedia is not for profit, not even a developer of technology. It is, or at least I think it just must be, an online database used to share knolegde. There is no reason to give my money to help this moving.

2. Jimmy Wales and almost all leading board and admins, are just big hypocrates, for the sole rea son of supporting his objectives stated on his. Throught all campaing it is put a huge tone on helping developing world. So, why spending SO MUCH MONEY ON USA? There are several developing countries which could host the all fundamental and important activities for the same price and efficiency. Some sugestions: Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, India, etc. And for a mere 400k you could have a well paid team, with 10 people, in any of these countries. The life costs are much lower, so that´s an advantage.

3. It is stated on the objectives that with 6500/4500 USD (65/45 for 100 people), you can send 3 students to wikimania. That doesn´t make sense. With that money you double the number of Wikipedia Academy in Africa, for example, as it is stated in the advertisement.

4. The incresing laziness in the last months to look for abusing admins. That makes it harder to or inhibit editors to contribute.One of the reasons for this, it ist here is no consesus not even a serious and open discussion to what it to be considered a notorious subject or not. I cannot trust to make research on more obscure subjects if I am not sure if the page will be deleted or not. I can´t give money for something that will be usuless for me.

I conclude that many on the trustee board wants easy money and fame. Also, admins are given green cards to live without clear rules o behavior. So no, I can´t donate anymore until this mess is corrected. MTd2 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I Agree! Wikipedia should increase the amount of information in the Developing countries! Me no donating Either!

Sue Gardner is my hero !!

I am proud to say Sue Gardner is my hero and here's why:

  • With an enlightening memo, Sue Gardner announced the most rational choice of moving to one of the most expensive cities in USA. The reasoning given and the empathy shown to WP employees is unparalleled. Known for being a positive and dynamic hero, she declared "I recommended to the board that the Foundation relocate to San Francisco.". Read more of this illuminating memo here.
  • And to top that off, Sue Gardner plans on spending only $500,000 this year in achieving this great dream of relocating from the suburbs of Florida to a true world-class city. And mind you, the salary for her personal assistant is included in that half-a-million dollars!!
  • From her past experiences of exemplary leadership positions, Gardner will move WP into a dynamic vibrant active community. Her background is particularly suited for running a revolutionary organization that is among the top10 sites of the world. Her experience in broadcasting industry will command instant recognition and respect in the silicon valley.
  • With superior budgeting skills, she managed to maintain a tight fiscal regime of spending only $2,100,000 on non-technical activities. With such a small budget, she has managed to allocate and efficiently marshal resources including finance, administration, travel expenses etc. Note that because of her extraordinary vision of relocating to San Francisco, she will reduce travel expenses of the four annual board meetings too! More on budget here.
  • In these troubled times, her experience as a commander-in-chief of millions of volunteers will lead us to great times of hope and exuberance.

With that said, I have contributed to the past WP fundraisers and been an active contributor to WP articles over the past four or so years. Now, I am so happy to donate to this fundraising event. Thank you!

Oh, What a joy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Agree! I will vote for her during the next United States presidential election! —Fellow, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Paypal error

Copied from wikimedia:Talk:Donate. Cbrown1023 talk 05:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I managed to somehow get the Paypal tab stuck in a state where it kept saying "we can only accept whole amounts". I don't know what this means; I was able to donate a non-whole amount of USD in the end; it said it no matter what value I entered. Switching tabs and returning did not fix the problem, but a refresh did. Sj 05:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It did this to me too, it was because i was playing around on the credit card tab and put .50 to see if i could donate that, then switched to the paypal tab to enter my real donation. Using firefox. It should clear the amount when u switch tabs. 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's blog entry

Would somebody please remove this blog entry from the sitenotice? It's horribly inappropriate to link to a blog entry that accuses Professors and Librarians of hating Wikipedia because it makes life too easy for students. Do we really want to so publicly spread the message "we think academics and librarians don't care about access to knowledge?" What utter garbage. Snowspinner 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

seconded Anthere 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we remove the blog thing altogether?... Patrícia msg 15:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
But isn't it true? Wikipedia is really an open source movement against professors and librarians and custodians of knowledge, no? We would rather see them gone than suffer them, no? Very soon there will be a Wikipedia University, where anyone can teach.

Sponsorship by National Research and Education Networks

I would donate to The Foundation if I did not see that most of the major costs - hardware and bandwidth - could not be done away with through sponsorship (hosting) by a group of NREN. In fact I cannot see how the Foundation expects to reach its goal of spreading global knowledge without their participation. The P2P Wikimodel demands that its relationship with NREN's like SURFNET be cultivated so as the techs who R&D initiatives like understand how a global group's content and communication may be best supported, extended, diffused and remixed.

Eventually, if initiatives like the quality programme are to grow legs, the professors and librarians who are confronted by the latest Fundraising message must be folded into the Wikimedia community and, in groups (committees/panels), be given the opportunity to take some ownership for the quality of, and access to, the Wikimediated content. The only way that can happen is to have it hosted on the inside of an NREN and become part of the academic furniture. From there perhaps some professional librarians might be able to build some useful global directories, and classify content for cross border and inter-lingual learning.

Besides, the Foundation has shown that 'their' Wikis are one good way to build (interactive) libraries these days. Sooner or later the libraries (and conferences) will have to be complemented by some very high bandwidth Communication tools like the Accessgrid, and no one Foundation will have the means to make those tools available to their global committees. My best regards,--Simonpedia 22:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be opportunities for partnerships, and I'm sure the Foundation would be happy to engage in reasonable ones. However, I also think you are not understanding the scale of the problem. Wikipedia, as the 8th most popular site on the internet, processes 25,000 requests / s for ~2 Gbits/s. Or converted to daily figures that is 2 * 109 requests and 22 TB per day. All of planet-lab's various initiatives only generate 3-4 TB / day on 5*107 requests. As far as I know, there are no research networks anywhere with the spare capacity to handle Wikipedia. And even if there were, they still don't get bandwidth for free. Someone is still paying for it, and convincing other people to pay for a substantial chunk of Wikipedia's bandwidth would not be easy. It is not like there is some source of free bandwidth and hundreds of servers that Wikipedia could jump to in order to write off current infrastructure costs. Dragons flight 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking if UNESCO could fund Wikipedia. MTd2 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guys, I'm not approaching at this as "looking for spare capacity". I'm looking at this from the perspective of trying to bring together and progress the aims of The Foundation's Wikipedia, Wikiuniversity, WikiCommons and 'quality' initiatives. I used planetlabs only as an e.g. of how the research networks are trying to build a cyberinfrastucture based around grid technologies (sharing a group's CPU'S across NRENs). Wikipedia has proved it is the way forward in encouraging the building of cross border and cross language libraries. The only alternative is to take this UN sponsored approach (and duplicate for every language). (WDL)

Every researcher in every NREN knows that the (interactive) wiki approach is a key here. I often ask the ones i know to add their latest research as a link or reference to an appropriate article. Often they do, primarily to advertise their research. Also, they often come across articles where a translation isn't done, or isn't directly linked to a language they can understand, so many will see the need to reclassify articles into "cross lingual" directories for (similarly researched) articles.

This brings me to the point. We are seeing the growth of interactive networks based around global groups rather than National institutions (networks) pumping their 'siloed' papers out. The problem (it seems to me) is that although Wikimedians have given a (bloody) good start at building a WDL, we haven't spent as much time in helping them to communicate (both asynchronously and in Real time). And it will take more than a few million to help them do so. But first step first. If this is of interest, we need a proposal re: the hosting, which could be presented to a group of NRENs. But I do need to know that I'm not just whistling in the wind, and I can't do it by myself, and I'm new here. So where might be the best place to start?--Simonpedia 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For information regarding Wikipedia's architecture and technical needs, you should talk to Brion Vibber (brion <at> For more general information, I'd suggest contacting the office of the Executive Director, Sue Gardner (sgardner <at> I'd suggest that you are likely to get a more practical response if you have something specific in mind. Dragons flight 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, there is a mailing list for discussions of the Foundation that you may want to join, foundation-l. Dragons flight 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my dollar

I wanted to donate more then that, but I need to use another bill to tape to my screen to block that god awful fundraising ad. ZacBowling 03:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can easily hide it by clicking "Hide this message" while logged-in. Cbrown1023 talk 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really the point. Most users are anonymous and the "Hide" link is still there for them. It's horrible, ugly, and degrades the quality of all the wikimedia sites its on. ZacBowling 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Increasing the pressure on the wikimedia community

In my home project I've suggested few initiatives intended to increase the conrtubutions from our local wiki community, which where promptly rejected by claims as "It's the readers who should contribute money, not us the editors". It might be true that regular writers do make large contributions in that unmaterialistic manner, but nevertheless, we need money in order to keep running, a lot of it.

And the most easy and available pool of contributors is obviously those who are attached the most to out projects, those who spend the largest amount of their time in the projects, and those are definitely us, the regular editors.

Sure, we would all be happy if the casual readers' money would suffice, but when ads are added into the equation, I honestly believe that a bit of a pressure on the wikimedia community to increase its financial contributions to the projects, would be preferred by the most.

Examples for such actions could be putting a lot of "donate!" banners on the communities' namespaces (such as "wikipedia:", "wikinews:" etc) or publicizing in noticeable place the names of local community members who did make a contribution (depending on their approval, of course) and any means that could make some kind of social pressure on the editors to donate. The Relativity of The Truth 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Sockpuppet... Isn't it? :) 11:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The way it is worded, this is the most ridiculous comment I've read on this page. You pressure me to donate, and I'd be happy to donate you a certain hand gesture. 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is as silly as it first appears. One thing is pretty clear, if we read between the lines, is that many editors might donate if the money was spent on one specific thing, and this will be very different for everyone. We've gone past the days of a Rotary type org, where you just throw your money in and hope it's put to good use. WE all have knowledge which is valuable (even if yours is not as valuable as mine :) If a donation is made, then people will likely want to see it put to good use, and so participate in an initiative. The question is finding a way for groups of similar minds to find their peers, and by pooling their pennies, and participating as a group, see if their ideas can get a move along. Here's the one place[[1]] where it can start. But I'd be scared to death about putting a suggestion up, and having to answer a thousand FAQ's below the radar, and getting spammed (as i have been since using the elists around here).

The alternative is that like minds will be directed to the comms group email list, where its almost impossible for a newbie to get orientated, and find out if a suggestion was made, (yesterday or a year ago) and where it went. This form of editable page is also a bitch to work your way through, and see who's saying similar things. There's no quiet place where yo can work your way through a potential initiative, have newcomers directed (or tap someone on the shoulder and say "let's talk over here), and in time take a poll of the interest in comparative 'next steps'. Its always a comparative choice. We need a forum like this [2] I'd even throw some pennies in to see it happen. Anyone else? Either contributing money or time. It doesn't matter. --Simonpedia 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to donate but how

Dear ?

I want to donate to Wikipedia or Wikimedia, but I don't know how? Can you help me! I am a Pakistani. I live in Islamabad which is the capital city of Pakistan. I have absolutely no credit card nor do I wish to have one. I have only Pak Rupees to donate. How can I donate? Please answer me on

Maybe you can do it through your bank. I would suggest you bring the account information for direct deposit to your local bank office and request an international bank transfer to Wikimedia's Belgian bank account. I doubt Pakistan supports IBAN so I believe the second number together with the BIC code should be used, but I am not sure so ask the employees at your bank they will know for sure. 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction to the FAQ

Minor mistake (which wouldn't bother me were it not for the fact that I am used to being able to fix such things myself) under "What do you plan to do with the money," in the sentence:

"Second, we want to focus more attention on program development, particularly in communities underrepresented in the projects, some of whom have little or no access to educational resources."

The word "whom" should really be changed to "which," as communities are not actually people. --Benna 01:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thanks for telling us! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Design and Integration of Donation Banner

I have to complain about a distrubing, unstable, misarranged and misproportioned design integration of donation banner.

This influences the subconscious sensation of the overall webside, what again influences the enjoyment to visit this side and even the will to to donate! As every "panels" and logic sections on the website feel stable, eyechating and focussed the new banner doesn't really fit in there.


  -  remove left indent ( -> therefore move left "thought" vertical border of banner line to match the headline+content to left side) 
     -> therefore adjust the hight so that there is a visual felt distance to top the same as to the left
  -  to "hard" border the banner to the top of itself:
      -> create a "thought top line" -> move all shoulders on one line (the different size of mans will  create the feel of depth anyway and keeps a visual stability
      -> don't draw arms over each other as this distrubs the recognition in first side
  - correct pixelwise the vertical center of caption on donate button (image 1 px down)

I hope my suggestions may help to better integrate this important feature in the overall design and to make it even more eyecatching.

Image of better integreated SampleDesign


I have to wonder why developing countries would want Wikipedia?

Think of it this way, developed countries have first rate resources, developing countries need second rate (but free to use and edit resources). Why do you think they are developing countries? Because they dont have sufficient resources, and must resort to something like wikipedia.

Why not donate necessities so to help that country progress; fuel, food, housing, things that would truly develop a country. Technology is not the most important thing for these coutnries. Of course the access to knowledge is applaudable and noble, but is there a context? Knowledge is one thing but intellect is the goal, and I hope that this is the aim. ...............................................................

This doesn't have a name or time stamp but I think it needs to be answered, as its misconceptions are what makes WikiFoundation stuff underrated by .edu institutions (and National Research & Education Networks). Knowledge isn't like physical stuff. It's not even like a course that, if nicely packaged, can be "delivered" to a student in a poor country like bread. Useful knowledge is something which helps even an idiot be more independent. It enables them to figure out how to get something done and improve their lot in life. The misconception that a whole bunch of technology and information is going to help here is as misconceived as the idea that, by coming to America, where the streets are paved with gold, a sick person can get free health care; as any idiot would expect in a rich & civilized country.

If you wanted to look at the different (intellectual) conceptions of knowledge, then this ppt[3] might be useful. It points out the difference between "Cartesian" and "Atelier", which is just a way of saying one person thinks about knowledge like yu do - that it's a object which can be delivered. Another will say it's something constructed when people talk through their understanding of an idea and come to an agreement of what it means. In short, one says "we must inform the world" = we need more libraries, the other says " we've gotta figure out a way for people to get their questions answered" = we need better forms of communication.

This why initiatives like Wikipedia are so important. It's growth and use have proved to the (institutionalized) world that you don't need more teachers delivering learning objects. You don't even need more resources a lot of the time. You just need to put some simple tools up and couple it with a vast vision like "diffuse knowledge throughout the world", and watch one person inspire, and be inspired, by another. 7 Billion hits/month can't represent a global stupidity (I hope).

The real question, now that WikiFoundation projects have proved to National Libraries (etc) that global knowledge can't be locked into National domains - full of pretty pictures or videos, etc, which must be added to ad infinitum - is how we might be able to couple a library with a communication system that will have the same effect as Wikipedia. Otherwise all we have is information, waiting to find some useful application.--Simonpedia 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Developing countries needs education. They have planty of natural resources. Donating this kind of thing is doesn't make sense. MTd2 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a fad. It's not a learning tool, it's not educational, it's not accurate, and it will not save the world. In less that a decade it will be gone.
I believe, on the contrary, that Wikipedia is mostly a useful tool for documenting the fads. Nobody with any need for accuracy trusts it for anything meaningful, for example medication side effects, history of people and objects, or reasons why something "is", as people feel free to add that to articles for reasons as trivial as they heard it from someone on the subway. But for the loose history of a Marvel character, explanation of some new Anime, or what the rumors are for DirecTV+HD, then its useful, easier to find than the fan pages, and generally correct enough to get by. And to comment on a comment above, Wikipedia is not just a collection of "knowledge"; its also a collection of beliefs (no connection to faiths is implied).
Fair enough. Point me at the better alternative. --Simonpedia 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your local library
Did you see the mention of "developng countries"? And even in Sweden my local library has far less information about many of the categories that Wikipedia covers (but much more in a few others of course, libraries are much more specialised). 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)



I depend on wikipedia for all kinds of info i need, and emphatically believe that it has truly flattened the world. Due to the fact that for some reasons i cannot donate, I would like to ask you if you would want to advertise on my blog for fundraising. this is the link:

kindly consider it. thanks a lot! Ahana

You can help spreading the word in a really simple way: just add the button or banner of your preference from this page to your blog! Thanks :) Patrícia msg 12:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't want to pay to send people to Africa. I want to maybe help pay for your bandwidth.

If you would like to make sure that your donation only goes to a certain place, feel free to e-mail us at donate[at]wikimedia[dot]org and specify your conditions and which donation was yours. :-) Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that what will happen is they will just move your donation into the bandwidth category and move out the same amount from someone who didn't put qualifiers on their donation. In the end, unless a greater majority make qualified donations, it won't matter. -- 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Cary, You can see what i was saying about people wanting to make sure their donations are targeted to a particular use. I'm sure if yu could formalize this approach. i.e. "These are the uses where people want to see their money spent" (and code each suggestion) we might find the way to not just take their money, but also to include them in 'its' development.

Although, going down this path, I still think the approach (in the first instance) should be to ask NREN's to sponsor (host) Wiki stuff. Have made overtures to aarnet at this end but it will need the 'buy in' of the Foundation's board, and a prop made to a group of them at the same time. --Simonpedia 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just strange to think of Wikipedia as a for profit organization. Granted the money is spent in a humanitarian fashion, I just can't say I support it.
Wikipedia is not a for-protift organization, it is a non-profit organization. I do not know how you could think that it was a for-profit institution. We run on donations and these donations keep Wikipedia running and hope to do other humanitarian activities. Cbrown1023 talk 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

English wikipedia in Africa?

Why the hell you think that african boys and girls speak english so good? Or what type of wikipedia you will give to them? I am from russia and i can say that even russian wikipedia is not very well, although there are 217 000 pages in russian wikipedia. English wikipedia is good but useless in developing counties, i think. 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

yu can see (cary) that, although .jp takes up your current interest, the demand for other translations is frustrated by lack of bi/tri lingualists and a place (comms hub) where people can get orientated.

I don't know how many African languages our Russo/Anglo friend can speak, but perhaps if he knew that African (and Indian) farmers sometimes find the price of their crops (in English) via their radio stations looking up prices on the internet, and save themselves being ripped off by lorry drivers, it might change his attitude. He's right of course. Just one or two (or even 10) languages isn't perfect. But it's better than nothing, and Wikipedians do more here (in aggregating and diffusing knowledge) than the World Bank, on a shoestring.--Simonpedia 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When Does This End?

When do I get to stop seeing that boring huge banner on wikipedia pages? 05:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Fundraiser ends December 22 and the notice should be removed then. However, if you create an account, you can hide the banner now by clicking "hide this message". Cbrown1023 talk 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Whats going on now? 21:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The new end date is January 3rd. Sorry. Dragons flight 03:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny, it's january 4th and it's still up.

Bank SWIFT-code required for direct deposits within EU

Dear Wikipedia activists,

Please add the SWIFT code of the Belgian Bank where your bank account is registered in.

I am of course referring to information on this page - "Donate".

Adding the banks SWIFT code enables people from all around EU to make direct deposits without extra costs and transactions are handled much much faster.

The bank should be able to provide the SWIFT code, it is even probably on their webpages.

Thank you,

Casimir Pohjanraito

A swift-code is only the incorrect name for the BIC code. So if you need the "swift-code" then you need the BIC code. But it seems that there are more people who do not know that, you are not the first one to ask that. I will also put swift on the donation form. --Walter 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
SWIFT is - or was - a commonly used name for a code identifying a bank branch within the UK. The last time I saw a UK direct debit form they ask for your bank account number and your branch SWIFT code. I believe (citation needed) BIC is the new acronym for this, so ideally "SWIFT/BIC:". --Brian McNeil / talk 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) handles the registration of these codes. For this reason, Bank Identifier Codes (BICs) are often called SWIFT addresses or codes. For more info see the relevant wikipedia page: [4] Best, Casimir 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the Nostalgia Wikipedia is a minor thing, but the fundraising banner doesn't belong there. It's the biggest thing on the page in a lot of cases and you can't hide it because you can't log into Nostalgia. It's also not historically accurate. Can somebody remove it from there? I don't know who to ask in particular. Thanks! Dreamyshade 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia needs now is not more money

After careful consideration we can conclude that what Wikipedia desperately needs now is not more money, its more transparency. If we donate money now, it would only strengthen the secret society of editors with private mailing lists to continue making Wikipedia their mouth organ. So, we need to cut off the funds and make the foundation earn it again thru strict adherence to open and fairness. 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I second this. After the Essjay and Durova problems Wikipedia needs to clean house before it asks for more money. Expecially, since the response to fallout over Durova's witch hunt was to blame the whistle blower. How much more of this kind of stuff is being covered up. Wikipedia is so high on principle when anyone suggest selling ads, but low on principle if when it really matters.
Thirded. You are absolutely right.
For what its worth, the "secret society of editors" aren't the ones recieving the donations. For example, 99+% of the 1400 admins on the English Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers. Dragons flight 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Let the secret society who use the site as their personal "powerbase" pay for it. Like many others I wont donate until the site's admin program gets fixed. 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

$100.00 laptop

My name Frank I would like to get about a 100 at a time, to give to the poor in Kentucky! How do i go about this? 06:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please visit This is not a Wikimedia project. Angela 07:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with fundrasing header and coordinates

Copied back from archive as the problem has not been resolved

In the English Wikipedia the fund raising header is creating a viewing conflict with the coordinates that are displayed on many pages. Would it be possible to change the position syntax of the header so that it is above the start of the article page window so that the fixed position coordinate does not get Superimposed within the header. As an example see depandant on window size the fall inside the banner and are unreadable in many cases. In the banner is minimzed and the article name is long, then the coordinates are overprint the article name. 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC) English Wikipedia user name: Dbiel]

We have purposefully made the banner align to the left so that it does not conflict with most browser's display of the items like the coordinates, but we can not do the same for all browsers. I apologize for the inconvenience, but could you perhaps making your window a larger size? Cbrown1023 talk 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to move it outside of article page space and make it a part of the header information 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC) English Wikipedia user name: Dbiel]
The notice is not in the article space, it is in the area where the sitenotice/anonnotice are programmed in the software to go. The notice is above the article header. Unfortunately, I don't think we can move it anywhere else. Cbrown1023 talk 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
that was exactly what i was trying to say, sorry my keyboard is locked in lower case. then maybe there is some way to reprogram the coordinates template to use a relative position like the title of the article does instead of a fixed postion which makes it overprint the fundraiser header. 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) English Wikipedia user name: Dbiel]

Well, I have done some research have have discovered the problem with the positioning of coordinates, which is only a problem when the fundraising banner is in place. It has to do with the following code which is used in the coordinate template:


<span id="coordinates">Test</span>

is what is positioning coordinates in a fix position on the page. In this example the coordinates template has been replaced the the simple text:


So the question becomes, how does one change the positioning of copy using this code?

Note: this may only be affecting the English version of Wikipedia, but it is sure a royal pain there. You will notice that the code works very differently here in Meta than it does in en:Wikipedia. Dbiel 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The preceed entries have been copied back from the archive as the issue has not be addressed The following are links to other pages addressing this problem:

post on Jimbo Wales talk page
post on en.Wikipedia:Village pump technical

It is a real shame that a display issue that has such a negative impact has not been fixed to date. Dbiel 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you build a time machine?

What's the goal?

Is there a goal for the number of donations, or amount raised? If no goal is stated, it feels somewhat like it won't help even if you do donate.

Well, the goal is for 100,000 to donate, and so far we have raised over $1 100 000 (USD) --Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

let me have all that money so i can really help the poor and not just keep it to send 3 students to Africa for no reason.-- 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)File:Http://

Accuracy of statistics

From wikt:WT:GP Conrad.Irwin 09:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Who maintains this? It has claimed that 24,923 people have donated for some time. Click Hide this message and the short version claims that 39,876 people have donated. Wikipedia claims the number is 29,034, and the French wikitionary thinks its 34,300. No wonder we have a reputation for inaccuracy. Jonathan Webley 09:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I also see the 3000 discrepancy between the large and small versions. I don't see any differences moving between sites. Conrad.Irwin 09:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the problem is that the short version includes the donations that are under or at $1. I think the long version does not include this. I think they're both accurate, it's just that one is filtered (only those over $1 are shown for the long-version) and one is not. Cbrown1023 talk 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The change the old minimized counter which fixed it to use the updated count (excluding sub-$1 donors) was accidentally reverted. I've fixed this and it should be back in sync in a few minutes.
Note that counters on different sites and between the main counter and the minimized counter may be a few minutes out of sync with each other due to the way caching is done, but they should stay pretty close. --brion 06:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


I must say I would be happy to donate if I had some indication that my money was going to be spent wisely and handled in a responsible way. Giving money to charities is no different than buying stocks, I really like to see the inner-workings of the group, and I appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation does communicate.
If the audit, which I understand is promised to come by years end, comes out by December 22nd, and I like what I see, I will be more than happy to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation!
Perhaps you could extend the fundraiser to a few days after the audit has completed. 07:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure when this year's audit will be finished/published, but you can see previous ones at wikimedia:Finance report. The Fundraiser has been extended until January 3, but even if the Audit is not done by then (due to busyness with our Relocation to San Francisco), you are free to donate at any time even after this Fundraising drive. Cbrown1023 talk 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Are they really going to move, even if the fundraise doesn't cut for the expense? I am glad I didn't donate this time. This is insane. MTd2 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
They are already in the process of moving, have hired new staff in San Francisco, and have already set-up the local office; there's no going back now. Cbrown1023 talk 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that my 80 dollar donation from the last fundraising was thrown into the trash bin. I spent more with wikipedia aproximately the same that I would with a 2 year brittannica subscription. Let's face it. The only way or wikipedia cut the expenses is to apply to some kind of sponsorship. I wish they appealed for UNESCO.
But why don't they do that after all? I guess the most evident answer it is that they are aware of the poor admininship and nearly total lack of rules and regulations for what is acceptable as a wikipedia content. They won't even bother to step up and ask funding from any seriou organization. What is the point anyway? They know they will get a polite "NO" as an answer. After all, it is much better to keep a thin curtain of good image by making worldwide travels at the expanses of the little money they get from donations.
I won't be surprised if wikipedia becomes ad based in 2 or 3 months. MTd2 14:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't Trust Wikipedia

How do I request, as "anyone" some dont' trust wikipedia notices? I see them all over your blog, but don't know how to put them there. Or do I have to be a superpowered 'editor' to do so?

Basically, I don't trust Wikipedia, and there are a lot of articles in my area of expertise where the information is plain wrong. So, I would like it to be flagged as unreliable, but I also know Wikipedia relies on "wisdom of the crowds", and some of your editors have ridiculed me in public (especially some anonymous architect from Navi Mumbai) for my twenty years of research He said an anonymous person is better than a published researcher in matters concerned, and I should not cite myself (even the peer reviewed research) while editing wikipedia.

So I am humbled, I did not think I will ever be insulted the way wikipedia editors did for my work - expertise, it seems, is frowned upon here -- so I humbly ask if it is possible for a typical "anyone" user to request (humbly, and in full anticipation of insults from the non-experts at wikipedia) to have a category flagged as unreliable (and most of your blog is unreliable) without being cursed on many mailing lists by Architects from Navi Mumbai. - unsigned

All of Wikipedia is "flagged as unreliable". Click on "disclaimers" at the bottom of a wikipedia page and you go to which clearly says:

in exactly that type face and size. Wikipedia is an in-progress project to write an encyclopedia. You are looking at something that is not done yet. It is good that it is useful as is though for some purposes and we writers of it are pleased some have found it a useful place to begin their search for an answer. We are currently more accurate on average than the average newspaper article, a little less accurate than Britannica, and not even close to being as good as the peer reviewed sources we use as references. So use wikipedia to get a handle on the terminology and concepts and claims, but go to reliable sources (which we are not) to know which claims to believe. 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Como consigo el tiket para el especial gift pofa me contestan



While doing a little research on Wikipedia, I found some buried details that I haven't seen publicly mentioned anywhere. In the FY07 audit update interview (, Wikipedia trustee Florence Devouard stated that, if the current rate of donations continued, "we will total just a little more than 1m in donations by December 23". In concern of the over US$3m shortfall, she writes "we have at least two commitments for major donations expected, matching donation type". ...what's the status of these donations? ...will they be matching donations?

Moreover, given that you have raised over USD$1.2m, why was the donation magically expanded for nearly two more weeks? Who's decision was this and why? The history shows board member Angela Beesley made the edit, but there was no rationale given either in the FAQ, Beesley's talk page, or this page. If you could clear up there issues here so that these things can be publicly known, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 09:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

These comments address the date change issue, at least to the extent it has been publicly discussed. Dragons flight 03:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Budget 2007 (on 1.5 million US$)

WMF 2007-2008 spending plans.svg

Hello, please what means :

  1. "offices et executive director" : 11% , so about 150.000 US$ ...
  2. "Finance et administration" : 15 %, ao about 200.000 US$...

And please, what are the anwsers to the following questions :

  1. a/ How many peoples working for the foundation ? b/ in total ? c/ For "offices et executive director" ? d/ for "Finance et administration" ?
  2. who have their plane tickets/travels paid by the Wikimania ?
  3. Do Jimbo Wales -who come to wikimania wearing WIKIA's Tee-shirts (a for profit company)- had his plane ticket buy by the Foundation ?
  4. Why make a costly move of the servers to the expensive San Franscisco, while all big websites -like WIKIA- are moving to countries such as India, Poland (for Wikia), Brazil, Mexico, etc ? Citation from Wikipedia's article [Wikia]: Wikia has some technical staff in the USA, but has also opened an office in Poznań, Poland in 2006. Explaining his choice of location, Wales commented "It's about reasonable salaries and high quality. You can find cheaper programmers in other parts of the world, but the quality's not there!"[1]. I have in mind that if this current move is a mistake, that means that a new costly move toward Poland or an other lower cost country will be need in the next (3?) years.
  5. Is somewhere a page explaining more clearly depenses in 2006, 2007, and plans for 2008 ? 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments and answers:
  • The Budget's talk page gives a lot of information and answers to some of your questions and an explanation: wikimedia:Talk:Planned Spending Distribution 2007-2008.
  • Relating to your questions on staff, the Wikimedia Foundation is currently in the process of hiring for new positions and when they have completed this process, they will all be listed on wikimedia:Current staff.
  • I am not sure exactly whose ticket to Wikimania was paid for, you'll have to ask the individuals themselves.
  • Past budgets can also be found at wikimedia:Budget.
  • Sue Gardner, the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director, outlined the reasons for the relocation to San Francisco in this e-mail.
I hope this helps. Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify one point, the main server farm will remain in Florida. Other server clusters also exist in Europe and in Asia. The executive director and other administrative officials are establishing the main office for administrating the Foundation in San Francisco, but the bulk of the servers and other technical resources will remain in less expensive locales. Dragons flight 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

spelling error on donor privacy policy page

"Unless the donor explicity choses the "anonymous" field... should say chooses

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the heads-up. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Error on Planned Spending Distribution 2007-2008

The chart at the bottom of the page detailing the numbers and percentages for the planned spending has a punctuation error. The column title should be $'000s, not $'000's. Apostrophes should never be used for plurals, and it look weird with the one showing omission. 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of speedy deletion and you'll have my money

Stop with all this deletionist junk. you're a website for pete's sake. get over it, you have near limitless storage capabilities. i understand the impetus in the beginning of wikipedia to keep it from being another link farm... articles on web phenomenon or internet entertainment =/= link farm. maintaining articles on web comics and online writing projects means that you're keeping yourself socially relevant in a world going increasingly wireless. how is one web comic with thousands of readers daily less notable than every single episode of each iteration of star trek that has its own page?

Fund raiser End

Didn't the fund raiser end today? Why is the banner still up? 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's over and the banner is no longer up. Cbrown1023 talk 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Was it a success? 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a difficult question to answer. From an external POV partially yes ($1.5m raised from 40,000+ individuals), partially no (target of 100,000 people missed, total donation way below proposed budget for fiscal years 2007/2008). For more in depth analysis see my blog article, if you care: Wikimedia Fundraiser Analysis //Daniel.
Perhaps it'd be a good time to cancel that SF move, no ? 18:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we've already moved and Anthere, the chair of the board has said at wikimedia:Summary of a year- 2007 that: "We successfully were able to collect enough funds to run through the year, whilst retaining our independence;" So the Foundation is doing fine financially and the Office move does not need to be/can't be canceled. Cbrown1023 talk 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Money and sex trying to kill wikipedia? 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your **** Address

Hey there, I cannot donate in Europe by bank without this information:

Naam : Wikimedia Foundation


Postal Code:

City :


If you don't have it make up something legal, please. Stupid banks!

Please see wikimedia:Donate, that should solve all your problems. If it doesn't, or if you have a native language other than english, please response here. Cbrown1023 talk 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Shannon, Victoria (28 September, 2006). "Wikipedia Founder Staffs For Profit Wikia Spinoff". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2006-10-28.  Check date values in: |date= (help)