User:Mono mentioned that the banner tests today raised over \$30,000 in 2 hours [1]. That seems very impressive. Theo10011 05:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

## Suggested amounts

The data on comparing suggested amounts (20,35,50,100) to (35,50,100,250) is interesting.. but why only these? When the suggested amounts are varied, there seems to be a significant difference in the average amount of each donation, as well as and the total number of donations. I think changes should be made so that we maximize to total amount, and it's not clear we're doing that.

Based on the Oct 14 experiment, \$20 should probably be the lowest amount, but \$100 for the highest amount seems too low. Maybe something like: (20,40,100,200) or even (20,40,100,300) would still get all the \$20 donations, but might get a few more bigger ones too. Anyway, do people usually use a suggested amount, or do they usually put in their own? 128.189.113.102 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

People are likely to choose the middle donation amount when they there are asked to pick one. Therefore I would suggest to add a fifth donation amount option like 75 USD. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 09:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be really interested to see what increasing the highest suggested donation, but keeping the starting donation at \$20 would do. We found that lowering the ask string lead to 2x the amount of donations, but lowered the average donation by about \$6. I'll see if I can pull up stats about how many people use the suggested vs. their own donation amount. -- Deniz (WMF) 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd also be curious about a high dollar option. I imagine some wealthy donor would see \$1000 or \$500 and think, I'll do that. So long as it doesn't discourage lower-amount donors, it might be a plus. Ocaasi 05:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You (somebody?) ought to know that there's a typo on the version of Kartika's message that is up today (tuesday nov 30). 4th paragraph: "Each year, many of us gather to talk about the health of Wikipedia and it's sister projects just as Wiktionary and Commons." The word "it's" should be changed to "its". Word them up, doggies. Sorry, I didn't know where to put this. I hope i'm not bothering anybody too much.

Thank you so much for spotting that, we have fixed it. Really appreciate the heads up! -Deniz (WMF) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't "just" be "such" in that sentence? Lexicografía 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
They all do currently say "such as," I believe it was just a typo in the comment. Thanks for pointing that out either way Lexicografía, always good to double check.- Deniz (WMF) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm interesting, when I looked at the appeal earlier it said 'just'. Lexicografía 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Found that appeal - we're taking it down, but will be fixed either way. Thanks so much -- Deniz (WMF) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

## 2010-11-04 memo.

"our funding model relies on the support of our friends and community members [...] and far more sad -- place"

"friends" and "sad" seem a bit mawkish to me; reword with "supporters", and removal, instead?

"This year, we have to raise \$16,000,000. [...] It’s critical that we reach our goal to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep Wikipedia and its sister sites running smoothly."

Surely that goal is not just for infrastructure (Internet hosting, Facilities and operations) and vital services (hardware management, bug fixes, legal), but also for all the other expenses.

"What would the world be like, if the wiki hadn't launched?"

Amongst readers (less so editors) there's a lot of confusion between "wiki", "wikis", "wiki software", "Wikipedia", and "Wikimedia". I suggest being more specific.
Oh, and the openness of this fundraiser is terrific. -- Jeandré, 2010-11-05t05:56z

## 2010-12-01 memo.

Input for ongoing funding

I have many suggestions that i would like to provide if your organization if this is not redundant. Please forgive my ignorance your organization has implemented or is already considering the information below. Understanding the Wikimedia foundation can be made much easier by having a well defined and plainly visible mission statement. My suggestion is the following draft: "Furthering the art of scholarship."

Secondly, A public appeal can be made much wider by inviting others to encourage Wiki donations on their site, you can Advertise among anybody who earns money by Ad Words, or other online revenue sources, a very small subsection of Wikimedia viewers and Internet users. A long as the internet is a great scholarly tool for our humanity, especially through a site like yours. It's the added benefit of security that encorages an open internet, much more secure to any online presence that deiced to give up a corner of their webspace. With this, there is NO commercial interest that could ever compromise Wikimedia's mission.

Third, I feel that the Wikimedia foundation should encourage public responsiveness to the proper use of Wikipedia. Encourage libraries to know and teach how to edit Wikipedia properly. This is to ensure the proper pursuit of the scholarly research. Many College libraries still don't consider "scholarly" in great sense, but as a great point to understand the basics of a topic. This lends itself to IDEALLY being taught in the middle school. This will help to ensure that we are providing something to the sites that decide to assist you un your appeal.

I hope these ideas help, Please feel free to contact me if necessary. Thanks Dana Camp, 2010-12-01[t]11:17z