Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Revenue Streams/Recommendations/2
- I can see why this could be desirable, but I could also see it creating some substantial confusion between local groups and the global Wikimedia movement in the view of the public, if they suddenly see multiple "Wikimedia" affiliated people asking for donations. Would there be some way to mitigate that? Seraphimblade (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- We now have over 100 affiliates, all potentially competing for the same donor contributions. Wouldn't a centralized fundraising support office be in the same position as the WMF, setting priorities for which organizations get what kind of fundraising support? Does the current WMF development team see a need for pushing some fundraising activities out to other affiliates? Have affiliates expressed needs for support in their fundraising activities? Without supporting information or examples, and when the suggestion is written as "I propose," is not clear whether this proposal has been thought through by the affected parties. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Inequality of fundraising
Besides the "I" commented by Laurentius, that represents the lack of care when writing the proposal (4 lines without much further context is indecent), I would like to add that diversifying the fundraising campaigns is a good idea, but not among the Wikimedia affiliates. For this reason and due to higher staff structure difference, some chapters or affiliates will be able to compete better for the donations and outshine other communities with less weight inside the movement. That will definitely jeopardize the economical equality.
The WMF should be a guarantor that the fundraising campaigns are contextualised to every sociologic and geographic context, and be a guarantor that the money is distributed fairly for volunteer-driven projects and communities. Then, if some chapters aim for 3 million euros or dollars to cover excessive staff expenses that provide low engagement outcome, this should be further resolved. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 08:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This working group should follow the format and state assumptions, risks and mitigation measures. A cost/benefit analysis would also be helpful. It terms of assumptions: 1) It would be easy /desirable to deconflict funding requests made by the WMF and different affiliates. 2) Compliance costs could be reduced if centralized. (For example, if an charity seeks public support in many US states, it must register with the Secretary of State, and a centralized group could do all of the registrations in one big batch instead of each affiliate filing separately.) 3) There are subscription databases of people with substantial resources, and the WMF could subscribe on behalf of all affiliates. 4) The small donor banner ad revenue would go to the WMF rather than the local affiliates.
The Working Group should research what fundraising expenses and staffing the WMF currently has and to what extent those could be made shared resources. If affiliates start email solicitation of their members, are there best practices that can be used to design and administer such email campaigns?
The WMF should develop a donor privacy statement for use by affiliates. To the extent that the WMF and its affiliates share donor data, that should be disclosed. There is a risk that donors will be alienated by such sharing. Hlevy2 (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sharing knowledge about fundraising is important. A kind of hub should be put in place with fundraisers of all over the world. And also organize again a Fundraising meeting. Pyb (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan Salon
We support greater economic independence and the technical empowerment and expertise of the communities to achieve this goal.
However, not everything can be solved with technology. There are local particularities (subsidies, declarations of public utility, exemptions of taxes, etc.) that only depend on the members and their "awareness" of the situation.