Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback/Archive 2

Fundraising 2009
General
Plan Timeline
Design and message (Meta)
Original website design mock-ups Alternative banner ideas Launch feedback
Translations
Translations main page Core messages Supplementary messages FAQ Translatewiki extensions Thank You Appeal
Live donation pages (WMFwiki)
Main donation landing page (en) Donor comments feed
Raw statistics
FundraiserStatistics ContributionStatistics ContributionTrackingStatistics csv
Public relations/Announcements
Opening press release Closing press release Blog posts
This template: view · edit

The working model is ok but not perfect

We considered a corporate donation last year but we held back. The working model is ok but not perfect. Our company (VeriPic, Inc.) is dominant in its field yet several editors, due to their lack of expertise in our field, had never heard of us so they removed a page about our company that our fans and customers put up. How could three people undo what tens of thousands of our customers and users do? After all, these people are unreleated to our company and meet your editorial requirements.

Exactly the point I am trying to make for years! How can an unemployed school drop out from his mom's basement undo work of a Ph. D.? Well, this is Wikipedia, where everything is possible if you 1) have enough time on your hands (which unemployed school drop outs from his mom's basement has) and 2) registered with Wikipedia, thus can work your way into 'officialdom' of editor, coordinator or moderator or whatever status allows you to undo other's work.

At the same time, several competitors which were much smaller and less significant than us, got to keep their pages. This doesn't make any sense. The data on all the companies are available on D&B. Why not adapt a more sensible model of what companies are considered significant buy using a neutral third party like D&B or better yet, use earth mapping websites and automatically view the company's address to see how big the buildings are or use public records to figure out that a given company is significant enough to have a Wiki page. I guess we are still disappointed that we don't have a company page but several competitors less than 10% of our size have pages. We will hold off on a donation this year and reconsider whether editorial methods improve before we do a corporate donation next year.

Preferably articles are created by people not affiliated with the subjects, due to an inherent inevitable bias. What surely determines that an article stays is reliable sources - if you post third-party articles written about your company then it could pass the criteria for notability. -- Mentifisto 08:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are being simply dishonest, Mentifisto. The 'third party' is not sufficient, those sources should also pass the personal agenda filter of anyone registered with wikipedia as an editor, who has vested interest in the article. Which in the instance above may be one of the competitors. This model is just not working, or plainly speaking, wikipedia does not have a model, rather a sick joke mocking real science.

Hmm, I couldn't help but notice how quickly the "ok" model deteriorated to "sick joke mocking real science". I am quoting About.com here with the entry for what seems to be said company. "VeriPic® is the premier supplier of "Database Backed" photo management software. VeriPic is compatible with industry standard non-proprietary Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle SQL as the database backend. VeriPic builds systems from single user systems up to multi-city, multi-server or server cluster, multi-user photo, audio and video management systems. VeriPic specializes in super high performance systems capable of extremely fast thumbnail extractions, viewing camera raw natively and high security digital asset access. VeriPic systems are currently in service at corporate headquarters, military installations and ships and police forces. Whatever your needs let VeriPic build a system for you." If that is the kind of wiki entry you're complaining about then I think I'd have removed it too. Oh, and pray tell, what makes a corporate white collar better than a high-school drop out? 4 - 6 years worth of marketing education? Is that really related to science? This is the Internet. A piece of paper here means nothing, since there is no (efficient) way to tell a Ph.D holder from someone who claims to be one. That is the price of free information and the only way to safeguard quality is public review and editing. I'll take this any day over Ph.Ds who pocket money from companies to say whatever they want them to and pass it as "real science", thank you.

Craigslist advert

(Note: I copied the first comment below from en:Wikipedia talk:Advertisements. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

What the heck? I don't mind Wikipedia pushing this donations scheme - clearly it is vital to keep the project going and also amazing to see the speed with which the money is being raised. But surely endorsements, such as that by 'Craig from Craiglist' which appears at the top of my watchlist right now are perilously close to - or could even be considered as - adverts? The endorsement promotes Craiglist over other similar services or websites, it suggests some sort of relationship between the two organisations etc. Can I now consider the Craiglist entry to be neutral? Would Craig remove his support if the content of that article changed? More importantly, who decided to places this advert on Wikipedia? Pretty Green (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

en:Craigslist. I liked the banner with the endorsement from Craig of Craigslist when I first saw it because I know that endorsements help raise money. But you make some good points. The Craigslist advert is a mandatory ad for unregistered users, and an opt-out ad for registered users (via the hide link on the banner).

I support on/off buttons for opt-in ads on a nonprofit Wikipedia for all readers (via cookies).

If we are going to run defacto ads, then I much prefer opt-in ads over opt-out ads. I support opt-in ads. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The "[hide]" link is available to both registered and unregistered users. 99.27.134.128 07:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I assumed incorrectly. I notice that one has to have cookies enabled for wikimedia.org in order for the hide setting to be remembered for unregistered users. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really frequent here as a social entity but I'm placing this on another identity, on another wiki :)

Hell, if you're going to run defacto ads, you may as well run real ads, and let billionaire corporations fund Wikipedia rather than users. If I'm going to see a banner asking for my money on every page, it makes no difference who it's coming from. --117.53.136.79 00:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it let's sell our lives to billionaire coorporations too.

Jimmy Wales

I am so sick of seeing his face in these pestering "appeals" that abuse his charm to market Wikipedia under the guise of donation. Wikipedia peaked; no amount of money is going to make a fundamental change to its usability or function. If you want everyone to have instant access to information the next step isn't to make Wikipedia bigger, it's to give more people the internet and make it more easily accessible. 68.174.31.93 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still growing worldwide in the number of articles, readers and page views. Also, there are many existing projects, and many proposed projects, that need money, servers, and staff. See: Category:Proposed projects and Proposals for new projects.

As for "usability or function" there is a basic need to pay more developers to fix the 4000+ bugs listed in the Bugzilla Weekly Reports. There are also the basic needs such as expanding bandwidth, servers, and maintenance staff worldwide. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are all basic, not fundamental changes. They don't create "a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge." 68.174.31.93 03:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, partly; in every appeal he always uses "I created" which sounds very pompous for an individual promoting a collective project. Yes, Jim is a very important part of Wikipedia, but using the "I" when referring to "His" creation, and then using "us" and "we" in the rest of the appeal really puts me off. Yes, Jimmy created it, but it's the people who keep it going, not him, and it is the people who write the articles and it's the people who make the donations. Jimmy gets paid. He is a figure head.

So, if the appeal is to the masses to keep this thing going, stop Jimmy from saying "I". The first sentence is fine, but this one after all the "we"s and "us" says "The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization I created in 2003 to operate, grow, nurture, and protect Wikipedia." Take out the "I" and let it read, "The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization created in 2003 (...)" There may be others, but really I am sick of that face to and always pushing that "he created" the most wonderful site in the world. It is, but, come on. Without the people, it would be nothing. And, I think there were others involved in "creating" this project, anyway as I remember a silly spat about a partner that had a hand in its creation.

It's pompous, self-righteous, egotistical, etc., etc. -- which can and does put others off (it does me) -- especially when after that it says how much the "fewer than 35 people" get paid to run it. --Paul from OH

Bingo. In fact, the only reason why I'm here is to explain why I decided (at the last minute) not to donate -- I'm all for supporting the nameless hordes of people who actually do the work, but I'm not going to pay for a bunch of JimmyJimmy™. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that I even know his name... but that's what happens when people use traditional marketing to promote new media. -- YWO from CA

For the record, he's not paid. Jimmy is a volunteer just like the rest of us (and the rest of the board members; the people who are paid are listed on wmf:Staff. However, your other comments about I are valid and I'll be sure that they're noted for next year. Cbrown1023 talk 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The cost-benefit of the Jimbo appeal letter is more than worth it on balance, in my opinion. The poor guy's been through a lot, let him have his confidence-boosting self-esteem. 99.27.134.128 07:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the thing is jimmy didnt create it, at least not by himself. not in any sense of the word, hes a cofounder. Elmuhfuh 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a "cult of Jimmy Wales" type thing going on. Why else does he refere to himself by name, or as "I", in a page asking for money? And what is the money actually for? If it is needed in 2009, why won't another appeal be necessary next year, and the year after? I use wikipedia a lot, but I regret that I cannot support this appeal.

Here's a thought, how about not quoting yourself like a pompous ass, super-imposing it over a 'soulful' picture of yourself and slapping it above a letter you yourself wrote. Also that world, that you mention in your actually not-as-deep-as-it's-trying-to-sound quote is not something wikipedia is going to ever achieve.

Seconded. Why is this still not being addressed? "A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" is still there. Who is in charge of changing that? Isn't this an open project? How come that if I vandalize this very page someone will fix it within 30 seconds, and yet days pass and nothing is done about this.

Since no one seems to want it to matter. I had heard from a friend that there was controversey surrounding Wales, so I (of course!) went to his Wikipedia page to find out about it. Lo and behold, not a peep about it on his actual page. A few people brought it up in the talk page and the talk page here. Things like that make me highly suspicious of the project. Couple that with the manner in which this fundraiser is approached (gigantic ad at the top of all pages) and pitched (the letter comes off sounding like a politician talking about world peace) that I've decided to send my money elsewhere for my end of the year charitable donation. 35.9.187.46 13:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia to be an abusive madhouse of editorial dictators. After being roughed up by the these guys repeatedly [Media:http://www.njnnetwork.com/?p=28310] in in 2007 I'd be unlikely to support. You want to control the show - pay your own way.

Wales' "I created Wikipedia" statement put my $10K check back in my pocket. Until and unless he acknowledges the role of Larry Sanger (and others) in the CO-founding of Wikipedia, not a dime from this guy. Unitanode 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add at the beginning of all articles (because we're forced to read this false and disgusting statement in all the articles we read) a clarification that states that Wales is not the sole founder, that he is a pompous dick and that manual editing of every aritcle is needed because he is too much of a sdfdfsdf to stop derping around?

I too am sick of seeing the personal appeal banner. Which is more exciting/effective when you are at the 7.3 out of 7.5 mark on Dec 30th, the same "personal appeal" you saw a week ago or the 7.3 out of 7.5 mark!? Yet the personal appeal loads 3/4 times... -Jarvis 13:07 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Could we have a separate page for feedback from registered, logged-in users? I don't have a problem with most complaints, but some of them are coming from trolls, and are not helpful. Dialog in good faith is needed, and that is much more likely to come from logged-in users who understand Wikipedia civility better. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Another attempt to silence the critics. Wikipedia at its best...85.75.168.189 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an attempt to silence the critics, rather an attempt to keep a page usable for its purpose. Cbrown1023 talk 23:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering how much silencing has actually happened on this very page, yes, it is silencing. You are 'wikipedian thugs' and fascist one no less. How do you spell 'censorship', Jimmy? How do you spell 'agenda-based'?

See /Archive 1 --Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See, dude, it went over your wikipedian head. You can't even grasp the concept of censorship, because for that you have to be outside the system. You can't understand a system from within - only from outside. This is one of the laws of dialectic materialism which you probably heard of if you went to university. Notice, I am saying 'went', not 'graduated from'. Censors don't think of themselves as censors, just like fraudsters don't think they are criminals.

God gave you the right to label people as trolls or not, correct?

Or you could just not respond and move on. The best way to kill a troll is to ignore it. I'm sorry but with everything going on as it is, this is pretty suspect to ask for.

Yeah well, the best way to kill a legitimate complaint is to ignore it, too, so be careful with that.

35.9.187.46 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How much has been donated?

This is an important question that everyone wants to know. Is this information even out there and if so, why is it hard to find? --Matt57 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't really have a straight answer for this, because the information that I can find includes all donations for this fiscal year, not just ones from this fundraising campaign. Here are some statistics pages we have: fundraiser statistics, all donations with public comment, contribution statistics, and tracking statistics. Keep in mind that these aren't that pretty because they're meant more for internal use.

If you'd like to see how much money we'd like to raise this campaign, see the FAQ. I hope this helps! Cbrown1023 talk 17:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's completely unacceptable. I hope you're more open regarding this next year. 35.9.187.46 13:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing, 32billion. They just reset the counter so they can lie on their IRS reports.

That wouldn't do much good since we're audited by a third-party company every year. Cbrown1023 talk 17:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but there used to be that donation meter e.g. 4/10 million raised. Where's that now? --Matt57 12:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It was manually updated, and probably isn't being updated when not immediately in use. Fundraiser statistics is automatic and shows $4.8M raised during the campaign so far this year. (I was pretty sure the goal was $7.5M from donors, not $10). Dragons flight 13:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We are preparing a new site notice with a thermometer and the Jimmy Appeal. We hope to have it this week. At this time, we are at about $5.5M into our $7.5M fundraiser goal. Rand Montoya 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to know! --Matt57 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

10 Million - Seriously?

The concept behind Wikipedia is that the "community" builds a virtualized shared editable encyclopedia. If your overhead costs have reached 10 Million Dollars per year - you are seriously doing something wrong. Wikipedia needs a handful of dedicated servers, a strong reliable internet connection, thats it. I will not send wikipedia one cent unless I have a detailed accounting of what this money is being spent on. I am not funding some piece of bloatware.

And I'm not even going to get started on the ridiculous messages / issues / comments I've had from administrators when I've tried to add referenced, sourcable information from actual written literature. Wake up, unbloat yourself, and make your finances transparent. I am not funding you for a 10 Million Dollar webpage run by volunteers unless I know where the money is going. I'm sorry but you have to look at this objectively - I fail to see the reasoning.

68.144.96.176 22:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, here! I totally agree!

Hello!

I'm sorry to hear you ran into trouble finding out what the money will be spent on. If you look at the "FAQs" box of our donation page, you'll find a link to our detailed FAQ. That page should hopefully answer your questions. If it doesn't, please don't hesitate to leave us another note here and we'll do our best to get you answers!

Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 its people like you that are part of the problem. "That page should hopefully answer your questions." He had no questions, stop trying to act like your being helpful when all your really doing is trolling for a response like the one I'm giving you now. Thanks for answering his question that he DIDNT ask. 173.2.100.46 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm behind you on that. The crazy comments and deletion of hard written articles by people that like to ignore the discussion page and just delete; then just have the nerve to quote to you proper wiki procedures is INSANE! I'm slowing coming under the impression that Wikipedia is now about of unemployed people that have nothing better to do then stop on those of use that have a hard working job AND we contribute our time.

They need to clean up the people not going through due process of discussing someone’s work before deleting it. I'm sick of how riddled Wikipedia is becoming with them. I remember coming here and you could do research and post citations on articles with out someone being defensive and treating the article your posting in like its their child! I look forward to the people that will put on their "helpful" face and reply with links to Wiki FAQs and Wikipedia due process links. Frustratedly, 173.2.100.46 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

thats the thing, wikimedia isnt just about the website wikipedia. what people should ask themselves is the wmf really needed to run an online encyclopedia or make it any better? im sure wmf does wonderful things, but the fact that they use wikipedia as a hostage to extort money for programs that in no way "protect" wikipedia from being overrun with ads makes me wary. on that note, ads arent such a bad thing. for years the community has made wikipedia what it is, ads could generate revenue to reward those contributors that do the "real" work. Elmuhfuh 01:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, how would you say the Wikimedia Foundation "uses Wikipedia as a hostage"? They could easily turn off Wikipedia for the day to solicit donations, but they don't. That would be holding it hostage.

The Wikimedia Foundation exists to support Wikipedia. It pays for the servers, system administrators, developers, outreach (finding new contributors, teaching people about Wikipedia), legal staff (lots of people think they should sue Wikipedia), press, fundraising staff, and much more. It's not like money that you donate "to Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation" is going to be spent on random other topics, it all has to do with Wikipedia and its sister projects. Please read the wmf:FAQ/en I linked above and see if it helps remove any of the questions you have. Cbrown1023 talk 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm sorry. But that link holds (at best) a few bullet points at best. Wikipedia in 2008 was a total of 18,715,900,000 bytes in all languages combined. Thats under 20 tetrabytes. A single server running at 10k to purchase with a rackmountable hard-drive set could hold 8 1-tetrabyte drives. Assuming you have 5 servers that's your 20 tetrabytes of space. Meaning your hard-ware cost is 50,000$ for what you need right-now. Can this compare to 10 Million Dollars? I dont think so. Your FAQ answers no questions. Wikimedia - if it really is being used to reduce costs, should drive these numbers lower not increase them. Assuming you have a dedicated pricy internet connection at 1,000$ per month (which is a crazy amount and not realistic for your bandwidh on account of your wiki being text driven with off-shore image links) you should have a total cost of: 12,000$ per month for the bandwidth. Office space for a server setup of this size should also be at about 2,000$ / month for a total of 24,000$ per month. This means - as a total - 86,000$ covers your rent + equipment + 5 server purchases PER YEAR. This does not equal 10 Million - and your FAQ explains nothing. All it says is you want 10 Million Dollars - good for you, I do too. 68.144.96.176 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC) KermEd

Hi, can we get your contacts? I can always find places for people who can build such efficient systems. Especially I want to learn about your tetrabyte drives - they seem to be much more efficient than regular disks we use, and probably do 150 million iops each instead of 150 iops, that regular off the shelf drives do. We also use bad compression methods, as our compressed text plus some tiny tiny images build up 8gbps of traffic, so "dedicated pricy internet connection" ends up being necessary. Please tell how we can cram more text into that bandwidth! I couldn't cram 8gbps of traffic onto my home DSL last time I tried. Indeed, you are absolutely right, one can host a wiki with under 50k$, assuming that he is the only one reading it, and it doesn't have more than few thousand users (you can actually put it all then on a tape), and no editing/content transformations are done. Maybe we should use en:TetraPak for our tetrabytes and tetrabits - then it will be even cheaper. Mwahaha. Midom 10:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine - lets see the actual monthly cost paid on the internet. You really are saying that 1,000$/month is only sufficient to pay for a single user to access a wiki? Where do you get *your* figures from. Seriously - 10 Million is ridiculous. 35 employees is ridiculous enough on its own. They have one (free) over moderated website developed by the community - your not Google. I already know the difference between tetrabytes and tetrabits and I'm sorry you followed old standards for setting up the systems. But seriously (and back to topic) you have to admit that 10 Million Dollars for this site is wasteful for only a single year or funding. This should NOT be listed as a charity, and these donations should be shared to worthy actual Charities not some bloated website that can't keep its costs under control. I stand by my decision - these funds do not match up with reality. This company needs to downsize before begging the community already building the website for free for you to cough up their money as well. In fact, if we do the work, and we pay for the product - what do we need the Wiki team for? Let alone 35 of them.68.144.96.176 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) KermEd

For only 1 Million dollars a year, with two dedicated employees, two maybe three dogs and 4 close friends I can squander you hard earned dollars on all kids of ish... so send me your money now. I have a dream, of a virtual cornacopia of bull'ish that other volunteers have done for me while I take your money and drop it on double zero in Vegas. Please support me. Thanks.

Why are people complaining over money OTHER people donate anyway? I use Wikipedia frequently and find it very interesting and often useful. 10$ m. dollars does seem a lot to me too, but I don't complain, since (to be brutally honest) I am not donating and there are plenty of people who will. But it must be some kind of self-assertive impulse which drives people to bang their chests and say: "Hey I'm not falling for your scam, I'm a really smart carrot". It does seem like a lot of money, especially once you consider that this kind of fund-raising will be repeated every year, but on the other hand lawyers and lawsuits were mentioned. That can't be cheap. Sorry, wait, I was carried away by the OP and missed an important detail. Where did those 10 mil. come from anyway? Isn't the fund-raiser aiming for 7.5?

Yep, the goal of this fundraiser (the "direct giving campaign") is 7.5M. The other ~3M comes from major gifts/foundation support and other business development activities. You can see more information in the FAQ (specifically: "How much money are you hoping to raise?"). Cbrown1023 talk 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The information there is brief and sketchy at best. The concern is this is money better spent on cancer research.

Standard method of donation not working in Norway and Sweden

Hi, I am Ulf Larsen, I have contributed to Wikipedia for over 5 years and just wanted to notice someone that can fix it that the standard method of contributing in Norway and Sweden do not work.

If you select the standard, in norwegian/swedish currency, you get this message:

Din transaksjon har blitt avvist.Kontakt kredittkortselskapet ditt for mer informasjon

Translated it says:

Your transaction has been declined. Contact your credicard company for more information.

So for anyone not persistent, they will just give up. Norway is a rich country, so is Sweden and I believe the Foundation could receive some funds if this is fixed. Ulflarsen 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ulflarsen and thanks for your message. How are you trying to donate? Are you doing it from wmf:Appeal2/en, wmf:Appeal2/nb, or another page? Are you donating with PayPal or with a credit card? You tried it with both SEK and NOK, right? If you can give us more information, I'll pass it on to our tech team to see if we can fix the issue. Thanks again for the note! Cbrown1023 talk 23:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replicated this error, five minutes ago, through wmf:Appeal2/sv using VISA and SEK. Paypal worked fine though. --Ainali 19:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did the shortest way, as a test after my girlfriend did not managed the similar procedure on the Swedish language wikipedia. You click on the donate banner, select the prepaid sum, in kroner, and VISA card - but it does not work and you get that message I translated above. And this is the same for both Norway and Sweden. Ulflarsen 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tried again to see if the problem is fixed, tried to use the most direct way of giving from the Norwegian language version of Wikipedia:

Nytt forsøk:

• Clicked banner on top of page
• Clicked Gi nå (give now)
• Selected standard amount, in Norwegian currency
• Clicked Gi med kredittkort (give with credit card)
• Din transaksjon har blitt avvist.Kontakt kredittkortselskapet ditt for mer informasjon.

Does not work. This is most probably the main route most people use here and it does not work. And dont give me the crap that one can give by some other currency or by Paypal - I do that but the average donor does not, and besides, there is no way for them to know. Can't believe this is not working. Ulflarsen 05:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still not working. This is the most straightforward way to give from Norway and I would assume that Wikimedia Foundation have lost some money on this - should be corrected as quick as possible. Ulflarsen 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now called my bank, which issued my VISA card, the largest Norwegian bank, DnB NOR, and talked for some 5 minutes with the helpdesk there. I explained my problem, what I did, that I am a regular user of paying various services over the web and have not met a similar problem for a long time, and she could not see anything with my account that should give me a problem with the payment. Her verdict was that it is higly possible that the problem is with the solution behind the webpage and that is something that Wikimedia Foundation must fix - I can not do it from my side. Ulflarsen 15:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I encountered the same problem as user:Ulflarsen, using a VISA card issued by another Norwegian bank. I used this link, choosing "credit card" and "NOK - kr" as the currency. At least one more Norwegian user at no:Wikipedia:Tinget#BRANN_P.C3.85_DASS.21.21.21 has the same problem. This should be fixed ASAP. --Kjetil_r 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Same problem for me (Norwegian, logged in from a norwegian ISP, paying by Visa from a Norwegian bank). Looks like there's some problem on the foundation part. nsaa 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Foundation is aware and looking at the problem. I'll have an update later. Rand Montoya 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Isolated the problem ("Error Code 6: Invalid or unsupported currency code"...which is odd because it was working earlier) and now tracking back with our vendor for solutions. Rand Montoya 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like PayPal got a new partner in Norway at approx the same time the problem appeared. I've phoned Payex Solutions and will do a follow up if they don't call back. 87.248.11.28 09:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Still not working, got this message: "Your credit card could not be validated. Please verify that all provided information matches your credit card profile, or try a different card. You can also use one of our other ways to give or contact us at donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your support."

I tried to pay with my VISA card, from within Norway and I have used the card today to pay something else on the web, so the problem must obviously be with the fundraising solution. Ulflarsen 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Update for 12/22/09: Still working with our vendor on a solution. We have gotten over 1200 CC donations in similar currencies since the start of the fundraiser...it's *not* a WMF problem, we must work with others to fix it. At this time, the solution may be to use our other portal: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DonateNonJS/en. Hopefully, we'll have this fixed soon or we'll have to take additional measures. Rand Montoya 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

svenska, bokmål, nynorsk. Cbrown1023 talk 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Still not working, as of 08:20 this morning: "Your credit card could not be validated. Please verify that all provided information matches your credit card profile, or try a different card. You can also use one of our other ways to give or contact us at donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your support." Ulflarsen 07:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Still not working, checked at 14:15 local Norwegian time and I got the same error message as above. Ulflarsen 13:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Works now, I manage to donate 200 dollars through the banner running on the Norwegian language version of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is completely correct. We know that the following currencies will work: AUD, CAD, EUR, GBP, JPY, and USD. We are pretty sure that the following do not: CHF, CZK, DKK, HKD, HUF, NZD, NOK, PLN, SGD, SEK, ILS. Again, this is preliminary and we are working on a solution with our vendor. Rand Montoya 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: We have determined that the following currencies will no longer be accepted by our vendor for direct credit card donations: CHF, CZK, DKK, HKD, HUF, NZD, NOK, PLN, SGD, SEK, ILS. We have implemented a quick fix of hiding the "Donate by Credit Card" button when one of those currencies is selected and hiding those currencies from the payments page.

You can still donate using the above currencies credit card after hitting the "Donate via Paypal" and going through Paypal to make a CC donation. You can also use last year's portal: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DonateNonJS/en.

Donations from AUD, CAD, EUR, GBP, JPY, and USD are all unaffected and will work properly through our credit card payments gateway.

We continue to work with our vendor to find a better solution to this. Rand Montoya 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I will translate this for the Norwegian community. Thanks! [1] Jeblad 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I just had success with donating 200 NOK. I used Visa and followed the most obviuos way to donate as described earlier. Merry Christmas :) Atluxity 03:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I just cannot see where "10 million dollars" is going if this site is run by less than 35 employees annually! Something is fishy!

Hello and I totally understand where you're coming from. If some random website told me that they need $10 million dollars worth of donations to run and that's all they told me, I'd be a little hesitant too. However, we actually do tell you where the money goes. You can check out our financial reports page for information on our 2009-2010 annual plan and an FAQ about that (and old data as well). Our Donation FAQ is also linked from the main donation page and that has a few answers that I think you're looking for.

If there are any other questions you have that aren't addressed in any of those places, feel free to leave a reply here and I'll be happy to help. Cbrown1023 talk 16:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time for Wikipedia to die?

If the foundation can't stand on it's own two feet with so much free publicity and so many visitors then re-thinking the approach (get a business manager) is probably the right approach. After all, it's only hopeless people who beg right?

There are plenty of other open groups and organizations able to commodetize upon products with far less to offer than Wikipedia. It looks like all Wikipedia is currently lacking is a fresh set of ideas.

• This post was not off topic it's on topic. It's related to raising funds and keeping Wikipedia running.

Some practical suggestions:

• Licence Wikipedia content for commercial use
• Package Wikipedia content for sale on store shelves
• Partner with business creating portable Wikipedia information delivery devices
• Sell t-shirts
• Have editors package subject specific content (ie. mammalian species, nuclear physics etc.) and sell as e-books or printed material
• Likewise commercial audio book encyclopedias
• Work with third world countries to provide affordable educational materials
• Commodetize upon the wikimedia software by providing commercial wikimedia support
• Sell wikimedia access to companies interested in having a wiki but not running their own software
• Create and sell sub-domain wikipedia / wikimedia information portals for use by commercial entities

Most of those are doable with very minimal effort. The point of this post is that raising funds just requires a little expertise in business. IMHO the campaign begging for money is a short term, net loss approach because the next meal isn't guaranteed and begging generates ill will. If this continues it's just a matter of time before Wikipedia is gone.

Wikipedia is run by a charity. It is perfectly normal for charities to ask the public for donations. --Tango 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

the OP sounds like he swallowed a biz-school textbook & has regurgitated the cliches here, while adding a predicatble smugness in lines like "it's only hopeless people who beg" .. the myopism is shameful. 68.184.142.22 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

gross. do you even understand the purpose/mechanics of wikipedia? the moment wikipedia starts "licensing" and "commoditizing" is the same moment that all their volunteers will/should demand to be paid.