Talk:Fundraising/Archive 7

Status on the fundraising banners and other similar things

Hello. In the past (as you can see by scrolling up) I've been rather critical of the WMF's fundraising banners. I've come here to ask what the status is on them and if changes are going to be made, if any. Blaze Wolf (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Blaze Wolf,

You can find answers in the post I just added below. Thank you, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Update on banners - changes to banners for Italian fundraising campaign

Dear all,

Thank you all for your suggestions and feedback during the English campaign. We have gathered the input and suggestions and would now like to share with you some updates and changes we are able to make for our next banner campaign in Italy which launched yesterday.

• You suggested an I already donate button for the banners. We first implemented this towards the end of the English campaign and are now testing it heavily during the Italian campaign. This means that during the Italian banner campaign we will run banners both with and without the I already donated button and compare the data. We are confident that this will become a more permanent feature in all our banner campaigns soon.
• In the last campaign, we heard requests to change a line from the banner (example: …this is the 3rd time recently…). We adapted this line in the English campaign and will not be including it in our upcoming campaigns for this fundraising year.
• During the English campaign it was suggested to include a line on the Thank you page explaining to donors why they still might see banners and how they can make sure that this doesn’t happen. We implemented this already in the English campaign and are now working with our translation experts to make this a permanent feature of all our Thank you pages.

As always, please get in touch with me with further suggestions that I will pass on to the team for testing.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the English campaign to start again before I provide any more feedback (because, y'know, I don't speak Italian) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: An Indian campaign is due to start on May 31st. That will be in English, and will give you the first clue what has been taken on board. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 19:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I am being stupid. The page overleaf contains sample banners for the Italian fundraiser, and even if you don't speak Italian, you can just put them into a good online translator like https://www.deepl.com/translator (generally considered superior to Google Translate in the languages it does).

This will render the following translations for the four sample banners linked overleaf:

• Desktop large: "To all our readers in Italy. Please do not ignore this appeal. This Thursday we humbly ask you to help us support Wikipedia. If you are one of those exceptional people who have already donated, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. If you donate as little as €2 today, Wikipedia will continue to grow for years to come. We humbly ask you not to pretend that you don't know anything. If Wikipedia has given you knowledge worth at least €2, please take a minute to make a donation. Show the world that access to reliable, neutral information is important to you. Thank you."
• Desktop small: "Hi! This is not the first time recently that we have interrupted your reading, but 98% of our users do not donate. Many think they will later, but then forget. This Thursday we are asking you to support Wikipedia. All we ask is €2, or what you can spare, to allow us to continue to grow. We ask with humility: don't look the other way. If you are one of those rare people who have already donated, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts."
• Mobile large: " To all our readers. Please don't ignore this appeal. Let's get straight to the point: this Thursday we are asking you to help us support Wikipedia. If you are one of those rare people who have already donated, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

  If all the people reading this message would donate €2, we could keep Wikipedia growing for years. A little more than the price of a cappuccino is all we need. We know you're busy and we don't want to interrupt you, but we need to remind everyone.

  Wikipedia is supported by the donations of a very small part of its users, only 2%, and we don't want to charge a subscription. Without the contributions, large or small, of our readers, we would not be able to run Wikipedia as we always have.

  That's why we still need your help. The model we've adopted excites us, because at its core, Wikipedia belongs to you. We want to make sure that everyone on the planet has equal access to knowledge.

  If you think the knowledge Wikipedia has given you this year is worth €2, take a minute to make a donation and support its future. Thank you.

  Fundraising payment formPlease choose a figure (EUR). The average donation is 10 €, but everyone gives what they think is fair. Generally first time donors choose to give 2 €. The important thing is that you choose to step up and support free and accessible information, and for that we are grateful.

  2 € 10 € 15 € 25 € 50 € 75 € 100 € Other (€)

  We humbly ask you: do not ignore this message."

• Mobile small: " Hi! This is not the first time recently that we have interrupted your research, but 98% of our users do not donate and continue reading. This Thursday we are asking you to help us support Wikipedia. All we ask is €2 if you can afford €2, or €25 if you can afford €25. We humbly ask you: don't ignore this message. Please select a payment method"

Of course, these are only samples. The WMF will show other wordings as well during the course of the fundraiser. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 19:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Rethink WMF aggressive campaigns. Newcomers should not think that Wikipedia is a "profit"

To the dear attention of the Fundraising Team,

Long story short: Wikimedia Foundation's banners are too aggressive.

If you don't trust me, here an overview of the feedback received in the last years:

Year	Main community feedback
2022	[1] Very aggressive banner (e.g. on it.wiki):
2021	«HOLY CRAP THAT IS A HUGE BANNER»
2020	«stop gigantic fundraising banners»
2019	banners breaking Wikipedia layout
2018
2017	«Banners occupy the page»
2016 2015	«Gigantic banner» «Unusable webpage.»
2015	[2] «dramatic [..] banner plastered atop your screen»

The core suggestions is:

Quantify visual impact and reduce it

We should make sure that the visual impact has a metric, and that there is not a year-to-year increase on this metric, since bigger banners means a Wikipedia more difficult to understand, more difficult to access, with less content and more spam, with more distraction, with the danger that Wikipedia will be misunderstood like a commercial project, and other possible/real or stereotypical concern raised from barriers that ask for money. The more the banners are big, the more we risk to devalue the work of millions of volunteers, who have a hard time explaining to normal people why the Wikimedia Foundation ask for money, why in such impactful ways, if volunteers receive that money, whether the Wikimedia Foundation is for profit, and other absurd questions coming from the logical association to other commercial websites with big banners.

It's common sense to understand that we can't simply minimize this metric (since it means remove them all). But since on mobile this year somebody has scrolled 3 times the page before avoiding spam on a large smartphone, many contributors are confident that something can be done to improve the current situation.

Hoping this will improve the positive experience new users have with Wikipedia, and simplify conversations between Wikipedians and non-Wikipedian users,

Thank you so much. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I count 7 banners in that image for 2022. And that's on a mobile phone. One is enough, even if they're worded poorly and intrusive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, this is getting to the point of intrusive web ads. I honestly wonder if someone has created a plugin similar to adblock that blocks those banners from popping up. AT least make there be an obvious "provide feedback" button. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you scroll further down in the archive, you can see how I became more and more irritated with my feedback posts. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The first thing to understand is that the WMF wants to aggressively grow its revenue, and if larger, more aggressive banners bring more money, then larger, more aggressive banners is what we shall have. What's sneaky about all of this is that for at least the past decade, whenever someone's pointed out that the WMF has millions of dollars in the bank, it's countered that by saying that it's merely doing the prudent thing recommended to all non-profits – making sure it has sufficient reserves to cover about one-and-a-half years of annual expenses, as a safety net to protect Wikipedia. What the WMF comms people haven't said is that each time its reserves (assets) hit a new record – which has happened every year of its existence – the WMF has immediately increased its budget by the same proportion, to the point where it now spends ten times as much money as ten years ago (record expenses of $150 million are budgeted for the current, 2021/22 year – so you see, cash reserves are still "one-and-a-half times annual expenses"):

Financial development of the Wikimedia Foundation (in US$), 2003–2021
Black: Net assets (excluding the Wikimedia Endowment, which passed $100m in June 2021)
Green: Revenue (excluding third-party donations to Wikimedia Endowment)
Red: Expenses (including WMF payments to Wikimedia Endowment)

Year	Source	Revenue	Expenses	Asset rise	Total assets
2020/2021	PDF	$ 162,886,686	$ 111,839,819	$ 50,861,811	$ 231,177,536
2019/2020	PDF	$ 129,234,327	$ 112,489,397	$ 14,674,300	$ 180,315,725
2018/2019	PDF	$ 120,067,266	$ 91,414,010	$ 30,691,855	$ 165,641,425
2017/2018	PDF	$ 104,505,783	$ 81,442,265	$ 21,619,373	$ 134,949,570
2016/2017	PDF	$ 91,242,418	$ 69,136,758	$ 21,547,402	$ 113,330,197
2015/2016	PDF	$ 81,862,724	$ 65,947,465	$ 13,962,497	$ 91,782,795
2014/2015	PDF	$ 75,797,223	$ 52,596,782	$ 24,345,277	$ 77,820,298
2013/2014	PDF	$ 52,465,287	$ 45,900,745	$ 8,285,897	$ 53,475,021
2012/2013	PDF	$ 48,635,408	$ 35,704,796	$ 10,260,066	$ 45,189,124
2011/2012	PDF	$ 38,479,665	$ 29,260,652	$ 10,736,914	$ 34,929,058
2010/2011	PDF	$ 24,785,092	$ 17,889,794	$ 9,649,413	$ 24,192,144
2009/2010	PDF	$ 17,979,312	$ 10,266,793	$ 6,310,964	$ 14,542,731
2008/2009	PDF	$ 8,658,006	$ 5,617,236	$ 3,053,599	$ 8,231,767
2007/2008	PDF	$ 5,032,981	$ 3,540,724	$ 3,519,886	$ 5,178,168
2006/2007	PDF	$ 2,734,909	$ 2,077,843	$ 654,066	$ 1,658,282
2005/2006	PDF	$ 1,508,039	$ 791,907	$ 736,132	$ 1,004,216
2004/2005	PDF	$ 379,088	$ 177,670	$ 211,418	$ 268,084
2003/2004	PDF	$ 80,129	$ 23,463	$ 56,666	$ 56,666

Net assets are now three times what they were at the time of the 2015 Washington Post article. And when the WMF realized around the time of that article that with aggressive fundraising it could squeeze even more money out of Wikipedia that it could not possibly meaningfully spend, it started the Endowment – a completely separate (and to date completely non-transparent) fund by now containing around $150 million that is not included in all the above figures, except as expenses – because when the WMF pays money into its own Endowment, that is accounted for as an expense.

In this way, claiming all along that its bank balance is merely there "for safety", and telling people time and again that money is urgently needed, the WMF has accumulated an estimated $400 million fortune – less than a decade ago, that would have been considered enough to fund Wikipedia and all other Wikimedia projects for forty years. (See also my 2021 Daily Dot article.)

This is aggressive collection of ever greater sums of money disguised as an appeal motivated by need. Sometimes it's been spiced with veiled threats that if people don't donate, Wikipedia will have to run ads, charge a subscription or possibly blink out of existence altogether for lack of money. What this isn't in my opinion is an honest and transparent communication to the public along the lines of "We want to grow, and this is what we will do with all the extra money we're asking you for." --Andreas JN466 15:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Valerio Bozzolan,

Thank you very much for your feedback on the banners. I will pass this on to the team. Best wishes, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Valerio Bozzolan,

I briefly wanted to follow up with you after talking to the team as well and here are some more details/explanations around the banners.

Both our large mobile and desktop banners are only shown to readers once per campaign (this is per device/browser) as we are trying to minimise the disruption they cause. After the first big banner, the reader will show a much smaller banner (see examples) 5 times.

We are currently working on reducing height on the banners in order to make them less interruptive and we are also working on testing different styles. However this needs to first go through a testing process before it might become operational.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there as well any thoughts about the completely misleading alarmist nonsense that is in those huge banners? I think this deceitful lying to the readers is something that's more of concern than the size in general. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Italian email text

Would it be possible to publicise email texts in the same way as the sample banner texts?

For reference, here is a critique of the Italian email text being sent out as part of the current Italian fundraiser: https://www.thesocialpost.it/2021/03/05/wikipedia-chiede-una-donazione-e-manda-lemail-piu-brutta-della-storia-tutto-sbagliato-ma-proprio-tutto/

English and German DeepL translations of the Italian email text, as quoted in that press article, follow below:

English machine translation of Italian email:

"Hi Paolo, in 2016, you donated €5 to keep Wikipedia online for hundreds of millions of users. I am pleasantly surprised by your continued support and am deeply grateful. You are a rare exception. You are part of the 2% of readers who donate to support Wikipedia. This year we need your help again.

Would you like to renew your support with a €5 donation?

It's a bit embarrassing to admit, but I have to be honest: 98% of our users don't donate, they simply look the other way when we ask for an annual donation. We're very different from other platforms and apps because we decided not to charge a subscription.

However, that doesn't mean we don't need the support of our readers and subscribers. We wouldn't dream of sending you a fundraising email every month. What we do do, instead, is ask you with absolute respect to make a donation once a year, so that Wikipedia can continue to offer free access to knowledge to you and the rest of the world."

German machine translation of Italian email:

"Hallo Paolo, 2016 hast du 5 € gespendet, damit Wikipedia für hunderte Millionen Nutzer online bleibt. Ich bin angenehm überrascht von deiner anhaltenden Unterstützung und bin dir sehr dankbar. Du bist eine seltene Ausnahme. Du gehörst zu den 2% der Leser, die für Wikipedia spenden. Dieses Jahr brauchen wir wieder deine Hilfe.

Möchtest du deine Unterstützung mit einer Spende von 5 € erneuern?

Es ist ein bisschen peinlich, das zuzugeben, aber ich muss ehrlich sein: 98% unserer Nutzerinnen und Nutzer spenden nicht, sie schauen einfach weg, wenn wir sie um eine jährliche Spende bitten. Wir unterscheiden uns sehr von anderen Plattformen und Apps, weil wir uns entschieden haben, kein Abonnement zu verlangen.

Das heißt aber nicht, dass wir die Unterstützung unserer Leserinnen und Leser nicht brauchen. Wir würden nicht im Traum daran denken, dir jeden Monat eine Spenden-E-Mail zu schicken. Wir bitten dich jedoch höflich darum, einmal im Jahr zu spenden, damit Wikipedia dir und dem Rest der Welt weiterhin kostenlosen Zugang zu Wissen bieten kann."

There is an implied threat in the text to charge a subscription fee, along with a clear implication that continued donations are necessary to keep Wikipedia online and free. However, the financial figures in the section above paint a very different picture. Regards, --Andreas JN466 14:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"they simply look the other way when we ask for an annual donation" Hmm I wonder why. It's definitely not because you don't need the money and you're very aggressive with your donations. Reading the ENglish translation, I Don't see the implied threat. It's just pointing out that Wikipedia is different because they don't charge a subscription fee. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Yeah, you're right, actually; I was in a rush and misread that slightly. "We're very different from other platforms and apps because we decided not to charge a subscription" is kind of okay. (Then again, you can't really start "The Free Encyclopedia" and then start charging money for it ...) The thing about donating to keep Wikipedia online is a bit more iffy. Sure, that is indeed why many people donate, but it's not really the reason why the WMF is asking for more and more and more money (the money goes to fund staff and salary growth; keeping Wikipedia online is a tiny fraction of WMF expenditure). Cheers, --Andreas JN466 16:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think I had it right the first time. Even introducing the notion of charging a subscription for a work created essentially by volunteer labour is off. Psychologically, it's the equivalent of saying, "Nice encyclopedia you've got here. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it." Andreas JN466 07:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The words used matter only to a certain extent. The audience perception will depend on what it is used to. The Wikimedia Foundation deploys banners which effectively make Wikipedia impossible to access (sometimes you have to scroll a dozen pages on a mobile device), with the most obvious alternative provided being a regular monthly payment. For people who have experience of metered paywalls on other websites, this seems something similar, whatever the words used to describe it, so more and more people get the impression that Wikipedia is now a subscriber-only service with a paywall. Nemo 08:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Visibility of skeptical opinions on fundraising

There clearly exists opposition in the community towards the current fundraising practices of the WMF. However, this opposition appears to be scattered and hard to find. A casual reader of Wikipedia will get the impression that the Wikipedia community is in favor of active and aggressive fundraising, thanks to the site-wide fundraising banners. However, similar banners could potentially be used to inform readers that a large part of the community is in fact opposed to the current fundraising practices, and give them a place to join the discussion of this very important issue. A CentralNotice request could be filed, linking to a campaign for, say discussion of fundraising practices on Wikipedia. This could lead to new consensuses forming, potentially influencing other CentralNotice banner campaigns (such as the fundraising banners), in something akin to a positive feedback loop. Thoughts? Ornilnas (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Could be timed to a few days or weeks prior to a fundraising campaign starting and just provide an overview of financial data:

Financial development of the Wikimedia Foundation (in US$), 2003–2021
Black: Net assets (excluding the Wikimedia Endowment, which passed $100m in June 2021)
Green: Revenue (excluding third-party donations to Wikimedia Endowment)
Red: Expenses (including WMF payments to Wikimedia Endowment)

Year	Source	Revenue	Expenses	Asset rise	Total assets
2020/2021	PDF	$ 162,886,686	$ 111,839,819	$ 50,861,811	$ 231,177,536
2019/2020	PDF	$ 129,234,327	$ 112,489,397	$ 14,674,300	$ 180,315,725
2018/2019	PDF	$ 120,067,266	$ 91,414,010	$ 30,691,855	$ 165,641,425
2017/2018	PDF	$ 104,505,783	$ 81,442,265	$ 21,619,373	$ 134,949,570
2016/2017	PDF	$ 91,242,418	$ 69,136,758	$ 21,547,402	$ 113,330,197
2015/2016	PDF	$ 81,862,724	$ 65,947,465	$ 13,962,497	$ 91,782,795
2014/2015	PDF	$ 75,797,223	$ 52,596,782	$ 24,345,277	$ 77,820,298
2013/2014	PDF	$ 52,465,287	$ 45,900,745	$ 8,285,897	$ 53,475,021
2012/2013	PDF	$ 48,635,408	$ 35,704,796	$ 10,260,066	$ 45,189,124
2011/2012	PDF	$ 38,479,665	$ 29,260,652	$ 10,736,914	$ 34,929,058
2010/2011	PDF	$ 24,785,092	$ 17,889,794	$ 9,649,413	$ 24,192,144
2009/2010	PDF	$ 17,979,312	$ 10,266,793	$ 6,310,964	$ 14,542,731
2008/2009	PDF	$ 8,658,006	$ 5,617,236	$ 3,053,599	$ 8,231,767
2007/2008	PDF	$ 5,032,981	$ 3,540,724	$ 3,519,886	$ 5,178,168
2006/2007	PDF	$ 2,734,909	$ 2,077,843	$ 654,066	$ 1,658,282
2005/2006	PDF	$ 1,508,039	$ 791,907	$ 736,132	$ 1,004,216
2004/2005	PDF	$ 379,088	$ 177,670	$ 211,418	$ 268,084
2003/2004	PDF	$ 80,129	$ 23,463	$ 56,666	$ 56,666

WikiWand donations

Is the Wikimedia Foundation able to confirm when it last received a donation from WikiWand? I think the information is relevant for two reasons:

• WikiWand uses the Wikimedia trademarks in advertising itself as an ethical business;
• the source of such promised donations was said to unspecified revenues from the website, which seems to produce revenues mostly by selling the personal data of users of Wikipedia content to a bunch of advertisers (with Outbrain leading the pack).

Nemo 08:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): I would be interested in an answer to this question as well. Andreas JN466 10:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

We checked our donation database and we could not find any donation from WikiWand to the Wikimedia Foundation. We could also not find any reference to collecting donations on their website. If you have any more information you would like us to have a look at, please share them here. You can also send reports of trademark misuse directly to the legal team at legal-tm-vio@wikimedia.org and they will look into it

Best,

Julia JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): They do not collect donations on their website, but earn money from "ads and content recommendations" and say on this page (archive) that "30% of Wikiwand's profits are donated to the Wikimedia Foundation, to support Wikipedia." Andreas JN466 22:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Andreas, we will have a closer look at this. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As of June 2022 WikiWand is a benefactor of the WMF and their name is listed on our benefactor page. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this update, Julia. Was this a case of them having donated all along, or did your inquiries following this conversation remind them of their pledge? Andreas JN466 11:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the update. Nemo 18:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

South African banner texts

Here are the example texts from the South African banner campaign:

• Desktop Large: To all our readers in South Africa, Please don't scroll past this. This Wednesday, we ask you to sustain Wikipedia's independence. 98% of our readers don't donate; they simply keep reading. If you are an exceptional reader who has already donated, we sincerely thank you. If you donate just R 30 today, Wikipedia could keep growing for years. We ask you: please don’t scroll away. If Wikipedia has given you R 30 worth of knowledge, take a moment to donate. Show the world that access to reliable, neutral information matters to you. Thank you.
• Desktop Small: Hi. This Wednesday, we interrupt your reading to ask you to help us sustain Wikipedia. 98% of our readers don't donate. Many think they’ll give later, but then forget. All we ask is R 30, or what you can afford, to sustain our future. We ask you: Please don't scroll away. If you are one of our rare donors, we warmly thank you.
• Mobile Large: To all our readers, Please don't scroll past this. We apologise for interrupting your reading this Wednesday, so we'll get straight to the point: We ask you to help us sustain Wikipedia's independence. 98% of our readers don't donate; they simply keep reading. If you are one of our rare donors, we warmly thank you. If everyone reading this donated R 30, we could keep Wikipedia growing for years. We're sure you are busy and we won’t interrupt for long. Wikipedia is sustained by the donations of only 2% of our readers. Without reader contributions, big or small, we couldn’t run Wikipedia the way we do. That’s why we still need your help. We are passionate about our non-profit model because at its core, Wikipedia belongs to you. If Wikipedia provided you R 30 worth of knowledge this year, please take a moment to secure its future by making a donation. Thank you
• Mobile Small: Hi. This Wednesday we interrupt your reading to ask you to help us sustain Wikipedia. 98% of our readers don't donate; they just keep reading. All we ask is R 30 if you’d like to give R 30, or R 200 if you’d like to give R 200. We ask you: Please don't scroll away.

As is stated overleaf, these are just example texts, as the WMF constantly tests new language. As always, none of these texts make clear that the WMF is continuously increasing its budget and headcount, asking for more money each year to finance this expansion; instead, the texts focus on the phrase "sustain Wikipedia's independence". --Andreas JN466 11:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that's right, all those donations have nothing to do with sustain but with growth. It's one of those typical banners, that the community loathes for its dishonesty, they may create revenue, but they are in fact based on blatant lies, or at least giant exaggerations. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hiding fundraising banners

Where are the directions for this? I used to know where the long message was that was being added to every Help Desk question on the subject. And now I have some even more detailed information from The Teahouse.Vchimpanzee (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your message. We do not have any instructions here on meta on how to hide the banner but the Teahouse message you found certainly gives a a good summary of how to do this. I can add add this information to my outreach to communities before the next English campaign. Best wishes, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Indian email texts

Thanks for linking the Indian email texts (1, 2, 3). For reference and to enable discussion, the texts are as follows (typo corrections welcome): --Andreas JN466 07:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

India email 1

----------- Forwarded message -----------
From: jimmy@wikipedia.org <donate@wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:51 AM
Subject: all2021 - You are one of the rare exceptions

Dear all2021,

My name is Jimmy Wales, and I'm the founder of Wikipedia. About a year ago, you donated Rs. 313 to keep Wikipedia online for yourself and millions of people around the world. Each year, fewer than 2% of Wikipedia readers choose to support our work. You have been one of those rare donors, and for this I want to thank you warmly. I'm grateful you agree that we can use the power of the internet for good. We will achieve this not as individuals, but as a collaborative movement of knowledge seekers. Together, we can rebuild trust in the internet, and by extension, in each other.

Will you renew your solidarity with a Rs. 313 donation?

I have to be honest: 98% of our readers don't donate when we request an annual donation. We choose not to charge a subscription fee, but that doesn't mean we don't need support from our readers. We don't send a fundraising email every month. We respectfully request just one donation this year so that Wikipedia may continue to grow and offer knowledge to the world.

If all our past donors gave a small amount today, our fundraiser would be over. Unfortunately, most people will ignore this message. That's why we turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and growing for years to come.

We're a non-profit. That means we aren't selling the articles that million of people read on Wikipedia each day. We don't profit from the knowledge you seek. In fact, we firmly believe that knowledge should exist outside of the realm of supply and demand. That's hardly a given nowadays; so much of the world's digital knowledge is driven by profit.

Wikipedia is different in that it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations. It belongs to you, the readers, editors, and donors. You're our community, our family. You're the reason we exist. The fate of Wikipedia rests in your hands and we wouldn't have it any other way.

It's readers like you who safeguard our non-profit mission. You help us maintain our integrity, quality, and accessibility. Today, kindly consider giving again, or even increasing your gift, to keep Wikipedia free and independent.

Now is the time we request: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small donation? It will keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing for years to come.

https://donate.wikimedia.org

Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Founder of Wikipedia

Renew your donation: Rs. 313

Where will your donation go?

• 43% of your gift will be used to sustain and improve Wikipedia and our other online free knowledge projects.
• 32% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day.
• 25% of your gift will give the Wikimedia Foundation the resources it needs to fulfill its mission and advance the cause of free knowledge in the world.

India email 2

----------- Forwarded message -----------
From: jimmy@wikipedia.org <donate@wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:53 AM
Subject: It's non-negotiable

Dear all2021,

You have been a Wikipedia donor since 2017 and have donated more than 4 times.

You've unlocked: 4 Badges

Bronze Silver Gold Platinum
Badge Badge Badge Badge

When you gave Rs. 313 in 2021, you were one of those rare donors who kept Wikipedia growing for yourself and millions of other readers.

Ready to earn your next badge? Kindly match your previous gift today.

I took the liberty of emailing you a second time on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation responsible for the protection of Wikipedia), because I wasn't sure you got a chance to read the first amail we sent to fundraisingemail+enin+all+2021@wikimedia.org, the address we have on file for you since your last gift. I hope this badge will act as a reminder of how crucial your commitment to supporting free knowledge has been and still is to us.

At every turn, we have been pressured to compromise our values, but to be honest: This isn't negotiable for us. People have asked, why not just run ads to make revenue? Or sell reader data? Or make people pay to read? While these things seem like the norm online nowadays, we believe that there is another way--a way that doesn't jeopardise the neutrality of our content and threaten your personal data. We just ... request! Not often, but it works. After 21 years of saying no, I can still say we are proud to have left that money on the table.

We're a non-profit. Only 2% of our readers donate, but we manage to serve hundreds of million of people per month. Imagine if everyone gave? We could transform the way knowledge is shared online.

We've been happily stunned by the response from our donors, but we haven't reached our fundraising goal in India yet, and this fundraiser will be over soon. We're not salespeople. We're librarians, archivists, and information seekers. We rely on our readers to become our donors, and it's worked for over 20 years.

This year, kindly consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

We know people's circumstances have changed a lot in the last year, and we understand if you don't renew your gift. Some find themselves with less to spare, but a lucky few happen to have a bit more. If you're one of the lucky ones, will you donate a little extra to keep Wikipedia growing?

Renew your donation: Rs. 313

Give ₹ 5
 
Give ₹ 20

Give ₹ 35

Give another amount
Any gift will unlock your next badge.

Thank you,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder

DONATE NOW: Rs. 313

India email 3

----------- Forwarded message -----------
From: jimmy@wikipedia.org <donate@wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Our final email this year

Dear all2021,

I know you've heard from me twice already, so I'll be direct. In 2021, you were among the extremely rare readers in India who made a donation to invest in the future of free knowledge. If you've made it far enough to open this email, could you take a minute to help us out?

Many of our readers see our emails and think they'll get to it later, but life happens and of course they forget. Our annual email fundraiser in India is coming to an end, so if you've been holding off until "later", this is your moment.

I'm requesting respectfully: Please, renew your Rs. 313 donation; it matters.

Around the time our fundraising campaign starts, I hear from friends, family, and long-lost classmates who see our fundraising messages while they're looking something up on Wikipedia. It's a reminder of how many people, from all walks of life, rely on Wikipedia.

This incredible public support is crucial for our organisation and our movement to grow. It allows us to serve the world, and to do so with independence and integrity. We don't belong to anyone, because we belong to everyone.

You donated in 2021 and we sincerely thank you. If you still see value in Wikipedia, kindly sustain your support in 2022 and keep Wikipedia growing.

This is our biggest fundraising moment of the year. It's when we launch the online campaign that brings in donors who will proper us throughout 2022 and beyond. I'm one of them. I'm a regular donor.

We are the non-profit that supports one of the world's most visited websites. We don't generate revenue by selling off our users' data to the highest bidder. We don't run ads that could jeopardise the integrity and neutrality of our content.

Though our size requires us to maintain the server space and programming power of a top site, we are sustained by the support of our donors who give an average of about ₹ 313. This year, will you take on minute to keep our work going?

₹ 75  ₹ 300

₹ 1500 Other

Renew your donation: Rs. 313

Give less this year

Thank you,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder

DONATE NOW

Discussion of the India emails

"32% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers"

Could you explain the calculation underlying the claim in email 1 that "32% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers"?

For reference, total revenue last year was $163 million, and after the first two quarters of the present 2021/2022 financial year, the Foundation had taken over $10 million more than in the first two quarters of 2020/2021. This means the WMF is on course for at least $175 million this year.

32% of this would be $56 million. The "Thriving Movement" budget, which I believe includes funding for regional chapters' non-volunteer (paid, professional) staff as well as volunteer support, was $14.3M in FY20-21, and $36.7M for the current financial year. --Andreas JN466 08:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We take the figure of 32% from our annual report (our latest one states it is 31% so we are now working on correcting the number in emails going out in the future). That includes grants and other resources to support local contributors, community outreach events, and advocacy for growing free knowledge.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Julia. Could you please find out what this figure is supposed to include? The phrasing in the annual report is exceedingly vague; it says: Wikimedia projects have global reach. This is enabled by the diverse contributions of volunteers from local communities around the world. We provide grants and other resources to support local contributors, community outreach events, and advocacy for growing free knowledge.

As I said, last year's revenue was $163 million. 31% of that was $50M. Total expenditure in that year was just under $112M. So if you consider that salaries and wages were $68M, that only leaves $44M for everything else. In other words, a part of the salaries and wages bill must be included in "Direct support to communities" (the phrase in the annual report), which to my mind means it is no longer "direct" support.

But of course there were many other expenses beyond salaries and wages, e.g. internet hosting ($2.4M), other operating expenses ($10.4M), professional service expenses ($12.1M), and so on. The actual grants total was $9.8M. I really cannot see where $50M "Direct support to communities" should have come from. Do you see what I mean?

Note also the difference between expense percentage and percentage of revenue. Last year, the WMF took $50M more than it spent. (It has always taken more than it has spent, every year.) The wording in the emails immplies that you are talking about the percentage of money donated ("32% of your gift"), not the percentage of money spent. In the annual report, it is not made explicit what is meant, but given that the percentages sum to 100, it must be expenditure. So the percentage "of your gift" would have to be lowered even further than 31% (thank you for doing that fix!) just based on this aspect of the maths alone – or you would have to rephrase it to "31% of our spending is used ...". Best, Andreas JN466 15:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's occurred to me (see [3]) that the "31% Direct support to communities" are bound to include the salary bills of the affiliates (Wikimedia Germany alone has 160 employees). In this sense, too, it is misleading for the email to say this money is "used to support the volunteers" – salaried employees are not volunteers. --Andreas JN466 11:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteers are no longer volunteers as soon as you pay them, of course, so the money can't go directly to volunteers. It has to go to something which directly helps volunteers. The staff you mention plan and run events, recruit and teach new people, promote collaboration and socialization among the existing community, publish educational materials, form partnerships, develop tools, and otherwise engage in activities which are for the broader volunteer community. If that shouldn't count as money supporting volunteers, and if money can't go directly to volunteers by definition, what should count as money supporting volunteers? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Keeping Wikipedia "online and ad-free"

In the above emails, people are told that –

• donations are made "to keep Wikipedia online for yourself and millions of people around the world",
• the WMF "choose[s] not to charge a subscription fee" (doing so would break the promise and commitment in the WMF mission statement to "keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity"),
• the Foundation needs money "to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and growing for years to come", "to keep Wikipedia free and independent", and to "keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing for years to come."

These are all much the same phrases that I thought were deprecated and discontinued on the fundraising banners years ago, following significant community criticism. People said things like, "The messaging being used is actively scaring people. ... When they find out there's not a real problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel manipulated." (See, e.g., Signpost article, Washington Post article). If we've discontinued these wordings on the fundraising banners, why are we still using them in emails? --Andreas JN466 14:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

We haven’t retired keywords like free, ad-free, online or independent from banners and you can read more about our messaging in the Fundraising Report we publish annually.

However it’s also true that the storytelling vehicle of a banner is very different from an email. In a banner we have limited space to ask readers to support us. Email is a much more flexible medium and, in turn, we have the space to tell a story and contextualize the impact of a donor’s gift. We always try to balance the real need for individual donor support, now, with the aspirational vision of our movement.

Feedback from readers, donors, and volunteers is appreciated because our content is always evolving, and we need the qualitative inputs to hold alongside the quantitative learnings.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Around this time last year, the Foundation had at least $330 million in the bank ($100M in the Endowment, and $230M in assets, not counting property and equipment); as fundraising has been going well this year, I estimate it is now $20 to $60 million more.

How does this compare to the costs of keeping Wikipedia online? The Wikimedia Foundation's internet hosting costs are less than $2.5M a year.

WMF Vice President Erik Möller estimated in 2013 that Wikimedia's mission, beyond merely keeping Wikipedia online, could be sustained on $10M a year. Even if we double that 2013 estimate, to $20M, the Foundation would at that level of spending – bearing in mind the interest it earns each year on its investments – have enough money to keep Wikipedia online and fulfil its wider mission, as scoped in that 2013 post, indefinitely, without ever asking the public for another penny.

In my view, "keeping Wikipedia online" or "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free", or even "protecting Wikipedia's independence", is, at this point, a really poor justification for asking the public for money. It creates a wholly erroneous mental image among millions of people of Wikipedia being strapped for cash, with genuinely poor people expressing anguish that they cannot help, or donating a small amount even though they have barely any money for their own bare necessities.

Therefore I personally think this kind of wording should be phased out. Instead, tell people about the things that you want to accomplish, enthuse them, and reflect more accurately in public-facing communications where your money goes. I believe this would be far more in line with the ethos the Wikipedia project itself aspires to. Best, Andreas JN466 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

JBrungs (WMF), I agree with this. The primary thing Wikipedia has is trust. Wikipedia is not, anywhere in the foreseeable future, in danger of either going offline or needing to run ads as some last-ditch measure to sustain itself. If you want donations to make improvements, then hey, say that, find a good way to message that, and make an honest banner. But suggesting that Wikipedia would either shortly not be around, or would be full of ads just to keep itself afloat, is fundamentally dishonest. Find a way to make your story brief enough for a banner without making it misleading. Dishonesty is not a good look, especially for a project supposed to be a trustworthy source of information, and I want no part of that. Seraphimblade (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Raju Narisetti interview: most of the money is flowing into the Global South

WMF board member Raju Narisetti says here in the Indian Express: "Although a lot of the money is raised in the more developed Western markets, most of it is actually flowing into the global south, where the growth will come in languages and users."

The Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990 seems to indicate quite the opposite, with the amounts flowing into the Global South looking relatively insignificant. What if anything am I missing? --Andreas JN466 23:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andreas: The quote you called out on wikimedia-l refers to the amount of funding that is spent on "programmatic activities" as reflected in our 2020-2021 Annual Report, as well as the Foundation's 990 forms. For the Foundation, our program ratio fluctuates year to year but is generally between 73-76%.

On the second point, Raju was unfortunately misquoted, per a direct transcript of the interview. He more generally said “a lot of it is actually flowing into the global south” not “most of it.” This is in line with our regional grantmaking in the “Global South” as well as other investments, including our technology support, which, as you know, ensures that Wikipedia is available in more than 300 languages globally. We have requested a correction to his quote. Thank you. --MeganHernandez (WMF)

Hi Megan, thank you. Please note though that the percentage of spending is not the same as the percentage of donations, since donations always exceed expenses – in some case by a very significant margin. So while 73–76% of expenditure ($112M in 20/21) may be for "programmatic activities", it is most definitely not "More than 75% of the money we raise globally" ($163M in 20/21). Would it be possible to adjust that figure as well, or simply to rephrase it to "Around 75% of the money we spend globally?" Regards, --Andreas JN466 22:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Making such a distinction would signal that the money that is not spent, would never be spent. Money is never instantly spent, and I would find it a fair assumption that the ratio stays roughly equivalent in the future. As long as that holds, I wouldn't be bothered too much with that particular phrasing - as someone put it succinctly in the mailing list: "This is a trivial point" ;-). Not worth asking a journalist to correct, imho. Effeietsanders (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A significant part of that money goes into the Endowment, further increasing its principal. As you know, the idea of the endowment is that the principal is never spent, but retained in perpetuity, to generate a constant income. The remainder is invested elsewhere, for much the same reasons. As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation's assets have increased every year of the Foundation's existence, and now stand at around $250 million (up $50 million last year). This is indeed money meant never to be spent. Andreas JN466 11:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the Form 990 the WMF released last month, totals for money flowing into South Asia in 2020 (the most recent Form 990 available) were –

• $563,058 (Program Services) [4]
• $3,339 (Grantmaking, organizations) [5]
• $75,198 (Grantmaking, individuals) [6]

The 2020 South Asia total thus was $641,595, or 0.4% of the WMF's 2020 revenue. --Andreas JN466 14:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

IPv6 on payments.wikimedia.org?

The domain "payments.wikimedia.org" is a (heavily customized) wiki used for processing payments for donations. Unlike other WMF wikis, payments.wikimedia.org doesn't support IPv6. Why is this, and is it possible for IPv6 support to be added to payments.wikimedia.org? I asked at Tech and was referred here. 2600:4040:500B:4200:19AD:AE2C:1F8A:6D41 22:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. We are directing payments-wiki visitors to IPv4 because it has been much more accurate to geolocate people based on an IPv4 address than based on an IPv6 address. This is important as we need to know a donor's country so we know which payment options are valid and our payment gateways can correctly process their donation.

You can add a ticket to Phabricator and add it to the Fundraising-Backlog tag . It would be useful to explain there why you think this is an important way forward as well as any other information you have. On Phabricator the team will then be able to engage with you further.

I hope this is helpful.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Julia out of office July

A quick note, I will be out of office for most of July (first I go an holiday, exploring the Finnish west coast, and then I am travelling for work). Please be aware that responses and answers on this page will be slow and most likely be added in August. Thank you for your understanding and have a good July everyone. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Have a great holiday! Andreas JN466 18:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Aggressive text, annonying banner, embarrassing grammar mistake

Aggressive fundraising campaigns as currently run in German-speaking wikipedia are the reason why I have stopped my voluntary work for wikipedia. It is not enough to have to scroll away a full screen size begging text (asking for "was Sie sich gerade leisten können" means: we are asking for "what you are currently able to afford"!?); no, even if you scroll down, a pop-up window with another begging text will be hiding part of wikipedia article. And a striking grammar mistake in first line of the begging text ("an diesen Dienstag" instead of "an diesem Dienstag") is rather to be associated with a scam than with an encyclopedia.--213.33.64.123 08:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Besten Dank; siehe zur Fundraising-Problematik auch meinen Signpost-Artikel "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?; der enthält ein paar relevante Daten und Links zur (überaus robusten ...) Finanzlage der Foundation.

Und wenn du das Banner noch sehen kannst – es wechselt ja nach der ersten Einblendung zu einem anderen Text – könntest du den Text, von dem du oben zitierst, hier eben eintippen? Würde mich interessieren. Grüße, Andreas JN466 21:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback. It has been passed on to the relevant team. Thank you also for pointing out the grammar mistake, we have fixed this and the banners have been updated on the 13th of July. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that the Tuesday message for Portugal also had an error, "this this". (where is the text? can someone point it please, so that it gets corrected before it gets reused). Advertising for a very trustworthy encyclopedia, while not being able to proof read a couple of paragraphs, not good publicity... - Nabla (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. I have passed this on to the relevant team. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nabla,

Just a quick note that the mistake has now been fixed. Thank you for raising it with us. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lie in banner

This is the text in a fundraising banner in Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål:

"Til alle våre lesere i Norge, Ikke bla forbi dette. Denne onsdagen ber vi deg om å støtte Wikipedia. 98 % av leserne våre gir dessverre ikke, de ser bare en annen vei. Hvis du er en eksepsjonell leser som allerede har donert, vil vi oppriktig takke deg. Hvis du donerer kun 20 kr, eller det du har råd til denne onsdagen, kan Wikipedia fortsette å vokse i flere år. Vi ber deg ydmykt: ikke bla videre. Hvis Wikipedia har vært nyttig for deg, ber vi om at du donerer 20 kr til oss. Vis verden at Tilgang til pålitelig og objektiv informasjon betyr noe for deg. Tusen takk."

It tell that to make Wikipedia grow, one need to donate money: Hvis du donerer kun 20 kr, eller det du har råd til denne onsdagen, kan Wikipedia fortsette å vokse i flere år. - Translation: If you donate only 20 kr, or what you can afford this Wednesday, Wikipedia can continue to grow in several years.

I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2004, I do not need money to go on contributing, and neither do the others that contribute to Wikipedia in Norwegian bokmål. The servers that host the content can be run for a small amount of money, so with the current funds the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has, it would be many years before the content in the appeal above would be true.

So WMF is lying, and they must know, as similar banners have been run repeatedly and this has been pointed out for them for years.

What I will do about it is to write a comment that I hope to have in one of the major Norwegian media outlets, and I will also notice the local community. I hope others will do the same, so we can get an end to this.

And do get me right, I do not go against fundraising for WMF, but the content of the ads have to be honest, that should not be too much to ask from an organisation that support an encyclopedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ulflarsen: If you're contacting journalists, you might want to make them aware of the following articles that contain further background:

• "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"? (The Signpost)
• Wikipedia is swimming in money—why is it begging people to donate? (The Daily Dot)
• The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparency (The Signpost)
• Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours? (The Washington Post)

Good luck! Andreas JN466 00:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

To Andreas: Thank you for the links, I will attach them to the comments I write. Ulflarsen (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF) The text of the Norwegian banner causes some frustration among our contributors. The text is considered grammatically incorrect, an its tone feels somewhat pushy. Is there a way to edit the translated text ourselves? -- Wkee4ager (👨🏼‍💻💬) 09:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wkee4ager! Could you please email me at cdenes [at] wikimedia.org? Happy to work together to improve them. CDenes (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wkee4ager: Do please report back on this page to let us know how you get on, and if the changes you are able to agree with Camille satisfy the Norwegian Wikipedia community.

The WMF really should get away from using pushy banners and emails (have a look at these emails for the upcoming English email campaign) implying that Wikipedia is under some sort of threat and urgently needs donations to stay online, stay ad-free and thrive. The actual truth is that Wikipedia's online presence is financially secure for decades ahead. The actual reason for the fundraising is that the Wikimedia Foundation (current assets, including the Wikimedia Endowment, estimated at around $400 million) would like to have even more money for its activities – which these banner and email texts do not seek to describe in anything but the most general terms – and even bigger annual surpluses (over $50 million according to the audited accounts for the 2020/21 financial year, with the year just ended again showing revenue outstripping both the WMF's own revenue targets and its expenses by tens of millions).

The WMF leadership has control of the Wikipedia banners. To my mind, it uses them – and thus Wikipedia – to foster actual ignorance of Wikipedia's financial status, because it profits from said ignorance. Promoting misconceptions for financial gain is the complete opposite of what Wikipedia should stand for. Is this the sort of leadership we want at the WMF? To my mind, it is up to volunteers to oppose this and do what they can, on-wiki and off-wiki, to dispel this ignorance – until the point is reached where this kind of messaging becomes counterproductive.

I believe this is the only way to put a stop to this kind of fundraising practice, and reverse this moral descent of the WMF leadership into unconscionable greed. It has been going on for a long time as well. Enough. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 11:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikiverse is an open discussion place, next to nothing should be done by mail. Discussions about such banners should be done on the concerning projects in open discussions, things done just by mail are far less vaklid, they are hidden backroom deals, they reek of shady stuff done to avoid the public scrutiny. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have now written an entry on Jimmy Wales discussion pages, see "Text in fundraising banners". Ulflarsen (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The donation fundraising on the Hebrew Wikipedia causes more harm than good

Financial development of the Wikimedia Foundation (in US$), 2003–2021
Black: Net assets (excluding the Wikimedia Endowment, which passed $100m in June 2021)
Green: Revenue (excluding third-party donations to Wikimedia Endowment)
Red: Expenses (including WMF payments to Wikimedia Endowment).
For more info see the Signpost pieces and press articles linked in the preceding section.

The donation fundraising on the Hebrew Wikipedia causes alot of harm to the community of the hebrew wikipedia

First, it was typed in a way it keeps potential editors and potential readers away from the site.

With sentences saying "They continue to turn their heads and close their eyes". and "We ask you, please don't scroll further" in red, It's just not fun to read, and is very discourages people from doing exactly what was asked, to donate!

also, the UI/UX of the donation fundraising is covering the wikipedia screen and keeps visitors away.

Harsh reviews about this fundraising announcement: https://www.pc.co.il/editorial/368519/, https://twitter.com/MKF_WK/status/1554539148907892737

I'm asking, in the name of alot of hebrew wikipedia editors, please delete the fundraising notice immediately, or change the wording from the ground up. אקסינו (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree, Dear WMF, Your work is important and valued, but it should be done carefully. the wording is very beggarly, and not suitable for a respectable website like Wikipedia. In addition, the advertisement hides a third of the screen and greatly interferes with the reading experience. We ask you to fundamentally change the advertisement. איתן ברוך (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm agree. The text beggin again and again to donate and cover the whole screen and it looks very bad. Gopico (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Totaly agree. The fundraising campaign became to be as annoying as those unskipabble 30 seconds YouTube ads. It scares away people. HiyoriX (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. The advertisement should be more subtle and small, not aggressive and demanding. התו השמיני (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This could be related. Euro know (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It should be taken into account that the cultural nature of the Israeli public is very different from the rest of the world. One of the principles that underlies Israeli behavior is "not to be a sucker", in the sense of not to make a mistake that others would not make/not to let others deceive you/decide for you/take anything from you against your will. This statement is always true for everyone everywhere, but especially for Israelis, for historical reasons.
Any ad directed at an Israeli audience, should also take into account the cynical defensiveness of those who encounters aggressive emotionalism, which is automatically perceived as manipulation.

Therefore, I propose that:

• The wording of the ad will be significantly less emotional. Many of the critics of these ads refer to them as "needy", "emotional manipulation" and aggressive.
• On mobile, the sentences will not appear each within its own frame. You should consider shortening the version on mobile, in relation to the version on computer display.
  When a frame ends, readers expect the entire ad to be over, but are disappointed to discover each time the existence of the next sentence, in a way that increases their frustration.
• The donation request ad will not appear again in less than 4-5 days for those who have already ignored it more than twice (in both its versions, the first and the second).
• Those of the readers who have already decided that they agree to donate, should encounter as few clicks/steps/banners/suggestions for additional donation options as possible (such as suggestions for a permanent donation instead of a one-time donation & suggestions to cover the fee). Those who decided to contribute have already made their decision, and the interest of the Wikimedia Foundation is to prevent them from being frustrated in this process and giving up.
  Proposals for an expanded donation cause a kind of antagonism that begins with the thought "I have already chosen to donate, why are they trying to persuade me to donate more?! My decision is correct, and they don't know better than me how much I want/am able to contribute to them."

Thank you very much.
Sincerely, —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the frequency and wording of the Hebrew donation requests this year makes the Wikimedia foundation seem desperate, and many people are dettered by that, meaning that these aggressive donation requests might actually result in less donations. שוקו מוקה (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Just write "ויקיפדיה" on Twitter and see the level of negativity that the banner produces. התו השמיני (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The campaign is very aggressive and discourages potential donors from donating. Also, the message fills most of the screen and disturbs the readers. דג קטן (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear all,

Thank you all very much for your feedback around the banners on Hebrew Wikipedia. I have passed this on to the relevant teams and they will take your feedback into account for future iterations of the banners. Best wishes, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

lol, this is literally being said every single year, but it never changes. Don't pander pls. it is equally insulting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment (RfC) on the English fundraising emails at the English Wikipedia's Village Pump

See en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emails. Andreas JN466 21:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding Amazon Smile to "Other ways to give" page

Hi @JBrungs (WMF)! I'd like to propose adding Amazon Smile to the "Other ways to give" page. The Wikimedia Foundation appears to be already registered with Amazon Smile, as it is selectable as an option in the interface. Amazon Smile donates 0.5% of purchases made on their website to charities selected by consumers, such as the WMF. Amazon already has strategic contributions to the Wikimedia Endowment, and Amazon users have shown interest in contributing to the Foundation with this option. Listing Smile on the page could increase the amount of contributions with this option. Links can look like this (example with another charity). Cheers, EpicPupper (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I will pass this on to the team and get back to you with more detail later. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick update. Thank you again for the suggestion, I raised this with the team and currently there is no plan or capacity to add Amazon Smile to the 'other ways to give' page. If this changes, I will let you know. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)