Talk:Fundraising 2007/2007-11

Active discussions
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in November 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Donation bar suggestion

When the Wikimedia donation bar first came up, it was exciting to see it double in size in such a short amount of time, say from 500 to 1000.

As the progress bar goes further to the middle, it becomes visually less clear to see how many people have donated in a short amount of time.

However, if one were to see, say, the people bar fill up during each day, based on the last days volume or or an average / moving average of previous days, and maybe turn a different color and spill over when the limit was surpassed, then wikipedia users would always see the people filling up, and be able to gauge its progress by some shorter timespan, such as the different time of day e.g. sunset. In this way, regular Wikipedia users would know if donations began to drop by the amount of people filled up by, say, lunch time or the evening. They would also be collectively rewarded to know that during the day wikipedia users have donated more than in the previous few days.


Sup...what is this? So... what do you do too? What is this wikipedia thing??? Donation? What??? Go wiki wacky!

Thank you!

This is a short note to thank you and everybody involved in this wonderful effort to make knowledge accessible to all, and our time well spent and interesting in front of the computer.

Thank you all very much!A teacher.

Thank you very much for your wonderful comment! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And This is me saying thanks, for all the same reasons, and because i didn't wanna start thanks spam, WikiMedia FTW!!!! -FranzSS


Foundation has 150 million dolar just now. Why you asking for donating? You can put them in bank for charge interest and you can payy all of your expenses with it. Is that for a new project or what?-- 12:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get information that the Foundation has 150 million dollars? I am not sure that that is accurate. Cbrown1023 talk 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to donate

I was going to donate but then I saw that all the money was going to Africa. Why don't I just throw it all in my incinerator instead. 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

the money is not going to Africa. Where did you pick that information ? It is totally incorrect. Anthere
They are probably referring to "If you and 99 other people donate ..

Please, no racism, but I'll let you keep your post up - Tom Arnold

   * $200 – We can make Wikipedia available in developing countries through DVDs, books and pamphlets.
   * $100 – We can pay for two Wikipedia Academy events in Africa." 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

These are ideas of things we can do. And the money dedicated to this will be peanuts compared to the total budget. It is non sense to say that ALL the money is going to Africa.

Here you can see how the money will be spent. Most of it goes to American computer equipment manufacturers, American bandwidth providers, poorly paid American (most of them, I think) developers and so on :-) /NH 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well that doesn't make it any better. You just reenforced the problem of nationalism. We should not worry about convincing people who don't undedrstand the project. We should worry about making them understand why certain specific projects need to be funded. Honestly, I think the whole "If you and 99 other people donate $X...." is confusing and should probably be removed or modified. -- 19:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What an idiotic thing to say. I wasn't going to donate, but the nition that bigots wont because it may go to Africa is all the incentive I need to donate. unsigned, NOV 11, 2007

I was going to donate but there's no option for Google Checkout...

Recent Donation Boycotts

Recently, [some individuals] have been calling for a boycott of donations given disagreement over the Notability policy. This has drawn a heated level of discussion on several popular news aggregators, including [Slashdot].

Please consider that despite dispute Wikipedia continues to offer a valuable resource unparalleled by any competitor.

Please consider that despite the quality of Wikipedia, until the Wikimedia foundation revises their notability and article deletion policies, any contribution goes to fund an encyclopedia which may redact information based on an individual editor's value judgement of a subject's notability.
Please consider that were there no donations, the inclusion criteria would be very strict indeed. /NH 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It's incorrect to say deletion is based solely on an individual editor's judgment. The undeletion process is always open to address mistakes. Superm401 | Talk 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This process is abysmal at its best. The chances of restoring the content after it's been nuked from WP are very close to zero. For each reasonable editor trying to make an argument, there's always a pack of fast-acting, judgmental and condescending users that appear to live to enforce policies. The chances of restoring the content if it was removed twice ARE zero. Regardless of how actually notable it is. Web Comic is just one incident that gathered some publicity; the Wikipedia is being literally destroyed by policy-driven morons on a daily basis. This is a HUGE problem and it has to be taken care of as soon as possible. 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Those users are just a vocal minority coming from the Web Comic community and are bitter that their own and their favorite comics are included. Their lack of donations won't have any appreciable effect and I doubt most boycotters would have otherwise donated. Notability is necessary to prevent Wikipedia from collecting random shit. Everything is a "value judgment" to some extent, including judgment over what is NPOV and what is not. -Njyoder 03:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And men's rights groups, alcoholism support groups other than AA, any article about an unpopular cause or subject... The list goes on. All of those are subject to notability harassment by editors who either disagree with the article or dislike its source material. Is it reasonable to argue that Sasha Grey is more notable than a blog with 100,000 readers just because she engages in anal intercourse and gets film credit for it but the blog has not seen print in an "approved" fashion? It is not a valid argument to say people who dislike this policy probably wouldn't donate anyway - most people who use Wikipedia five times a day probably won't donate anyway. I donate several hundred dollars a year to various charities and will not donate to Wikipedia until the policies of the organization reflect that the internet is eclipsing print media in importance.
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are always open to discussion, but attempting to influence them by withholding monetary donations isn't the best route to take. If you can make a compelling enough argument to sway consensus, policies and guidelines can change. EVula // talk // // 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish I could believe that were true. Do you even believe yourself when you say that? 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
My friend had contributed probably $300.0 over 2 years but his bad experiences with deletionist admins made him hate Wikipedia. So that's one person who used to give a lot in terms of time and money because he loved Wikipedia, but now despises it. You can read more about my feelings at the comments for the Wikinews article mentioned above. Go to the last comment on this page .
Here's the big question. When exactly did these policies about deleting based on notability, trivia, plot synopses, fair use images, come about, and how much work was done before said policies were implemented with such force? Because if a lot of people put in a lot of work only to lose it in the great content razing of 2005-2007, then Wikipedia acted in ABSOLUTE BAD FAITH based on what their starting principals were, and a lot of people justifiably feel betrayed for having their time wasted.CowardX10 09:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Civil wars

Dear all,

I'm willing to support Wiki* idea of free knowledge, but I'm not willing to support civil wars. For this, please explain me what your projects in regions of civil wars means.

Thank you and best wishes,


Thank you for your comment, what exactly are you referring to by "what you projects in regions of civil wars means"? Are you referring to Africa? Cbrown1023 talk 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine free access to knowledge should help in countries suffering from civil wars. Civil wars are normally caused by dictatorships, and it's much harder to dictate to a well informed country. You can't win a civil war without propaganda, and propaganda doesn't work if people already know the truth. Even without that, however, the Wikimedia Foundation does not get involved in the politics of individual countries, except to the extent of trying to spread knowledge. It certainly doesn't support any civil wars. --Tango 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Who cares about developing countries? 13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation. (and I also) --Walter 13:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls. --Tango 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Trolls" feed developed contries today. You should care about. Or you still belive you are away from developing countries problems? Is is a great initiative from Foudation (congratulations). Notes like that shows how much poor is some people education level.

Even if you didn't care about developing countries (and I do), there are other projects. I saw previously on this talk page some link to how the money is being spent, and according to the poster of that link, most of the money is going to America. --- 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't sign. Edit: signed and corrected a typo

Office of the Executive Director

Who is that Executive Director? Why this office take 509 kilodollars? 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • And "Finance+Admin+ED" is over a quarter of the budget. 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think Admins do a really bored work and it should be payed but i know nothing about Finance... What is it? 14:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Admin" doesn't mean administrators on projects, but administration of the Foundation. You can learn more about the Foundation's current staff here. Also, note that the Wikimedia Foundation is going to relocate from Florida to the San Francisco bay area soon; this budget includes the one-time expense induced by this relocation. It also includes the salary of the assistant to the ED and consulting fees. Managing an organization that runs one of the biggest websites in the world requires some money. guillom 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And who is ED? I cant find his photo there... And where i can see income of that guys? And what job is doing by Special Advisor, what about her duties? 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You talk about this? I cant find ED, Sue Gardner and Barbara Brown there... If we are pay to wikipedia than we are employers and we must have detailed info about all... May be we sould pay this 509 kilodollars to Tim Starling and Brion Vibber instead of Barbara Brown? Lets start a poll! 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Donating money to a charitable organisation does not make you an employer of the staff of that organisation.
Then again, I'd support increasing the wage of Brion Vibber; I don't believe the Foundation appreciates how valuable an asset he is. 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As it says in the chart, the "office of the ED" slice includes the ED's salary, the Assistant to the ED's salary, the Wikimedia Foundation relocation expenses to San Francisco, and a budget that can be used by the ED for various consulting purposes (e.g. getting an external firm to analyze our fundraising process). The salary of the ED is only a relatively small fraction of the overall budget.--Eloquence 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More explanation can be found on the talk page: wikimedia:Talk:Planned Spending Distribution 2007-2008. Cbrown1023 talk 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes i understand that wikipedia moves to San Francisco and we should rent new office to set up servers. Ok. But... Who is Barbara Brown? She will water flowers in our new office? Or she will guard our new office? Also i cant understand why we need Sue Gardner? I cant understand how Sue Gardner can help us with our new server room? Why she have money from wikipedia when millions of editors works for free? Yes i agree with Sue Gardner that we need good developers and we need a cool IT Manager, and of course we need legal advice like Mike Godwin! May be we should make some Program Services even it is much for free website, wich is already one of the bests site on the web. But... Why we need Sue Gardner herself? 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like some people want to make money on wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is in real created by million volunteers. 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please keep feedback on-topic for the fundraiser. However, you can still have this discussion elsewhere; I am sure you will get many responses on Foundation-l (including one from me, explaining why we need all of those items). Cbrown1023 talk 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just donated, and I now actually want to know how much the ED gets paid. Lets not hide salaries inside of departmental budgets. As a financial contributer I'd like a salary breakdown please.

+1 agree! 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Over 1,2 million in non-specific and non-technical costs?

"Finance and Administration" gets 699k (15%) and "Office of the Executive Director" gets 509k (11%) of the donations! These are the second and third highest costs, next to only technical costs.

What are these and why do they cost so much? It's not good to gloss over costs so big like this. Over half a million for accounting and auditing? Why does the office need so much? Is Wales the Executive Directory? How much does Wales receive in terms of money and assets (including purchases that he primarily uses for his own purposes)?

-Njyoder 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Sue Gardner's comments on the budget? wikimedia:Talk:Planned Spending Distribution 2007-2008. We do not, currently, have an Executive Director, but we are in the process of finding one and should have one by this year. The "Office of the Executive Director" actually includes the Wikimedia Foundation's relocation to San Francisco, consulting fees, the executive director, and his/her assistant. So, that portion covers a lot of different costs, it's not all going to one person as a salary. Finance and Administration would most likely also cover a good amount of the staff itself (however I am not completely sure on that). Are they any more things unclear about the budget or have I not adequately answered these questions? Cbrown1023 talk 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What you're saying is that part of the donation goes to a position in the foundation that doesn't even exist?? Smells like a scam! -- 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The position is currently in the process of being filled. However the office of the executive director portion of the budget also includes the salary of the ED, salary of the assistant, the relocation to San Francisco (eg, travel to SF to select offices etc...), and consulting (eg, fundraising consulting, communication consulting, branding consulting etc...). Cbrown1023 talk 21:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Where can we find more information on the process of finding the new executive director? Who will be that person? -Update : There is an short explanation on this page: Executive_Director, the wiki at redirects the page "Executive Director" to "Current staff" -- 11:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
We do not currently know who the Executive Director will be. Currently, the Board's committee in charge of finding the ED is made up of Kat Walsh, Florence Devouard, and Jan-Bart de Vreede. There have not been any public announcements or developments regarding this position as of yet. Cbrown1023 talk 21:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm new to wiki-discussions and I see all these arguments on who gets how much... Why do you think you need so much money in the first place? Why not ask if people would volunteer for administration positions or accept a below-US-market salary? And if you really want to help Developing World so much, why not hire your developers there? And if servers are so expensive, let's torrent Wikipedia or ask if some companies will be willing to spend their servers for being mentioned on the Wikipages as sponsors.. they could use the PR effect, you know... I think wikipedians have contributed so much in terms of the vast knowledge here, you cannot just dismiss their concerns with "we think". It clear that Wikipedians deserve more clarity in the way you operate the assets they've built with so much effort.

Wikimedia needs the money because it is running one of the largest sites on the internet, and is experiencing exponential growth. Wikimedia has only a dozen paid staff members in total. The vast majority of people supporting the projects (including me) are already volunteers. Wikimedia has hired its developers for their capabilities, not because of who they are or where they're from. It is not possible to "torrent Wikipedia" with current technology. If you disagree, you're free to try because all Wikimedia text (and most content) is under free licenses. Wikimedia already receives support from companies, but getting more sponsors would require ads more annoying than the fundraising banners. Superm401 | Talk 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How do twelve people run wikipedia? It's so big. I'm just wondering because wikipedia is really big and would take alot of time and resourses to run.

sincerely, wikipedia user

If you and 99 other people donate...

The following options are listed in the wrong order! It starts with the highest and proceeds to the lowest. Everyone knows that's the wrong way round. The whole point of the whole "If you and 99 other people donate $100" thing is to astound the reader about what can be done. This is why you don't play your ace first. You don't start with "If you and 99 others donate $1 trillion, we can convert the earth into Wikipedia itself" - you start with "If you and 99 others donate $1, 500 more people will have access to free knowledge." See? Then you build up to the trillion.

Conflict with fundrasing header and coordinates

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Link to Cafe Press

The link to Cafe Press is not funcionning on the fundraising. Moez talk 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem you are having? When I click on the link to CafePress on the Fundraising page, I get, isn't that right? Cbrown1023 talk 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to listed fundraising goals

This is probably not the place to discuss the Wikimedia Foundation's goals, nor am I suggesting to make it possible to earmark donated money towards specific goal, but I do wish to note - for no reason whatsoever other than my peace of mind - that of the four uses for donated money, I am opposed to three. One (sending students to Wikimania conferences) seems like a pointless waste of money, which I'd rather spend on my own vacations. Two (Wikipedia Academy and DVDs, books and pamphlets) will be better served through specialized organizations. Specialization is a key word in the real word, and I see little in common - little synergy - between the logistics of running a handful of servers and those of running a printing mill and distributing pamphlets. (Whereas a charitable society dedicated to distributing printed bits of Wikipedia might also distribute, with no extra costs, various notable prose, poetry, and instruction manuals.) The only goal I support in earnest is delivering free pageviews - but I am obviously loath to contribute money when it appears most of it will be squandered on goals I do not support. Itai 08:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I've gone over the Planned Spending Distribution, and, granted, most money goes towards what I consider useful endeavors. It is still upsetting that the foundation wishes to use donation moneys to expand towards less fruitful, IMHO, undertakings. Itai 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with you. Sending a few kids to conference ABOUT wikipedia doesn't appeal to me, I'd rather they improved their infrastructure or made Wikipedia more available.
  • I support this one. I think every single cent should go to the Wikipedia website. ONLY the Wikipedia website and it's infrastructure. Nothing else. -- 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed — I think wikipedia is more important.
  • God forbid its only about us. There is a wonderful resource here, and it would be an injustice to hoard it for only industrialized, developed countries. I think the fact that they (the staff, and the community) are willing to devote time and funds is a noble gesture.
    • Well, it's our money - as much as we choose to donate. And of course, nobody's against spreading the word. The key point, as I said above, is specialization - the division of labor; pin-makers and pins; outsourcing non-core competencies; doing one thing, and doing it right; and so on. Itai 09:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are not available all the translated versions ?

Why are not available all the translated versions (bn eo hsb hu lt pl sr tl)? They need been "copyedited". Who can do that ? Arno Lagrange  19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation removed?

At nov. 17, I made a translation in Saterfrisian (stq). It never became active in the film, however. And now here I can't find it again! --Pyt 08:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Found it! Fundraising 2007/Video with Jimmy subtitles/Translations/stq. It hasn't been deleted or anything, you just didn't add it to the template. *goes to add* Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Well, now three of us looked again to the text and we feel, it is right so. Still it is not clear to us, to which template it should be added and how. So please..?? --Pyt 21:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Add |stq |ready to Template:Translation/Fundraising 2007/Video with Jimmy subtitles/Translations. Cbrown1023 talk 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe you need to talk to Brion about this, if not he should be able to point you in the right direction. Cbrown1023 talk 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Matching donations

Has anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation attempted to find matching donors? I would happily contribute again if there were a match offered. -- 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know last year there was a big brouhaha over matching donors because the donor's logo was displayed on the site, and too many people felt like WMF was actively advertising the donor's services. I'd love it if they could get a matching donor again without rousing the anger of the community, though... EVula // talk // // 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC).Remember that when you donate you want to do it for the reasons like donating to charity, or to the homeless, or something that is good for human health. Remember, do the right thing.
We may have matching donations for this fundraiser, but nothing has been announced publicly as of yet. Cbrown1023 talk 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia!

"How much are you willing to give?"

This sounds really pushy. I suggest instead of having a footnote explaining people can give as much as they like, it should be excluded. The rest makes the point. 04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Foundation board didn't sit down and decide "This year, let's take 'pushy' to be our watchword", then that's at least how the whole endeavour has subsequently come across. Alai 14:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Obscenely huge fundraising nag advert

Okay, who had the stupid idea to slap the huge "YOU" and the bright red Donate Now button on the page and omit the bloody "Get rid of this NOW" link? I can't even adblock this junk properly. 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite ingenious. If they can't raise the money they need, they'll just run off a few thousand editors who don't need to be bothered by adverts while they're trying to edit. Well done. 05:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

New Fundraising banner is horrid!!!!!

The new fund raising banner is by far many times worse than the previous one. Have you set a new policy that users are not allowed to use a 800 x 600 screen setting? Pages that display fine with the old header now bleed off the screen. Thanks for nothing!!!!!!!!!!!! 07:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC) English Wikipedia user Dbiel

Seconded. The old box was fine, if a little clunky, but this new thing is awful. 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thirded - embarrassing cringeworthy shit. Stop it. -- 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Even the old banner was better than the current one - it totally breaks up the content - at least put the banner _above_ the Discuss/Edit/Etc tabs, please! - 14:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia User Benbread
What the fuck were you guys thinking? 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think, and I'm 100% serious in saying this, that some elements within the Wikimedia/pedia/foundation/whatever are starting to disrespect or even trying to exploit their users/editors/followers/fans. -- 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the display width problem. At least it is bearable now. 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC) English Wikipedia user Dbiel

Well, I'm having a new problem. The banner is covering up the Latitude and Longitude coordinates on an article in the English Wikipedia. And yes, I'm on a computer with 800x600 resolution but can't change it since it belongs to the internet cafe.-- 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See note in Talk:Fundraising 2007#Conflict with fundrasing header and coordinates

remaining money?

Where does the remaining money go? Straight to jimmy wales's pocket, or to next months bandawidth payment? It doesn't take that much money to pay a server you know... . --Elitre 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"It doesn't take that much money to pay a server you know..." It does when you have several servers hosting one of the busiest websites in the world delivering millions of pageviews per day - This isn't some Geocities page.. WP User Benbread
It's amazing how many people think running a top-10 website is cheap. As anyone can see, the majority ($2.5 million) is allocated for technology. Of course, Wikimedia is also moving their office this year, and there are other necessary administrative expenses (including a few salaries, though Jimbo doesn't get one). But the idea that the technical expenses are cheap is absurd. Superm401 | Talk 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Superm401, I suppose you are a WikiPedia editor, so I will type this slowly - and hope it filters in your head (which I doubt somehow). The majority of your budget is allocated for infrastructure and resources like bandwidth and server rentals, not Technology. And just to enlighten your thick mind, lots of government departments and universities have more resources than what you need laying underutilized, so if you care to enquire, and should your content make any sense, WikiPedia can be hosted at no costs. But then, you have to _prove_ rather than _claim_ that your site provides a significant service.

Jimbo video page translation

How can I translate the Jimbo video page? There are different urls for each language (like this), but only the subtitle language changes, the page itself doesn't. --Tgr 11:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can't translate that page. Only the subtitles. SPQRobin 14:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not donating.

Wikipedia is an ugly mess. There are much better articles on the web than on Wikipedia, and wikipedia is like a police state with all those admins. I've had lots of unpleasant encounters with them. They are rude but mostly they don't give a fuck.

And really, Wikipedia gets too much exposure from Google. Almost everyone ends up on Wikipedia when they search something, they end up on those ugly low quality articles, and their search ends. It's killing the web.

Thanks for that insight - Of course if you find articles which you don't find are up to scratch a simple way to change this is to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets Google exposure not because of some unjust agreement with Google but because people find it useful, and link to it, suggesting that people find Wikipedia articles more interesting that other articles you speak of. What other website has no advertising, will forever be free and can be edited by almost anyone? - Thanks for your contribution to the Wikimedia project. - 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia User Benbread
If other people are stupid, it's your job to correct them. Wow, thanks. 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You are true a little bit, Wikipedia has an awfully lot ot low-quality articles. Wikipedia is sometimes full of lies (Ryan Jordan - or Essjay - anyone?). But anyway - if I want quick info about something, if I want to know what should I look for, simply - if I want encyclopedian article, I will read Wikipedia. It is not "all knowledge of the universe", as some of the terrible fanatic quotes above say. It's "quick and dirty", but very often, it can offer more than anything else on the net (I'm not talking about books, thats a completely different story).
If WikiPedia would be a commercial product (it's hard to imagine it as such, but whatever), it would cost a lot of dollars. It's maybe not as accurate as Brittanica, but it's very accurate.
And most of all, I am using it all the time. I have seen some good film - i will try to find some info about the director on Wikipedia. I have heard something about riots in some country - I will have the most necessary info in few minutes. I am using it all the time - sometimes even as a primary source.
It's worse with other projects, such as Commons (which is really weirdly and awfully organised) or Wiktionary (there are not even the basic words there), but I am really pleased to donate some money to Wikip/media servers.-- 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to register an account or two and help organize Commons or add missing words to Wiktionary. ;) EVula // talk // // 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think Commons are weirdly organised by design and it's not very much possible for me to change it. -- 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (the same person as
If you see an article that could use some editing, please do so! And if you see a good source that would help improve the article, mention it on the talk page. That's the good thing about Wikipedia, if you don't like how an article looks, and you think you can make it better, you don't need to get approval, just be bold! -- 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)



Aside from the other valid complaints on the page, I'd like to draw attention to the quotes at the bottom of the banner (both the new and the old one). Can we make it clear that these are quotes from donors, and not famous people who've said wise and important things about Wikipedia/knowledge? -Mysekurity 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Anon is pretty famous. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:11:02, 05 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what exactly are you referring to? Al of the quotes are either attributed or signed "Anon". Cbrown1023 talk 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess Myskurity would like it to be obvious that these quotes are only from those who gave, not just random Wikipedians. Some of the quotes actually make that clear. I think one of them mentions "$5" or something like that. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, but you know how a lot of fund raisers have quotes from famous people to describe how important they are or just to impart the value of wisdom? It looks a little too much like a quote, and not a message from donors. "Anon" is one of the wisest and most quoted thinkers in history. -Mysekurity 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the difference? Surely somebody has said it. And somebody is very important to wikimedia. -Hillgentleman 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it's effing confusing. It lacks the warmth of typical user-submitted comment style, and it just looks too professional/serious for that (as a typical famous person quote would look). Get me? -Mysekurity 04:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Fundraising Redesign, we've floated designs where the quote is swapped out every 7 seconds or so, rather than being fixed when the page loads. In those designs the original comment in that space could be "Comments from Donors" or something similar, as a preface to what follows. Of course whether you like that idea depends on whether you like the idea of having comments change over while readers watch. Dragons flight 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Mysekurity, A user's comment on one's screen is a quote. Many users are professional. Some of their comments are serious. On my screen is "Thank you for giving so much and expecting so little!" which I find warm. Wikipedia does not know fame. And a quote, a comment, or anything of that sort is as good as itself. A good quote adds more to the speaker than a great speaker to a lousy quote (which is a probably self-contradictory concept). Hillgentleman 11:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying there should be a famous person's quote or a professional saying, I'm actually with you on this (we're just using similar terminology for different meanings). I like people being able to sound off on what they believe, etc. What I don't like is that it looks like it's a professional quote, as we aren't given proper context that these are donors. Why do I care that John Smith says "Wikipedia is awesome!"? Who the hell is John Smith? I like Dragons flight's idea to visually show that we're talking about donors here, which I think would solve both of our concerns. -Mysekurity 04:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Give/Sell (offline) DVD copies of Wiki2007 content as a Fundraiser

Why not allow people who donate a certain amount to receive a set of commemorative DVDs with a copy of Wikipedias Dec 31,2007 content (or a manageable subset) as a reward for donating ? (Naturally, they could download it all for free, but this would take time).

Wikipedia could also offer DVDs to donators in specific areas like Medicine, History, Art, Famous People, Finance, etc. Again, it clearly could be downloaded for free, and CLEARLY should remain public domain!!! but it'd be a nice and convenient way to help raise funds.

Thank you for your suggestions, but we actually do sell some DVD versions as outlined on: This version of Wikipedia has a large amount of articles from all of the areas you outlined. Also, the text of Wikipedia licensed under the GFDL, not the public domain. Anytime that someone buys a DVD, they are donating some money to Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 talk 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow donations of "mirror sites"/ computer resources ("time sharing")

Why not allow users who have computer servers and other resources that are not being used at a particular time to donate their use during that time to Wikipedia ?

If you have other resources that you would like like to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, please contact: donate[at]wikimedia[dot]org mentioning the itmes you wish to donate. If necessary, the people there will forward it along to the right people. Thank you for your offer. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Minimum donation

It's my understanding that Paypal charges merchants a transaction fee of 30 cents + 2.2%. Assumming the WMF has the same or similar rate, then Paypal donations under $0.31 go entirely to Paypal. Between that and having watched an anonymous "friend" spend an hour donating pennies (presumably to pump the donation counter), I'm wondering if there should be a warning or javascript block against tiny donations. Dragons flight 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Paypal won't charge more in fees than the size of the donation, so it doesn't really do any harm to have people donating trivial amounts. Yes, it makes the donation counter unrealistic, but you can say the same about people that donate significant amounts multiple times. The number is only a guideline, it doesn't really matter if it's slightly off. --Tango 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware that PayPal won't charge more in fees. Either way, this should be fixed on Monday. Donations of 1 cent or 1 yen are absurd. --MZMcBride 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you give very small amounts by paypal you are only donating to Paypal;
Example from the paypal donation logs;
  • donation 1 JYP - 1 JYP paypal fee = 0 JYP for WMF
  • donation 0,01 AUD - 0,01 AUD paypal fee = 0 AUD for WMF
  • donation 0,25 USD - 0,25 USD Paypal fee = 0 USD for WMF
  • donation 1,20 CAD - 0,59 CAD PayPal fee = 0,61 CAD for WMF (50% fee!)
  • donation 1 EUR - 0,38 EUR PayPal fee = 0,62 EUR for WMF (38% fee)
here can you see more examples
If you like to donate small amounts, if you transfer inside the EU 0,01 EUR to the bank account the WMF gets the whole 0,01 EUR. --Walter 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Worst Fundraiser in WP history

This will be the first time ever that I won't be contributing to this farce fundrising. WP fundraising used to be a great community event and sadly it is degenerating. Take a look at the budget and you see massive contributions just going to admin/finance/oe. WP has just turned into a corporate and it looks just like those corporations and their spendings. Sorry, just had to say this. I know tons of WP editors putting their heart and soul into it and a top few stealing WP supporters goodwill dollar contributions. The irony is WP is spending money to an external consultant to see how WP fundraising went. Oops!

Please sign your comments. 02:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
that was helpful *rolls eyes*

I'll probably donate But I'd like some answers before I do.

Wikimedia is a wonderful resource. I have contributed to it in many ways and I intend to continue. I have not donate money in the past because I haven't had any money to donate. This time I probably will. I do have some questions though:

  1. Why are you relocating? Why relocate to San Fransisco? Why not someplace less expensive?
  2. What purpose do Wiki-Conferences serve?
  3. What are you doing, and what has been done, to minimize costs?
  4. Where can I find the 2006-2007 budget?
  5. If I am reading this correctly, you spent under $800,000 in FY 2006. This year (FY 2008) you expect to spend around 4.6 million ($4,600,000)! Why so much more?

--*Kat* 09:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. is the announcement by Sue Gardner, Special Advisor and Consultant to the Wikimedia Foundation, and more posts in that thread can be found in:
  2. Do you mean Wikimanias?
  3. Well, we employ a very small staff and get volunteer work for most activities. I am sure that more information on this can be found by asking people on our public Foundation mailing list:
  4. I am not completely sure about the 2006-2007 Budget, however Daniel Mayer should be able to answer this or at least point you in the right direction.
  5. Well, we have grown exponentially. We have a larger amount of technological software due to the amount of hits we receive a second and how much information we have stored on our servers. We are also in the process of moving locations (a one-time cost) and that will be slightly expensive (though a one-time cost). Furthermore, with all of this other growth, our staff has grown and we also want to do more philanthropic activities (fulfilling our wikimedia:Mission).
Cbrown1023 talk 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That relocation memo is hilarious. "We assessed five major cities: (insert really expensive cities)." Warren Buffett operates out of Omaha, Nebraska. He seems to be doing just fine. I've donated to WMF before, but not this time. Sanjayhari 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I too was surprised. San Fran is an expensive city, so the moving costs are indeed one time, but your operating costs (rent, labor) will increase and remain high for all subsequent years. San Fran, LA, Mountain View etc. have some of the highest property and labor costs in the country... I don't have statistics off hand, but a if labor and rent costs 400% of the national median, it would not surprise me. Non profits established in a low cost area should count that as a blessing... Having said that Wikipedia is going bonkers and they seem to be extremely well funded. So why not? It's not how I would run it, but hey, I'm not running it! -- 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

San Fransisco

haha got edited, and i was just about to tell this guy with my words too! Nvm.

Please keep posts on-topic for the Fundraiser. Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

economic relation of india and sweden

what is the current economic relation of india and sweden

Thank you for contacting us regarding this matter, unfortunately this page is for comments and questions related to our recent Fundraising drive. However, you can ask this question at the English Wikipedia's Reference desk, where I am sure that someone would be more than happy to answer your question. Cbrown1023 talk 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably already noticed, but the banner is now reading '0 have donated', which makes it look (more) unprofessional. Superm401 | Talk 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC) is offline. Dragons flight 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Supporting by Buying WikiMedia products

Have you considered partnering up with someone other than CafePress for your support goods? LuLu is a good alternative, and so is some local places.

CafePress fees for international shipping are relatively steep, shipping individial mugs etc. past the Atlantic or Pacific is unecological, and the above factors have undoubtably cost the foundation in lost/unmade contributions because of the above factors. I would plea the foundation to find a partner who ships theis goods localy in Europe/Asia, too.

This is a constant means of discussion on the Foundation-l mailing list. Perhaps you may want to start another discussion on this? Cbrown1023 talk 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I second this.... Europeans should be able to buy wiki stuff!!


Is this a problem with my browser? Its 1:47 P.M. EST. and I see on the donation banner that '0 have donated'.

If you still have a problem, please report it to Bugzilla or brion[at]wikimedia[dot]org but please make sure you include your browser information. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Page

I was interested how long the donor list remains online. The Last Page goes to a rear title page and not the last donor listed. At this time - is page 374 and Oct22'07 and to speed search along I had to get there by the process of elimination, changing page in the address line of IE6. What is the time frame or truncate point? fyi Win98SE IE6

Planning on making 1st donation and was interested in the process. The donate page including a message line is a nice touch.

ps - I guess WikiFoundation talk page is restricted. Maybe create a link to here. Just spent 10 minutes doing a double check in a 2nd window, and THERE IS a maze to postTALK on the Foundation side, and it is not the same as here. I'll copy and paste in both places. 10:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) dual login noname recognition ie: Greg0658 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the entire donor list for this year's fundraising drive is online still. The drive started on October 22, 2007, which is why that is the last donor listed (it was the first). Does this answer your question? Cbrown1023 talk 14:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Oct22'07 the first ever donation to Wikipedia or the most recent donation drive? I was thinking 1000 days of memory. Thats roughly 2 1/2 years, so you could see last years donation as you contribute again. But that would be alot of pages and bytes. I have been contemplating NetNeutrality and the cost of the www to common people. Bytes cost money.

ps - Can't track - Why does my terminal address show instead of Greg0658? 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oct 22'07 was the first donation of the most recent donation drive. Donations from previous fundraisers can be found here. Your IP address shows up here because you do not have an account on the Meta-Wiki, you are free to login to one or create one. Cbrown1023 talk 03:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dollar value of donations

I know we're tracking based on the number of donations to encourage people to give, but where can I find a summary of the dollar value given so far? Mbisanz on en.wikipedia.

In the site notice on top of all Wikimedia project pages there is a number that says "XXX have donated" (how many people). For example, right now it say s "16,053 have donated." We aren't following the number of money donated so far, I don't believe there is a public page that says that (unless you compile it directly from the C.O.R.E.). Cbrown1023 talk 03:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you feel about publicly viewable pages that almost no one knows about? There is an online running total of donations. Dragons flight 04:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no particular reason why the running totals aren't more visible; Cary will start publishing them weekly to the mailing list from now on. They're also accessible in real-time through [1], which we'll give a prettier URL & link it from a few places.--Eloquence 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! /me bookmarks the page. Cbrown1023 talk 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Total amount

It would be nice if a total amount of donations (in dollars) were listed at the top of the page. At the moment, it just has the number of contributors. 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As expressed on the FAQ we are doing something a little differently this year. As evident by the fundraising banner at the top of all the pages, we are focusing more on the donors themselves rather than how much they have donated (we share the number of donors and quotes by the donors). However, you can see live statistics for the amount of money received on this page: Cbrown1023 talk 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should sell advertising to cover its costs

There is no rational reason why Wikipedia can't place advertising in its content. This advertising need not be intrusive, but if it were there, there's no doubt that Wikipedia would have capital to improve and expand its services.

Many nonprofits include advertising in their communications. The idea that Wikipedia does not is downright silly, period.

It's against wikipedia policy and the original idea. Plus, if you're just looking up quickly to see, for instance, who the hell en:Juergen Pirner is, and have to scroll past an ad or close a pop-up to get there, it's more than pesky; it's downright annoying and unnecessary waste of your (and several thousand others') time which will no doubt make you turn away from wikipedia. -- 21:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
policy can change, so, no worse than the fundraising banner, next
This issue is a constant heat of debate, see for example Advertising on Wikipedia, Advertising proposal, and en:Wikipedia:Advertisements. Feel free to start another discussion about this on Foundation-l (the Foundation's mailing list). Cbrown1023 talk 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Among other concerns, US-based non-profits are legally required to take in at least 1/3 of their income in the form of small private donations. If Wikipedia had ads, it would likely be challenging to also have enough donor money to maintain non-profit status. Dragons flight 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
so what?
A significant numebr of contributors have said they would quit if Wikipedia were commercial. It is a factor to consider, but whether it is compelling will depend on personal opinion. Dragons flight 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess Wikimedia has to decide which is more important: Millions of dollars and continued solvency or the support of the whiney cotributors who think think own they place--likely the same segment whose "cotributions" amount to little more than reverting every edit that happens to be inconsitant with their simplistic world-views.
I frequently contribute to Wikimedia's finances, but we do own the place. More specifically, I own my contributions and have (along with everyone else) released them under the GFDL or other free licenses. So if we don't like the ad policy, we can leave and bring the contributions with us. Superm401 | Talk 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You own nothing. You have no control over your past contributions and you can't get your past donations back. As to the future, if you leave name one person who would care.

I think many "reputable" advertisers would baulk at peddling their wares on a totally unreliable encyclopedia founded by a former Internet pornographer. That's probably why the punters are being asked for the money instead.

If advertisements were allowed, then the discussion of "how much?" would come next. This would depend on how much money the project needs at the time. As less money is required from private donors and the cost of expansion rises, we will need more and more money from ad revenue and the "how much?" debate would tilt to more and more ads. It's a matter of principle. No ads, no problems with ad companies. Imagine all the problems that companies will have with vandalism on pages where their ads are? And not to mention the conflict of interest that would be obvious in an article about a product being advertised in the same article. -- 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I would consider that Google profits from advertising "on" wikipedia. That is, it indexes wikipedia, puts relevant wikipedia articles at the top of its search results, and profits from the `sponsored links' at the side of the search results. Would Google consider contributing a large donation to Wikipedia?


The job you people are doing is great. I would request you to spread knowledge in India too. Being an Indian, I know how much my country lacks behind the other countries. There are so many illiterate people out there who need help to improve their living.

Are you stupid? Illeterate people do not read. Therefore cannot read WikiPedia. This is a nicely opinioned resource, with terrorist administrators who will delete anything not to their liking. So India does not need WikiPedia. India needs education and reliable information. Not WikiPedia style bloggers in disguise information. But then, you _are_ stupid if you think WikiPedia people are doing a great job.
Editors, now go delete my comment above.
  • Actually, many articles contain audio as well as text. Furthermore, wikipedia need not be directly accessible to those it may benefit. It's hard to resist pointing out the irony in your misspelling of the word "illiterate." Perhaps it is you who is in dire need of more education. It obviously isn't perfect, but it's a great resource to begin with. No one is advocating that it should be relied upon as the absolute tome of all knowledge, but I must say, I've seen far worse texts held in such esteem. ;) - 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

can you catch a cold from being cold?

if you go outside in the midddle of the winter with a simple shirt on you would catch a cold. is it because your body loses its deffences in cold enviroments or because you body just conjestions when in cold enviroments?

Thank you for your question, however this is for comments and questions related to our annual Fundraiser. There is a place on the English Wikipedia called the Reference desk where many volunteers will try to answer any factual question(s) you have. Thanks again! Cbrown1023 talk 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

FAQ larger font?

I just guided a friend through why he should donate to wikipedia, and the big problem was he didn't know why. could you make the "FAQ" on the font on the top template larger so it stands out a bit? i think it would help this issue. JoeSmack 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fy translations

Over the last few days we've translated to Frisian those Fundraising messages that were marked as urgent. The directly visible ones have been applied by a kind and more knowledgable Wikimedian, but what should happen with the others? Fy doesn't seem to have even the framework to show in the status lists, and I don't know the title of the page that explains how this should all come together. Help appreciated.

Also, there's a >> symbol on the red button, that doesn't seem to have any significance. Is this necessary or can it be removed?

Aliter 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Aphaia should be able to help you with this or you could post your question on the Translators mailing list. Thank you for your translations! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


I personally think that saying that Wikimedia is changing the world (implied with "You can help Wikimedia change the world") is a bit overboard. They most certainly are... but it sounds too much like a... I don't know, yuppie thing. Then there are the rather annoying quotes underneath the banner, where people call Wikipedia "the Wiki", which is fairly incorrect considering the sheer number of Wikis out there.

My two cents. GofG 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Where do we complain about the graphic of people holding hands?

Just so I know where to officially direct my complaints. - 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can post them here, this is the official feedback page for the Fundraiser. Cbrown1023 talk 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

please show logos or ads in farsi when user language is farsi.

The taglines are translated into the language for the local wiki, Farsi Wikipedia already has it's information translated. The quotes are said by real donors and there are ones in many different languages. Cbrown1023 talk 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case I'd like to strenuously complain about the graphic. The previous graphic (a rectangular bar with notches and a meter filling it) was much more simple and self explanatory. It told you how many had donated and you could clearly see the progress which was being made toward the eventual goal. The current one (with the people holding hands) is much larger, clunkier and unintuitive. The forth person is bigger than the rest... does that mean four people have donated or forty thousand? With rough math, each person represents five thousand? But seriously, I don't want to do math, I just want to see the graphic improving. When it grows, I grow. The other one didn't stay static for days at a time. I wish it gets changed back to the old version (with the bar) or at the very least have people given the option of changing it. I hope that my comments here don't get ignored because I don't have a wikimedia login. - 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome. The old fundraising bar was considered by many to be aesthetically unappealing and confusing. Indeed, since the new bar went online, the daily number of donations has more than doubled from where it was. [2] We've received a lot of, mostly positive, feedback on the new design. You can also comment on this specific page, which was used during the redesign process: w:Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. We're not going to go back to the old bar, but if you have specific suggestions for improvements (e.g. for more clearly indicating the progress), please make them there. BTW, if you are logged in, you can collapse the bar to a simple progress bar which may be more like what you are looking for.--Eloquence 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why I, and possibly others, will never donate

I'm against donating when the site could be self supporting through having sponsor's icons on the front page. It's a waste of a win (they get more profile) win (Wikipedia would get money) situation. Why should I use my hard earned money when there's corporations that would shower money, makes no sense to me. - 07:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the relevant discussion above at #Wikipedia should sell advertising to cover its costs. Thank you for your comments. Cbrown1023 talk 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
How would the site be self-supporting this way? It would just be supported by corporations, instead of people. Superm401 | Talk 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How many already raise ?

Where can we know how many US$ have already be raised ? This information was clear in the previous fundraising, why this is now impossible to found ? 14:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the information can be found at, others are working on linking this from more places and getting an easier link to it. Cbrown1023 talk 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I donate by e-gold ( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

I suppose you could, but it wouldn't count towards the meter at the top of the pages, nor towards the fundraising goal since the automatic means of measuring them are though credit card, paypal moneybrookers, direct deposit, and check by mail, as stated on the donation page. On second thought, perhaps it would count as a direct deposit. Could someone clarify? -- 00:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How did you get so much millions with a simple free and volunteer encyclopedia basis, with no advertisement on?

C you! :)

Tax Deductible

Are donations tax deductible ?

Please see here--Nick1915 - all you want 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That isn't as helpful as I thought it would be. Is there any other place where I can find specific information on how the tax deductions work in the USA? -- 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

do we have to give the amounts shown? or can we give something like just $20.00?

== Money Issues ==Hey how much money do we have to give? I mean I want to give only $5.00 because that is all I can afford right now, would that be ok, or do I have to give the amounts that are shown? respond to Kriss.HuntBeach

You may donate any amount You like and You don't have to donate the amounts shown, they are examples, of course also 20 or 5 $, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The only caveat being, if you use PayPal to donate a very small amount, all or most of it may end up going to PP. But so long as you're giving "folding money", that's not much of an issue. Alai 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Die Zahlen für das kommende Budget sind so fürchterlich wie ich befürchtet habe. Die Wikimania Conference soll $150,000 kosten! Die erste in Frakfurt war bestimmt nicht so teuer, außer die Redner sind im Learjet eingeflogen worden. Der Board of Trustees soll $201,000 kosten. Hat der schon einen einzigen Artikel geschrieben? Was die Foundation macht, ausser Beschwerde-emails zu beantworten, ist mir ebenfalls unklar. In der de-Wikipedia waren die jedenfalls noch nie. Warum die Technik 2.5 mio kostet ist mir auch unklar. Kurz, für diesen "Wasserkopf" spende ich keinen Euro! Gruß aus Deutschland. -- 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bei der ersten Konferenz war Wikimedia auch ein bisschen kleiner als heute :) Ich persönlich find $140,000 eine unglaublich kleine Zahl für die ganze Veranstaltung--die Redner und viele der Wikimedia-Benützer müssen eingeflogen werden, der Saal muss gemietet werden, Essen und andere Dinge müssen auch bezahlt werden. Vielleicht hat der Board keinen Artikel geschrieben (stimmt eigentlich auch nicht; viele der Mitglieder des Boards sind seit langem Wikimedia Beitragenden gewesen) aber ohne dem Board gibt es gar kein Wikimedia. Diese $201,000 bezahlen nur das, was der Board braucht, zu arbeiten (Flüge, Bürokosten und so weiter). Die Angehörigen des Boards bekommen selbst gar nichts von den $201,000. Zur Technik kann ich nur sagen, dass Bandbreite und Server unglaublich viel kosten. Mit Millionen von Besuchern jeden Tag soll es echt nicht überraschen, dass es so viel kostet, die Site online zu halten. Im Vergleich mit ähnlichen Sites wie Google und so was, sind die technische Kosten Wikimedias gar nichts. Gruß aus Amerika :) AmiDaniel 20:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read your answer. Greetings, -- 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Board budget does not only include Board travel (both to Board meetings and to meetings with other organizations & conferences), but also other organizational development expenses authorized by the Board; for example, meetings with the Advisory Board or with the representatives of the local chapters. A more detailed breakdown will be posted online shortly.--Eloquence 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean this? Cbrown1023 talk 02:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Once eight nillion articles and once six million in 250 languages

The Press Release is quite buggy. How much are there? 8 or 6 million articles?-- 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, right. Hm, maybe it's meant 8 million in English and 6 million in the other 250 languages? --Thogo (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
No.... there are over 7 million articles in over 200 languages. Currently around 2,100,000 on en.wp. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I know, I thought this numbers were plans for the future. ("once...") --Thogo (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The marketing folks have always been pushing hard with the numbers. At the turn of the year, they tried to give the impression that wikipedia was already one of the top ten sites according to alexa, when, in fact, wikipedia was ranked as no. 12, and only very briefly was it in the top 10. I remember this because that particular sentence in the communication was very hard to translate without lying a bit. Hillgentleman 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
...and now Wikipedia is the eighth most-visited site in the world. Cbrown1023 talk 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"help Wikipedia change the world" or maintain the status quo ?

Wikipedia strikes me as a very right-wing, US-centric outfit, dedicated to preserving the status quo and opposing change. The "CIA Factbook" is the definitive and indisputable source. I have run up against this a number of times, any contradictory info from peer reviewed journals or other neutral sources is deleted from WP without explanation. If I try to put it back I get blocked without explanation (not any of the official reasons for blocking). Fourtildes 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Others argue that Wikipedia is a very left-wing, anti-US outfit. See Conservapedia for example. -- 23:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You should report all of this! Wikipedia takes perspective through consensus. If people aren't willing to discuss something, then it's being counterproductive to the project. Honestly, I've seen some articles with heavily loaded opinions against the USA and some on the opposite side. But I think the end product, having a free encyclopedia, is worth more than temporary POVs. Besides, these problems are only on very few articles (but should still be a concern). Most articles about science are impeccable. -- 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT Donate to this mess!

...unless you want to change the world FOR THE WORSE. Wikipedia is for the most part a monstrous exercise in feel-good mediocrity. There are some fine entries, but most are either school papers or ridiculous fan blurbs or people venting their POV or to promote a personal agenda (despite what a previous poster says, the POV comes from Americans AND Brits, right-wing AND left-wing) and, worse still, it's filled with misinformation far too pervasive to correct. It's also impossible to clean these messes up, because the edits are reverted by those whose feelings are hurt -- remember, this is a feel-good exercise -- and the only way they can be stopped is by cumbersome and ineffective arbitration. And Jimmy Wales and his crowd are too busy being celebrities to bother to manage this mess.

The fatal fallacy of the Wikipedia concept is that until an article is finished, which, according to the fashion, it never is, it is WRONG, which makes Wikiedia worse than useless as a reference. Dependability must be consistent in a reference, and the only thing consistent about Wikipedia is its inconsistency.

This Emperor wears no clothes. Wikipedia is a menace to knowledge. Do not donate! — 07:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But... If an article is poorly written, just fix it. What's the big deal? Be bold! -- 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL Be bold? Fix it? Most articles are guarded by over zealous administrators who will REVERT anything you type, reference, quote, link if it does not support their left wing POV. There is so much bias and propoganda in this site, it should be called the Nazipedia. When the admins that are given the duty to protect Wikipedia censor and delete user posts in the TALK pages because they don't agree with what they say, what I SAY, then it's a lost cause.
Of course the Nazis were a RIGHT wing organization so, yeah.

But of course, you'll never hear about this on the press, because all the hippies that browse this site all day are no differnt than the ones that control the mainstream media. And yes, they do control the mainstream media. I could post scientific proof, but of couse that would be deleted instantly.

No, no, it is the Free Masons that control Wikipedia, the media, the major corporations, and the government. Jeltz 11:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No donation from me.

I have Wikipedia bookmarked in my toolbar, for one reason only-- if I want to look up something quick like the date Carl Sagan was born, Google will just give me a link to wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia is like searching for a half-dollar in a septic system. It's nasty. Grab the money, and run. (Don't forget to wash.)

I honestly find it as no surprise that many education institutions have prohibited the use of Wikipedia. Not because it's editable by anyone, but because it's loaded with garbage. Obviously, nearly anyone can create a website and put nearly whatever they want; so really, the entire internet is freely editable. If this still goes over your head, it would be like not allowing books as a valid source because "anyone can write a book". Again, it's more than likely not that anyone can edit wikipedia, but because the quality is severely lacking.

Wikipedia promotes too much "INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS." In fact, I find the Encyclopedia Dramatica Entry for Wikipedia ( encyclopedia ) to be extremely enlightening and not only makes fairly good comedy from this website, but exposes some of Wikipedia's more than apparent flaws.

We all know Wikipedia could use better admins. I know it, and so do you. I have NEVER seen such pretentious and arrogant admins on the internet. Do I even dare mention Alkivar's experience?

Anyways, I find this year's superfluous spending extreme and unnecessary. A relocation to SF. About that.... What's wrong with St. Petersburg, Florida? I find it extremely hilarious that in the memo San Francisco is noted as giving ". . . the Foundation a solid base from which to grow."

For all of these reasons, and further reasons I'm not particularly interested in discussing right now (being 2 AM), I won't be donating this year. Maybe next time, guys. Clean up your act. 09:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All of your comments are strongly related to some of the main criticisms of Wikipedia, and I will not try and argue with much of what you have said. However, you should be aware that by donating, you are not just donating to (the English) Wikipedia, but rather the Foundation, and by extension, all of its projects, not all of which share the same issues. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Great. 09:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gang, Let's Give a Hoot

Give the wikifoundation a break. The Foundation is not some inaccessible entity which looms in the distance always seemingly out of reach. Everyone has the ability to access this resource. However, instead of donating to wikipedia.. let us donate to the people who ran all that fiber electric cable in the 90s and now it is sitting without pulses of light running through it. Eliminate the dead fiber optic cable and put it to use!-Adam

Some graphs

I've made some crude graphs showing the progress of this fundraiser and comparing it to past fundraisers. See: Commons:Category:Wikimedia fundraising analysis. Dragons flight 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[3] this one is particularly amazing... thanks Dragons flight Anthere

Suspicious low-value donations

I note from reading the donation logs that there seem to be a significant number of donations for exactly $0.01. These may well be carders testing credit card numbers for validity. We should probably discourage this by setting a lower-bound to donations: perhaps $1? -- The Anome 17:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not their money, so I doubt raising it to $1 will deter them. - 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Number of donations less than 30 cents in this and previous fundraisers
Given the higher numbers of small donations in this drive compared to past efforts, I continue to believe that some portion of this is people having fun pumping the donation counter. Also, if you were a carder smart/lucky enough to have 100 cards to test, would you also call attention to yourself by testing them all at once at a single site in rapid fire succession? Of course, some carders probably are that dumb, but my money is on some kid reloading the donation form over and over for much of this. Dragons flight 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If it's kids doing this, pumping the counter may be still actively counterproductive to the fundraising effort, by creating the impression that there's more money being raised than there actually is, and thus discouraging real donations. There's also a possible PR downside to this, if people believe that the fundaiser figures are being "stacked". We should definitely set a minimum donation level. -- The Anome 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, have you read the recent foundation-l thread just concerning this issue? Danny suggested those very small amount of "donations" were actually (trying) to be paid with stolen credit cards ... I think it wouldn't be a big deal ... as well trolls, just ignore them. And we can get rid of those "small" donations from the sum of donors we show the public audience as well we did in previous fundrasing. --Aphaia 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I started that discussion on Foundation-l and as I explained above the current experience is qualitatively different from the past experience and I believe the figures in the image are inconsistent with carders being the dominant explanation. The point is that we aren't presently excluding them from the totals, and they amount to a growing share of all donations. In the last 24 hours there have been another 500 of these tiny donations, bringing the total over 2000. A "correction" to remove these is already going to be noticable, and at the accelerating rate it is likely to get far more noticable if it keeps up. Dragons flight 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. Apparently small donations are now removed from the online tally, but they are of course still present in the donation banner everyone sees. Dragons flight 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A trick could be to stop counting new donations smaller than 1 USD, but keeping the old ones. Or we could simply just reduce the displayed number by the 2000 tiny donations, and let people notice the correction. Jeltz 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We are going to filter out all donations less than $1.00, please see this post for more information. Cbrown1023 talk 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In the country name list of the payment procedure Bangladesh name is not present. I was trying to donate but have failed because of that. Do you think that Bangladeshi peoples are so poor that the can't donate?? it so funny. there are names of many other countries which are much more poorer than Bangladesh. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Which country list are you referring to? Cbrown1023 talk 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice that you are more worried about the banner figures than helping to combat cc fraud Elkeeed 09:43, 26 November 2007 (GMT)


The Indonesian version of Fundraising (wikimedia:Penggalangan dana) is not yet updated. Thanks. ~Rex••talk•• 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it preferable to still direct people to the Indonesian version rather than the English one? Korg 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why dontate money when you can make money from using advertisments like any other website its logical.

Why dontate money when you can make money from using advertisments like any other website its logical. it literally makes no sense google and myspace make millions this is blatently a scam.

Unfortunately, we cannot resort to this currently for a variety of reasons as outlined above. Cbrown1023 talk 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, some idealistic people believe it is better to run on donations with an occassional fundraiser than to be (or have the appearance of being) beholden to advertisers. Dragons flight 03:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Donation numbers going DOWN???

It was something like 22000 the other day now its down in the 19000's. There's serious credibility issues now with this fund raising as I and possibly many others now have no confidence in the accuracy of what you (the fundraisers) are telling us.

You must have a cache problem. The current number is 23,298. guillom 12:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he has a point yesterday when I got on wikipedia it was about three hundred higher than it is now.....Is this just a random number generator?

Perhaps this is caused by after-the-fact filtering of 1c donations, as discussed above? Alai 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You can change the world... contributing to the reams of drivel that appear on Wikipedia. Yes folks, you and your hard-earned cash (aided and abetted by a former Internet pornographer and erstwhile securities trader) can change the world for the worse. On the other hand, you could spend ten minutes and come up with millions of infinitely worthier causes to splash out your dollars on.

Tax deduction for wikipedia

Is a donation to Wikipedia tax-deductible in the USA? Is a donation to Wikipedia tax-deductible in other countries? iS WIKIPEDIA A 501(c)(3) not-for-profit? I'm troubled by the utter silence of wikipedia on this point.

As a US taxpayer who itemizes my tax return, I only have to earn $1.00 to give $1.00 to wikipedia if it's tax-deductible. But if it's not, I have to earn $1.35 or more (depending on how state and local taxes figure in) to donate $1.00 to wikipedia. Turning this around, if wikipedia wants me to donate something like $0.74 and it's not tax deductible, I have to go to work and earn $1.00.

I know that not everyone itemizes; that's fine. But my bottom line is that I prefer to donate to causes that are tax-deductible, because for me, I can donate more, or, from a selfish point of view, my money goes farther.

Yes. Wikipedia is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit in the United States and as such, donations to it in the United States are tax-deduxtible. Donations in a few other countries are also tax-deductible, see wikimedia:Deductibility of donations for more information. Thank you for your question, Cbrown1023 talk 12:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Reassuring, every English Wikipedia article says in its footer "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.". See the bottom of pages :) --Aphaia 19:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I would be interested in donating if donations are tax-deductible in the United Kingdom. Would someone (e.g. altruistic accountant / other benefactor) be willing to do the administrative work to set this up? (It might look good on your CV!)

Donations are not yet tax-deductible in the UK. :-( Our local chapter there, Wikimedia UK, should be handling that, feel fee to give them a poke on the talk page (Talk:Wikimedia UK) or on their mailing list (mail:wikimediauk-l). I would like to see this done as well. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to donate, but not to scrounge around in my wallet and put in a lot of numbers. Let me know when you accept PayPal.

We actually do accept PayPal, see wikimedia:Donate for more information. Cbrown1023 talk 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


One anonymous person commented: "Its getting me through med school"

I'm in high school and wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, ill get a zero if wikipedia is my main source. What med school accepts wikipedia as a reliable source? Until you assure that wikipedia is 100% reliable i'm not donating.

Maybe its time to make this into a real encyclopedia and not "for the people by the people", i dont care if i cant edit the work, i just want some reliable info.

Actually you should generally not use any encylopædia as your primary source. Jeltz 11:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a comment by an anonymous donor, it reflect their opinion and not necessarily the opinions of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its editors. I took this comment to mean that they felt our text taught them more than the medical school teachers and textbooks, not that they are citing it in any references papers, however you are open to your interpretation. Nothing in the world is 100% reliable, but we strive for that point, see our relevant pages regarding this subject on the English Wikipedia: w:en:Wikipedia:Verifiability and w:en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cbrown1023 talk 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you some kind of a barracks lawyer for wikipedia? Your language, argumentation, and the logic seems rather obscure to me. How did you come to this absurd premise that some guy is going through medical school (as in serious studies) using WikiPedia? Wikipedia put me through law school, and by this I will mean the tonnes of trivia, movie plots, controversies, and of course the ridiculous amount of flaming, spamming, infighting that goes around in your discussion boards. C'mon, now, everybody knows WikiPedia will put you through a bad day - it is as good as a drunken brawl.
Now please, WikiPedians, will you stop taking your religion too far! Goddamn It (and I put the last two words so that you can invoke some draconian rule of yours agains foul language, and delete this comment), it is a wiki after all!

Tax Exemption for this donation


Can you please tell me whether the donation is subjected to tax exemptions or not ???

hello. Which country are you from ? Some countries do propose tax exemptions (eg, USA, Germany, France etc...) others do not. Anthere 07:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
for a listing of the countries that we do currently have tax exemptions for, please visit wikimedia:Deductibility of donations. Cbrown1023 talk 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit Stealing Others' Hard Work

I won't donate until Wikipedia does something to stop their users from stealing years worth of other people's hard work from regularly maintained sites to create un-maintained pages filled with questionable additions and half-truths that have already been researched by ethical peoples.

You should save your work then, if you're that bothered.
huh??? It is saved, on the original site it was taken from where people already did the work to justify and document the correct information, and people connected to the topic know to go *there* and get it. The random masses, however, are running across the half-truths posted here. If you want the pages so badly, do your own work to write them.

Stop Defending Start Changing

I previously posted the entry "Farce" and noticed how wikipedia defended themselves as much as they could. Here's a tip, instead of defending why don't you start changing. All this criticism can lead to change. I wonder how much of the donation money is going towards highering people to defend wikipedia?

  • Way too late, buddy. Almost all the knowledgeable, erudite contributors fled long ago, leaving this place to the petty autistics who are now content to push around these remnants of their still-crumbling empire like a model railyard. Congratulations, Wikipedia admins, for driving away your most valuable contributors.
Return to "Fundraising 2007/2007-11" page.