The next Wikimedia Basis personnel display screen this page: Featured Content Ads add advertising here COGNAC Metaverse Explore World's first metaverse that is as real as our Real world. https://cognac.knowasiak.com JBrungs (WMF) Timezone: UTC+2/3 In expose to issue them, please hyperlink their username when posting a message. This point out used to be as a lot as this point on 12/2021

Lately, I visited Wikipedia logged out, and used to be greeted by the next message:

To all our readers in Australia,


It could perchance presumably be awkward, but please create no longer scroll past this. This Tuesday, for the 1st time lately, we humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia’s independence. …

I felt that the phrasing wouldn’t if truth be told allure to an Australian viewers, and presumably that “humble” is no longer in step with an organisation that goals to be the “necessary knowledge infrastructure for the 21st century”. (The wording of the main blue message gave the influence to swap partway thru the campaign, though I saw humble and awkward ongoing within the crimson reminder messages.)

Hanging aside whether or no longer the Basis could presumably calm space itself as the overdog or underdog, it does urged me to deem the next questions:

• Does the Basis accomplish A/B/C/D testing of diverse messages and assess their effectiveness in diverse markets throughout the main campaign or actual in pre-testing?
• Has this learn been made on hand? If no longer, can it?
• Are the fundraising messages recorded any place for the sake of transparency and future reference?
• Can a campaign code (“They accomplish mean things, but this is most efficient known to those who created them…” [1]) be matched to a explicit message, or is it one-to-many?

Cheers, Pelagic (talk) 10: 30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions (from Wikimedia Endeavor discussion)[edit]

Liam urged in a discussion on Discuss:Wikimedia_Enterprise the build fundraising popped up a pair of occasions that I post fundraising-linked questions here.

First, for context, here is the most up-to-date space of the WMF fundraising figures, taken from here:

Year	Supply	Earnings	Prices	Asset rise	Full property
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

The monetary statements also point out that Throughout the three hundred and sixty five days ended June 30, 2016, the Basis entered into an settlement with the Tides Basis to establish the Wikimedia Endowment as a Collective Action Fund to act as a permanent safekeeping fund to gain a residing to be obvious that a listless stage of give a boost to for the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity. The Endowment is self sustaining from the Basis. They rush on to command that the Basis [has] supplied irrevocable grants … to the Tides Basis for the cause of the Wikimedia Endowment. These amounts are recorded in awards and grants expense. (Supply: Monetary Statements 2019/2020, p. 14)
So as I sign it just some of the costs within the above desk are if truth be told earnings build into the endowment.

I and I am scramble many others would be attracted to solutions to the next questions:

1.At the birth it used to be envisaged that it could most likely presumably possess ten years to raise the Endowment to $100 million. It used to be reported in January of this three hundred and sixty five days to stand at $90 million, and used to be stated to be drawing shut $100 million final month. So the WMF took $50 million extra from the donating public than it could most likely presumably hold desired to in expose to fulfil its publicised opinion. Who took that resolution? —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Pricey Andreas, as it is miles a inquire of about the Endowment (inquire of 1 on this checklist), I refer you to the acknowledge to inquire of 2 over on the Endowment talkpage, the build you’ll want to hold also requested it. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08: 08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Pricey Julia, thanks for the re-numbering. On the change hand, this inquire of is no longer actual about the Endowment. Millions of bucks raised thru fundraising banners – banners claiming that the Wikimedia Basis “if truth be told desires” cash for Wikipedia “to discontinuance online”, “to protect its independence”, etc. – hold ended up within the Endowment, accounted for within the monetary statements as Wikimedia Basis prices, below “awards and grants” (awards and grants of all kinds, no longer actual to the Endowment, totalled $22.9m, $12.7m, $13.6m, $11.2m, $11.4m within the final five statements). Raising these tens of millions of bucks must not had been most well-known in these years in expose to develop the endowment on the deliberate and publicised fee. And to this point, the principle inquire of has no longer been answered over on the Endowment page either: Who directs you to believe up exhibiting fundraising banners effectively after your publicised monetary dreams hold already been executed? Is it a board resolution, a CEO/ED resolution, or an Advancement (Fundraising division) resolution? Whenever you’ll want to well acknowledge this inquire of, it could most likely well be precious. Regards, —Andreas JN466 09: 12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it is miles a inquire of is extra discussed on the controversy:Endowment, I refer you to the solutions to inquire of 2. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10: 19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2.Why is the reality that you simply’ll want to had been attempting (and succeeding) to waste a $100m endowment in half the on the starting up budgeted time no longer extra prominent in fundraising banners proven to readers? Most runt donors give because they sight banners, broadly perceived as alarming, telling them that cash is most well-known for Wikipedia to “believe thriving”, “to discontinuance online”, to “protect its independence”. They’re no longer urged that the Basis supporting Wikipedia has accumulate property most lately reported to stand at $180m, alongside with shut to $100m in an Endowment. —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

3.One could presumably argue that just some of the fundraising messages strive to carry out participants of the public, alongside side in final three hundred and sixty five days’s fundraising pressure in India, if truth be told feel guilty for no longer donating – or to disgrace them into donating – to the Wikimedia Basis. Is that this appropriate, when all command material on Wikimedia sites used to be built by unpaid volunteers who decide on this command material to be on hand freed from fee for each person? —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

4.You need to to hold grown your funds larger than tenfold over the past ten years, and are planning to develop it extra. Clearly, you’ll want to well be spending necessary extra cash than you presumably did ten years within the past. A tenth of the cash you’ll want to well be taking now used to be enough to believe up Wikipedia online ten years within the past, and it could most likely presumably calm be enough on the present time. Why are you no longer making it extra prominent to other folks what you in deciding on the assorted 9-tenths of the income for when you’ll want to well be asking the public to come up with their cash? —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

5.How necessary cash does the WMF if truth be told hold factual now, expressed as a most efficient estimate of accumulate property plus Endowment? —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

6.The WMF reportedly took $124m (of a deliberate $125m, revised plot from $108m) within the first six months of this monetary three hundred and sixty five days. As you’ll want to by now completely hold reached your target, will you discontinuance fundraising for the relaxation of the monetary three hundred and sixty five days, and if no longer, by how necessary are you planning, or observing for, to exceed your revised plot? —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

7.How necessary of the $124m taken from July to December of ultimate three hundred and sixty five days used to be due to the Indian fundraising campaign? —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d be very grateful for solutions to the above. Many thanks for your relieve upfront. Regards, —Andreas JN466 20: 59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Pricey Andreas,

Thank you very necessary for your questions, we can rating attend to you as soon as that you simply’ll want to well believe, here and on talk:Endowment. —JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09: 42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, JBrungs (WMF), I ask forward to that. Narrate that I hold added a inquire of above (no. 7). —Andreas JN466 09: 55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pricey Andreas,

Thank you for your questions. Without the edifying give a boost to of our donors, Wikipedia wouldn’t be ready to transfer forward, diversify, and strengthen as it has for the past 20 years. Here is one thing we if truth be told feel is most well-known to portion with our readers, different whom don’t know that Wikipedia is sustained by donations. The main reason readers inform us they donate is because Wikipedia is useful to them. The fundraising personnel has the plot of elevating the funds for WMF with the extra plot of also the usage of the campaign to educate readers about Wikipedia and the community who creates it. We repeatedly waste recent messaging to reach each and every of these dreams. Under are just a few examples of recent messages we ran within the Q2 campaign. As effectively as to highlighting the community, we aimed to name out the arena of expertise of our donors and our deep gratitude for their give a boost to in explicit in Q2. We will proceed to iterate and strengthen messages and we’d be at liberty to listen to ideas on the fundraising meta talk page.

Examples of recent messaging from Q2:

• Narrate the editors who raise you fair, verified details that their work matters.
• Our community of volunteer editors ensures that the ideas you be taught here is proof-based completely and reliant on facts. Narrate them that their work matters.
• The life like donation is $15, but every donor presents the factual quantity for them. Many first-time donors give $2.75. All that matters is that you simply’re deciding on to stand up with out spending a dime, birth details; and for that, you’ll want to hold our gratitude.
• Whenever you’ll want to well be surely one of our uncommon donors, you’ll want to hold our gratitude, and we warmly thank you.
• Whenever you occur to donate actual $2.75, or whatever you’ll want to well to the Wikimedia Endowment, you’ll join the community of donors sustaining Wikipedia for future years attend.
• Our editors are volunteers. They create no longer receives a commission; they supply you with their knowledge simply because they care. And our mission is to be obvious that that they’ve the tools they decide on to believe up enriching all of our lives.

Transparency with our readers is a main allotment of our work. Our working funds and annual opinion are developed thru an birth, clear job, self-discipline to Wikimedia community feedback and board approval. The particulars of our funds, opinion and reviews (alongside side the build the cash goes) are on hand to the public for added review.

In step with the customary practices for charitable organizations, we also withhold a reserve as a supply of emergency funding. Our reserve is designed to believe up our work. Asserting wholesome reserves is a most efficient notice in non-income administration. We hold got a accountability to be obvious that that Wikipedia stays accessible, reputable, and helpful to our millions of readers and editors across the arena — our monetary administration is an integral allotment of how we accomplish this.–Ppena (WMF) (talk) 15: 32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to add on here that we’re confirming the most up-to-date monetary totals with the finance personnel and could presumably calm document attend with as a lot as this point details. We accomplish present a regional breakdown in our annual fundraising document. Throughout the final reporting interval, we did no longer nonetheless urge a campaign in India. We ran a campaign in India throughout this most modern fiscal three hundred and sixty five days. These totals will likely be integrated within the regional breakdown within the 2020-2021 document that we are going to post within the recent fiscal three hundred and sixty five days. Please point out that we accomplish no longer shatter down donations raised to a country stage. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 15: 43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, MeganHernandez (WMF). I ask forward to more details on questions 5 and 6 showing here later this week. (If this is in a position to well no longer be that you simply’ll want to well believe, edifying let me know within the next couple of days.) As for inquire of seven, I am mindful you’ll want to hold an established reporting structure (by continent). On the assorted hand, India is a subcontinent, and shut to a fifth of the arena population. Moreover, final summer season’s campaign used to be the first India campaign ever. I’d hold thought that it could most likely well be entirely appropriate with the edifying of transparency to document the discontinuance end result – it is advisable completely hold a pretty glowing thought of it by now. Accomplish rethink – I am scramble there could be public ardour within the discontinuance end result, and legitimately so. Most productive regards, —Andreas JN466 17: 05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the sample of recent fundraising messages, Ppena (WMF). Listed below are just a few that were reported to hold seemed in India final summer season:

• “we humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia’s independence …”
• “… relieve us believe Wikipedia online and rising.”
• “Wikipedia if truth be told desires you“
• “We need you to carry out a donation to protect Wikipedia’s independence“

Judging by screenshots posted online, other folks were proven these forms of moderately alarming appeals no longer lower than 9 (9) occasions. These messages aren’t about transferring forward, diversifying, and bettering, nor about knowledge equity, the envisaged “Hubs”, Abstract Wikipedia or the Wikifunctions mission designed to strengthen multilingual coverage, they’re about no longer going offline, no longer losing independence, an pressing need of cash to outlive. Those aren’t the most up-to-date challenges you are going thru.

The most modern fundraising template here (whose wording is quoted in this press article, for instance) equally reads,

• We will rating straight to the point: This day we ask you to protect Wikipedia’s independence. We’re a non-income that depends on donations to discontinuance online and thriving, but 98% of our readers create no longer give; they simply ask the assorted methodology. If each person who reads Wikipedia gave actual a slight, we could presumably believe Wikipedia thriving for future years attend. The cost of a cup of espresso is all we ask. […] if Wikipedia is useful to you, please hold in mind making a donation of £5, £20, £50 or whatever you’ll want to well to protect and believe Wikipedia.”

Your comments did no longer straight away address questions 1 to 4 above. May perchance presumably you please let me know over the next couple of days when you occur to will likely be providing any extra feedback on these questions? If I create no longer hear from you by then, I’m going to rob that is it. Regards, —Andreas JN466 16: 37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

[edit]

I wrote an editorial for The Day to day Dot based completely in allotment on the questions answered above, and linked conversations on Discuss:Wikimedia Endowment:

• Wikipedia is swimming in cash—why is it begging other folks to donate? (Day to day Dot, 24 May perchance well additionally 21).

Published since then:

• You deem the BBC is biased? Strive Wokepedia. No topic its frequent fundraising pop-ups, Jimmy Wales’ operation is flush with cash it funnels to a left-leaning ‘darkish cash neighborhood’ (The Day to day Telegraph (UK), 27 May perchance well additionally 2021)
• The Telegraph contra Wikipedia. La califica de «wokepedia» (Linuxadictos, 27 May perchance well additionally 2021) —Andreas JN466 12: 54, 31 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia cuenta con 300 millones de dólares y ha roto sus previsiones de donaciones… pero te sigue pidiendo que dones (Genbeta, 31 May perchance well additionally 2021)
• 頻繁に寄付をお願いしてくるWikipediaの運営組織はかなり潤沢な資産を持っているとの指摘 (Gigazine, 31 May perchance well additionally 2021)
• Wikipedia is loaded, so why’s it asking for donations? The placement has collected expansive reserves of cash (The Subsequent Web, 1 June 2021)
• Wikipedia campaigns for donations, assumes for-income stance (TechSpot, 1 June 2021; corrupt share, gets nearly every thing scandalous)
• Pourquoi Wikipédia proceed de lancer des appels aux dons alors que ses fonds sont abondants ? (L’usine digitale, 1 June 2021)
• Wikipedia tem 300 milhões de dólares em caixa e continua pedindo doações (SempreUpdate, 1 June 2021) —Andreas JN466 20: 04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia rompió su propio récord de donaciones pero te seguirá pidiendo plata (Nexofin, 1 June 2021)
• Wikipedia não precisa de doações, denuncia ex-colaborador (Olhar Digital (Portuguese), 1 June 2021)
• Wikipedia no necesita donaciones, informa ex colaborador (Olhar Digital (Spanish), 1 June 2021) —Andreas JN466 06: 48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipédia se porte bien mais les appels aux dons ne ralentissent pas (SiècleDigital, 2 June 2021) —Andreas JN466 15: 59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia chce naszych pieniędzy bardziej, niż kiedykolwiek wcześniej (Android PL, 3 June 2021; looks to be in step with the moderately mangled TechSpot share) —Andreas JN466 10: 15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• 维基百科不缺钱，为什么募捐的时候总要道德绑架？ (finance.sina.com.cn, 12 June 2021)
• 维基百科不缺钱，为什么募捐的时候总要道德绑架？ (36kr.com, 15 June 2021)
• 維基百科不缺錢，為什麼募捐時總要裝窮？ (technews.tw, 18 June 2021)
• 外媒：維基百科財政並不緊拙 資深人士批 Wiki 扮窮、道德綁架 (unwire.hk, 18 June 2021)
• La cara oculta de Wikipedia: denuncian que sigue pidiendo donaciones aunque no las necesita (Clarín, 19 June 2021) —Andreas JN466 18: 03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• 維基百科中國編輯：向國安舉報香港編輯、CCTV才是可信消息來源！ (edigest.hk, 13 July 2021) —Andreas JN466 15: 11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Pricey colleagues, in step with Ppena (WMF) advice here, I come to construct a customary proposal, for which I give an example too:

• Taking into memoir that – 1) the plot of Meta-wiki is the assorted Wikimedia projects; 2) Wikimedia projects are largely executed by volunteers; 3) the recent projects is the build the volunteers are concentrated; and 4) the entire stumbled on rising is constituted of these projects;
• so – it looks scandalous to me the methodology the monetary self-discipline is handled, particularly, centered on the meta-wiki. There could presumably calm be, I reflect, a radical approximation of the monetary points, and others necessary points, of the recent projects, just like the Wikipedia projects;
• It’d be an example of this approximation – every vote or most well-known discussion in meta-wiki could presumably calm be replicated in every of the supreme Wikipedia projects to be debated there and in its current language.

Sorry for my listless English,
—Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 17: 34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Felipe, first off, when you occur to could hold notify writing in English, strive https://www.deepl.com/translator – it is miles the simplest build of living for machine translation and could presumably calm waste moderately appropriate English when you occur to enter a Portuguese text (and moderately appropriate Portuguese when you occur to enter an English text). Thank you for the hyperlink to the discussion on pt.WP, which I sign refers to a most modern fundraising campaign in Brazil – alongside with India surely one of the most international locations hardest hit by the pandemic. I am unsure it is miles the factual resolution for the WMF to fundraise in Brazil at all factual now, provided that the WMF has already – twice – exceeded its three hundred and sixty five days plot for the most up-to-date fiscal three hundred and sixty five days, and had taken over $10 million larger than deliberate by January (sight page 11 here).

Moreover, I fully echo the feelings expressed on the linked pt.WP page as to the wording of the banners. Listed below are three comments from pt.WP, machine-translated the usage of the above build of living:

1. This day I had the displeasure of viewing Wikipedia in a browser whereby I used to be no longer logged in. Without coming into into the layout self-discipline, it has a huge, intrusive banner asking for cash. Is there a chance of it being removed on Lusophone Wikipedia or is it one thing the Basis controls? Thus far as I know the Basis has larger than enough cash to believe up Wikipedia operational, with necessary of what is raised going to events, campaigns, paying personnel, among others. The reviews and posts I discover about this hold diverse years, I accomplish no longer know if it has modified since then, if no longer, it is miles never lower than excessive to ask for cash when you already hold, even extra within the most up-to-date financial notify… “Narrate the editors that their work is most well-known” – does any individual here need cash to be donated to the Basis to if truth be told feel valued? Anyway…

2. I feel the elimination of allotment of the text. He It is, excuse the notice, inappropriate. I also had the displeasure of viewing it with out being logged in and it is miles gargantuan, making it very subtle to navigate.

3. I could presumably no longer even advise how necessary that text annoys me. I reflect it is appropriate that they opened this thread on esplanade complaining about it. It be glowing q WMF hasn’t executed many campaigns in Brazil lately, however the timing couldn’t be worse, and this broke beggar attitude the usage of diverse other folks’s work to ask for cash is moderately grotesque too. I agree that, if that you simply’ll want to well believe, this banner or sitenotice could presumably calm be removed until there is a extra decent text.

Editors decide on Wikipedia to be free. They accomplish no longer decide on other folks feeling guilty because they expertise a product designed to be free with out paying … that is what “free” methodology! The WMF on the present time takes $130 million per three hundred and sixty five days … actual a reminder, Wikipedia used to be a high-ten web build of living in 2007, and the WMF had annual prices of $2 million (sight desk above).

What I’d possess to sight is editors coming together globally and starting up a press campaign, “No longer in our name”, until these banners implying annual $130 million+ donations to the WMF are desired to believe up Wikipedia “birth for each person”, “to protect Wikipedia’s independence”, for “Wikipedia to discontinuance online”, “to inform the volunteers their work matters” etc. are phased out. Because, frankly, I reflect this is the simplest methodology the WMF will listen. (WMF, I’d be at liberty to be proved scandalous!) Most productive needs, —Andreas JN466 07: 24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayen466 Pricey Andreas, thank you for the acknowledge and the translator hyperlink, I am the usage of it now, let’s sight the draw it does. Even though I linked this proposal to the banner discussion on wiki.pt, this proposal is no longer runt to that discussion but is necessary broader in scope. What I am defending is that every and every necessary resolution could presumably calm battle thru the native communities, thru the forums and within the language of the native communities, and that they could well calm no longer be taken most efficient within the metawiki, other than the native other folks, alongside side these about the banner. Most productive, —Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 10: 30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pricey Felipe, I completely believe you. This would well calm even carry out sense from the WMF’s hold point of view, as checking community sentiment beforehand prevents the extra or less volunteer backlash we now hold considered so frequently – in so many language communities. That can additionally be shunned.

What would be appropriate to hold on Meta is a central page that lists the entire matters enthusiastic, and the occasions and locations the build these discussions between the WMF and the communities possess build. That methodology it could most likely well be that you simply’ll want to well believe to rating a sense of world community feeling about this or any diverse necessary topic. And these who if truth be told feel sad with the banners (or whatever topic it is miles) will now no longer reflect that presumably it is actual their self-discipline, and no-one else cares. (The translator did effectively.) Most productive, —Andreas JN466 11: 44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayen466 Exactly what I point out. So let’s sight if we’re coming into into the similar route: let’s advise there is a important debate about banners, on this case: one could presumably calm a) birth a topic topic on the metawiki (which works as a centralizer) and b) equal matters on the supreme native wikis. This methodology, each person can possess half locally and/or locally and globally, plus each person could hold rating admission to to the regional discussions and can know how your entire comundiade thinks about the topic. Survey… it is very diverse from what’s executed now… now the metawiki community, a runt community far-off from the true projects, decides every thing.–Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12: 05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Felipe, my feeling is – it is no longer even the metawiki community who decides. The paid WMF personnel opt. They’d well listen to what volunteers advise on Meta, however the resolution rests with them alone. The self-discipline with the community is that it is miles fragmented and has no straightforward methodology to carry out its dispute heard. A central page on Meta of the model you advise would relieve with that. the Latin asserting “Divide et impera” – and the change of that: “United we’re sturdy”. —Andreas JN466 12: 27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayen466 It’ll be, but within the period in-between I possess to rob appropriate faith, as a minimum the movement proposed above could presumably be efficient. The build accomplish we recommend this?–Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12: 30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayen466 I am pondering in sending it to Wikimedia Dialogue board, what accomplish you reflect?–Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 13: 42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Felipe, that sounds like a appropriate build to birth. On the change hand, I’d even be attracted to hearing here from JBrungs (WMF), who watches this page, whether or no longer discussing points (particularly the wording of upcoming fundraising banners, but also diverse most well-known points) with the communities the methodology you’ll want to hold outlined, and preserving a central itemizing of ongoing discussions here on Meta, is a theory the WMF could presumably rating on board with. Julia, what accomplish you reflect? —Andreas JN466 16: 03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayen466 scramble. I will prepare a text earlier than posting there and post it here so as that we can analyze it together, preferably the three of us, and rush to the customary discussion board with a larger elaborated text. —Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 18: 22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pricey colleagues, I hold slight or no expertise with Metawiki, essentially because I hold in mind it advanced and intensely distant, with the discontinuance end result that, to devote myself to it, I’d decide on to devote myself less to my current mission, Wiki.pt.

This, nonetheless, is no longer a disqualifier for this proposal, but moderately the contrary, a qualifier: I write precisely from the point of glimpse of someone who’s extra enthusiastic with the closing plot of Wikimedia, the reach of the recent projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikispecies etc.), but who also realizes the importance of taking allotment within the selections of Metawiki.

Properly, I am suggesting a mannequin of relationship between Metawiki and grotesque projects that is no longer of alter and central resolution, but of centralizer and organizer. I point out: on the present time the necessary decisions (by necessary decisions I mean essentially these linked to finance and security) are taken in Metawiki, largely most efficient by these older users who determined emigrate to Metawiki and thus decisions are taken far-off from the listless projects, completely separated from the listless communities.

What I point out is to swap this and carry out the necessary decisions be taken from the underside up, i.e. from the listless communities to the Metawiki, with the Metawiki performing as a centralizer and organizer of discussions.

In notice, this is in a position to work like this: every necessary resolution about finance and security would hold an birth page on the Metawiki and straight away an birth page on the supreme Wikimedia wikis (x registered editors or diverse criteria), discussions would possess build in all forums concurrently and in diverse languages concurrently (and also on the Metawiki).

This methodology, if someone desires to amass half in these necessary discussions actual from their very hold mission, they’ll. One other income: if any editor desires to know how the communities of the assorted listless projects reflect, he’ll hold the hyperlink to their respective discussions, enough to translate the discussion electronically if he doesn’t know the language.

There’s definitely an automated methodology to accomplish this, but it is miles a technical self-discipline that can well come later than the political resolution.

Thank you.

Jayen466 please, possess a ask at it. —Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 20: 37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Felipe. My advice would be to carry out it extra particularly about discussions between the WMF and the community – because I will’t deem many things the volunteer community decides on Meta that create no longer hold the WMF. Specifically, by methodology of decisions about finance and security, I deem these are all taken by the WMF – with enter from volunteers, yes, however the closing resolution-making authority lies with the WMF, as the proprietor of the many Wikimedia sites.

It could perchance presumably be appropriate to present some examples of the forms of matters and discussions you’ll want to well be pondering of. The fundraising banners are one – here it could most likely well be appropriate to be able to sight on Meta, on a centralised page, whereby parts of the arena fundraising campaigns are within the period in-between taking build, what ongoing discussions with the native other folks there are (just like the discussion you linked above when you started this thread), what concerns are being expressed, how they’re being resolved etc. Maybe the discussions could presumably even be transcluded on Meta, but as you advise, that can presumably be a technical self-discipline for later on. Whenever you’ll want to hold diverse matters in mind, it could most likely well be fee alongside side them, so other folks can hold a larger thought of what discussions one would gain on such a central “Village Pump” page.

However the principle point is that the WMF desires to be fascinating and ready (reflect about Jap – I heard lately that there are not any Jap audio system on the WMF factual now) to acknowledge to native communities on the native wikis, as Pats did within the discussion above. Most productive, —Andreas JN466 10: 02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayen466 Obvious, can you relieve me with this? Then we can carry out the proposal together. —Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 10: 13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Felipe, happy to relieve, but used to be too busy at work on the present time. Most productive, —Andreas JN466 22: 04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Felipe da Fonseca and Andreas,

We completely agree, publishing our fundraising document and plans about upcoming campaigns in extra languages and relevant locations is truly necessary. In 2018-2019 we printed our fundraising document in 5 languages for the first time. As a consequence of reduced ability with COVID 19, we were no longer ready to accomplish this in 2019/2020. We hope that we are going to be ready to present extra languages again within the arrival years, and we’re planning to add Portuguese in our next round of translations for the Fundraising Reports.

I’d love to listen to from you what native spaces are most efficient to contact the community about upcoming campaign plans. We are mindful of the Telegram neighborhood and the Village pump, but are there conferences the build this will likely be an agenda merchandise, or are there diverse online spaces you’ll want to well deem the build other folks are? Please also if truth be told be at liberty to contact my colleague Julia Brungs for ideas on straightforward systems to most efficient reach the native other folks.

We if truth be told luxuriate in the feedback from the Brazilian community on the most up-to-date campaign. From this feedback, we paused the campaign to carry out adjustments to the message and banner dimension. Thank you for your collaboration and ideas for future enchancment!

Your entire dialog round these points could presumably be repeat intimately on the Portuguese Village Pump. —Ppena (WMF) (talk) 17: 32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ppena (WMF), thanks for the acknowledge. It is precisely this extra or less replication of meta discussions within the forums of the home communities (a term invented by me, I create no longer know how most efficient to designate them) that I am advocating at here on meta. So I am happy and grateful for the quick incorporation of the basis. I want, nonetheless, to show that I advocate no longer most efficient for publicity of acts, but also for efficient participation of communities in resolution-making processes. About communication channels: I have to emphatically relate that the most appropriate channels for Wiki.pt (we obviously anticipate colleagues to substantiate or contradict me) are the intrawiki channels, the telegram, thus, doesn’t appear to me the train channel and I create no longer point out it: I hold the feeling that we if truth be told feel safer within the Wiki atmosphere. The Esplanada/anúncios is a huge build for announcements, nonetheless discussions aren’t allowed there, for discussions I point out Esplanada/geral, I for my allotment reflect these two channels are enough. As you’ll want to well notice in my posts on meta, I create no longer hold necessary familiarity with that wiki, so I requested Jayen466 for relieve to better construct the proposal and gain the simplest meta channel to point out it. There we already requested JBrungs_(WMF) for relieve and we’re observing for her manifestation. I will replicate this message in each and every forums. Moreover, I for my allotment reflect that all americans here would if truth be told feel extra revered if we were consulted within the above-mentioned forums about the banner, for instance, referring to its structure, dimension, text, etc. Att, —Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 18: 08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Felipe da Fonseca, Thank you so necessary for clarifying which channels are most efficient vulnerable for contacting the native Portuguese speaking community. I hold made point out of this for the next time! I also desired to thank you for the proposal you drafted here. I could hold a nearer ask and could presumably calm seek the advice of with another folks in my personnel earlier than I rating attend to you with a extra entire acknowledge. Most productive needs, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09: 08, 3 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Hello JBrungs (WMF), thank you for your acknowledge and a focus to the doc being drafted. I also decide on to warn you about one thing necessary, which has already been warned on Wiki.pt here, within the discussion board already mentioned above: on the present time we create no longer hold on Wiki.pt, any reputable offwiki channel, none, so any warning by these channels reach most efficient allotment of the community. The most efficient reputable channels we now hold got are intrawiki. As you’ll want to well sight here, things aren’t going to swap any time soon, since other folks are most efficient approving unofficial channels. Most productive, —Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 10: 20, 3 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. In your thought the simplest build to reach your entire community is the Village Pump, if I understood factual? In future I’d moderately post within the total channels there are to be obvious that that that as many of us as that you simply’ll want to well believe hear about upcoming plans. So if this is essentially the Village Pump I will post discussions there and actual replicate them as effectively within the assorted channels. What accomplish you reflect? Most productive, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12: 09, 3 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

JBrungs (WMF), in my glimpse: a truly valuable part is to post within the Village Pump, this is of paramount importance (there are different admins, e.g., who accomplish no longer possess half within the offwikis forums, for diverse causes, that can no longer be discussed here.) Replication of matters in offwiki communication channels is obviously welcome: whereas there could be no longer the kind of thing as a reputable offwiki communication channel and none could presumably calm be handled as such, any build the build editors meet and hold rating admission to is a appropriate build to publicize WMF actions and outcomes. On the change hand: discussions and requests for feedback could presumably calm be executed exclusively within the Village Pump, in another case the discussion or sampling will come out completely misrepresented. I extra point out that the glowing build for posting details is here, but for discussion is here. Thank you for the effort to interchange WMF on our internal dynamics. Most productive,–Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 13: 14, 3 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Felipe da Fonseca for clarifying this. I will likely be obvious that that that in future campaigns with the community this is taken into memoir! Most productive, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13: 38, 3 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Ppena (WMF), I reflect the fundamental thought here entails two points:

1. Involvement of the communities prior to an match (like a fundraising campaign starting up, etc.), thru discussion within the relevant language model
2. Retaining an up-to-date checklist of ongoing discussions here on Meta with the train hyperlinks so other folks can hold a ask and, the usage of machine translation (DeepL is miles better than Google etc., but Google has extra languages factual now), rating a appropriate advice of what is being stated

Plus, as soon as discussions hold concluded, it could most likely well be high-quality to hold a short summary of the outcomes here. Provided that Wikimanias could well no longer be occurring for a whereas, this is in a position to if truth be told also relieve to raise the global community a slight nearer together. Solutions? —Andreas JN466 21: 21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, and this theme (“raise the global community a slight nearer together”) is truly the most well-known inform hold in mind, sight: on the present time, no longer lower than as I sight it, Metawiki functions as a parallel community, the build other folks strive to impugn consensus of the recent communities (I could presumably no longer raise examples to steer scramble of unearthing vulnerable complications). A actual “global community” is no longer instituted on this methodology, from the discontinuance down, no community is, since by definition a community is natural (en:Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft). Therefore, for Metawiki to change into an natural aggregator and create a world community, it must never characteristic as an authority, but as an organizer.–Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 22: 22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pricey Jayen466 and diverse participants on this debate, let’s believe the discussions going here, but I am disenchanted with my formulation of the proposal above, so I will write a larger proposal here to amass to Wikimedia Dialogue board later. This would well already lend a hand as an illustrative example, as I will generate a parallel debate on wiki.pt. Andreas, when you occur to could presumably be enthusiastic, I ask you to accomplish the similar alongside with your rental community! Andreas, you requested for a 2d example, it is miles clear to me that the similar is glowing for the “Universal Code of Habits”, which is discussed most efficient within the meta community and no longer globally. —Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 07: 48, 1 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Felipe, I create no longer know when you occur to and your colleagues on pt.WP be taught the English-Wikipedia community publication, the Signpost, but there could be an interview within the most up-to-date self-discipline which touches on this three hundred and sixty five days’s fundraiser in Brazil and the relaxation of Latin The us. Most productive, —Andreas JN466 14: 03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In actuality, JBrungs (WMF), each and every Megan and Lisa were pinged on en:WP and invited to amass half within the controversy page discussion for that Signpost share by Particular person:Nosebagbear. As Megan and Lisa presumably create no longer log in to English Wikipedia frequently, I repeated the invitation on the mailing checklist. [2] Thus far, there has been no response from either of them. May perchance presumably you please be obvious that that that they are mindful of the discussion? It’d be appropriate to know that the concerns had been heard and that going forward, some thought will likely be build to framing and testing some appealing banner messages that advise what the cash is truly wanted for. As I mentioned within the Signpost discussion, the German language relate has at occasions vulnerable banner messages that shunned the worst of these pitfalls. That will presumably be a starting up point. The result could presumably no longer outperform the extra dramatic banners, however the perfect-performing banner is completely no longer the simplest if it causes us to lose our general human integrity – and to be considered to hold executed so. Regards, —Andreas JN466 11: 19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Add a Wikipedia donation… to your final will and testomony???[edit]

Likely because I am a current donor, I purchased the pictured e-mail on the present time asking me to add the Wikimedia Basis as a beneficiary to my will. This would be extraordinarily tasteless and undecorous even though we weren’t within the course of a world pandemic whereby many hold lately misplaced family. Wills are obviously very personal paperwork and the approach of forming one doesn’t if truth be told desire a company entity butting in to ask for a share of it. What used to be the thought job within the attend of this explicit fundraising gimmick and who were within the chain of approvals that bought it to my inbox, Particular person:JAdams (WMF) (CC: Particular person:JBrungs (WMF))? Who thought this is in a position to be a appropriate advice and no longer a PR catastrophe? The Wikimedia fundraising equipment is becoming a parody of itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 22: 15, 20 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very necessary for your questions. We will likely be ready to rating attend to you early next week. JAdams (WMF) (talk) 19: 29, 21 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Axem Titanium Thank you for your feedback. The fundraising personnel if truth be told appreciates you taking the time to particular your views even though the topic made you uncomfortable. It used to be no longer our plot to offend donors; moderately, we desired to let them know of sources we now hold got on hand could presumably calm they be attracted to making a legacy reward. Deliberate giving outreach like it is miles a customary and expected fundraising exercise for non-earnings, in particular within the US.

We fastidiously regarded as the global pandemic and its impacts as we deliberate this e-mail outreach. While we sign that for an additional folks the thought of making a will is extremely gentle at the present, many others are looking out out for to carry out these future plans and hold thanked us for this e-mail message. Once we first despatched a deliberate giving e-mail, we started with a truly runt checklist to display screen feedback from donors. This three hundred and sixty five days, we endured sending this deliberate giving informational e-mail in step with a obvious response from donors.

Every person is conscious of from bequests we’ve got to this point that some donors who’re unable to make a contribution throughout their lifetime possess as a change to carry out legacy gifts. Quite loads of the donors who opt to transfer away a reward to Wikimedia of their will are leaving the majority of their estates to family, mates, or diverse family, and most efficient a runt the relaxation to Wikimedia. We accomplish no longer ask, nor accomplish we anticipate, donors to transfer away all of their property to Wikimedia.

In the waste, I are looking out out for to be sure you that any donor who responds to our legacy e-mail asserting they’re no longer attracted to this create of giving is removed from all such future communications. Please e-mail legacy@wikimedia.org with the e-mail address you in deciding on us to amass away so as that you simply accomplish no longer get hold of any extra messages of this model. —JAdams (WMF) (talk) 20: 07, 24 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your expertise and your emotions! “A legacy reward […] costs nothing to you now”: now that is some listless phrasing.

• It be blatantly counterfeit. The repeat tag of one’s properties after their demise is a non-zero (obvious) quantity, even when you occur to rob very excessive cleave tag rates and a wait of decades. The most efficient reason property could presumably no longer swap tag is that one can continually swap mind.
• If it is intended to intend one thing like “would require you to pay no costs out of your most modern cash”, then it could most likely presumably calm advise so explicitly, with out overbroad statements. If someone else is retaining the instantaneous costs, the approach presumably most efficient covers some international locations and no longer others, so most efficient persons in these international locations would presumably be emailed. The expected country or diverse necessities could presumably calm be made explicit as effectively, to steer scramble of misunderstandings (the message recipient could hold modified country). Reckoning on the approach vulnerable, in Italy making a will could presumably be very expensive.

Nemo 07: 06, 22 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Nemo The e-mail used to be despatched most efficient to donors who previously urged us they were within the US. We luxuriate in your advice about making it explicit that this used to be intended for a US viewers and could presumably calm incorporate that feedback in due route. —JAdams (WMF) (talk) 20: 07, 24 May perchance well additionally 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I be taught the create 990 for the fiscal three hundred and sixty five days 2019-2020 below that hyperlink after I havent stumbled on it on the accumulate build of living of the Wikimedia basis. In the create at Time desk G it is miles ready fundraising and there used to be the Trilogy Interactive LLC listed as a company that supported the Wikimedia basis in Fundraising and the Wimiedia Fondation paid 437550 Dollars for that. I be taught the description what the Trilogy Interactive LLC did for the Wikimedia Basis and I question me why for emailing donors for fundraisers and for creating an fundraising banner an external consultancy used to be wanted. From my point of glimpse this is no longer one thing for what an external give a boost to is most well-known. Banners exist since decades and for sending E-Mails a external company is no longer wanted. Please inform me why you reflect that for that an external give a boost to used to be wanted.–Hogü-456 (talk) 19: 51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

In actuality, that company too has a brief point out within the Signpost share I actual mentioned above. Most productive, —Andreas JN466 14: 06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

We shatter half a million bucks on a e-mail- and phone-spammer, whereas within the banners we complain about being virtually bankrupt? That’s your entire opposite of a morally actual and honest enterprise, that is undeniable listless. We are awash in cash, we create no longer need such expert beggars, and we definitely create no longer are looking out out for to pay such other folks any cash.Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 14: 34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquire of. Trilogy Interactive LLC is an expert within the non-for income fundraising relate and their expertise has been very vital to us. They’ve been providing expertise by supporting most efficient practices and implementation of our e-mail campaigns. They’ve also been providing us with technical give a boost to in relation to web provider services and making sure a valuable deliverability of our messages to donors.

This all is most well-known thanks to the complexity of our fundraising. We operate across many international locations, languages, fee processors and systems. This immensely advanced work requires constant testing and efficiency review which is what Trilogy has and is serving to us with. They’ve also been assisting us with database administration give a boost to and supplied ability round e-mail and banner coding as effectively as characteristic implementations when we wanted it. All this is most well-known in expose for WMF to urge comfy and efficient fundraising campaigns across the entire international locations we fundraise in. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06: 03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

However ain’t that one thing the pals can and could presumably calm accomplish, as they operate in these many international locations, languages, fee processors and systems and know most efficient straightforward systems to address that? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 06: 50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @JBrungs (WMF): , thank you that you simply’ll want to hold explained a slight extra what for services Trilogy LLC did for the Wikimedia Basis. What is the distinction between the fundraising banners of the Wikimedia Basis and the Fundraising Banner of Wikimedia Germany. Does the Wikimedia Basis exhaust the things developed at Wikimedia Germany of their groups who work on banners and diverse fundraising linked things. I reflect it is miles a necessity to be obvious that that that there aren’t duplicate constructions within the assorted Organisations linked to Wikimedia and so I give a boost to the existence of the personnel on the Wikimedia Basis what does Fundraising. Please reflect about what you if truth be told decide on and what no longer. The amount paid to corporations who provide services to the Wikimedia Basis could presumably calm be reduced from my point of glimpse. Something what can relieve is, when you occur to ask the taking allotment other folks within the Wikimedia Projects just a few topic topic earlier than you pay services for a excessive quantity of cash. At some parts there could be presumably an internal acknowledge that will additionally be vulnerable moderately than looking out out for to gain a provider.–Hogü-456 (talk) 19: 04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

WMF and Wikimedia Deutschland hold current conferences to alternate ideas, performances and functionalities. WMDE does urge their very hold banner campaigns as they’ve sources on hand for this. WMF therefore doesn’t inform fundraising banners in Germany.

Additionally to this, we’re working with diverse pals across the movement in sharing expertise, insights, learnings and success we influence from our work with Trilogy. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13: 03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

As a talented fundraiser myself, I will inform you that I’m no longer happy unless I’ve added enough tag to exercise no longer lower than double what purchasers hold paid for that expertise within 6 months, and be obvious that that investment retains rising after the contract is performed. My most a success client multiplied their income by a a part of 10 in lower than 2 years. I don’t hold any doubt that with out the expertise from this firm (and the expertise they’ve obtained in working with diverse causes), Wikimedia Basis would be elevating hundreds less. —Rachelcollinson (talk) 22: 16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

1st time lately[edit]

I’d possess to verbalize your attention to This touch upon the English Wikipedia’s relieve desk. After responding to the particular person I came here and saw the message within the period in-between running for users in Japan, and I will sight how the language within the banner, “This Wednesday, for the 1st time lately, we humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia’s independence,” could presumably be if truth be told advanced, in particular since donation campaigns urge no longer lower than yearly if no longer extra, and in particular for folk who hold donated within the past. I’d point out that language be rephrased to one thing like “for the first time in X months,” or better yet, dropped entierly. ONUnicorn (talk) 16: 08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I’d concur on this – the reality that we create no longer know when other folks donate mean that we could presumably calm steer scramble of making statements like this unless we can guarantee it has been no longer lower than a three hundred and sixty five days since someone could hold considered a fundraising question Nosebagbear (talk) 17: 43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Pricey ONUnicorn and Nosebagbear,

Thanks for your feedback on our banner language. We’re mindful that this has room for enchancment, and we’re engaged on it. We fundraise on a yearly cadence, so the “first time lately” is referring to the first time we’re asking that explicit neighborhood of readers that three hundred and sixty five days. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08: 02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Particular person:JBrungs (WMF), could presumably you please take a look at that the Jap fundraising banners you hyperlink to are the factual ones? They create no longer match this screenshot posted on Twitter. Or has the banner been modified since then? Regards, —Andreas JN466 06: 18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The hyperlinks we posted on the meta fundraising page were the build to originate for our Japan campaign banners. They act as a “alter” as we repeatedly A/B take a look at them against diverse banners with language and influence adjustments (e.g. banner language from final three hundred and sixty five days’s campaign – on the starting up 50% of non-logged in users saw the recent banners and 50% saw the banner language from final three hundred and sixty five days), and we every so continuously change alter banners. We are sharing these alter banners for every campaign because they signify the language and influence that is most consistent throughout the campaign. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10: 41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Julia! Accomplish you if truth be told hold these diverse banner wordings translated by Jap Wikimedians or accomplish you frequently exhaust machine translations? I am asking because a Jap friend (a local speaker) whom I requested about the banner felt the phrasing used to be uncommon and unclear, and did no longer sound adore it had been written by a Jap particular person. Regards, —Andreas JN466 16: 14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andreas, we accomplish work with native audio system on the translations of our banners and we work as necessary as that you simply’ll want to well believe with the native other folks to be obvious that that the banner language works. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11: 04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Julia. Most productive, —Andreas JN466 13: 02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please sight fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/28 septembre 2021#Collecte annuelle de fonds de Wikimedia Basis sur Wikipédia en français 2021.

Most productive, — Jules* ^Discuss 13: 02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Readability[edit]

Please be very, very scramble about who’s asking for donations and what they’re going to be vulnerable for. I am enthusiastic that a reader seeing enwp’s left sidebar headed “Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia” containing a hyperlink labelled “Donate” could presumably naively mistake that for a technique to donate to Wikipedia. (The same concerns command to sister projects.) Indubitably, each person reading this page will know that the cash goes to a various organisation whereby the communities hold slight advise and which spends the expansive majority of the donations somewhere else, or fair retains it, but we must accomplish far extra to carry out that obvious and clear to doable donors. Certes (talk) 18: 42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Pricey Certes,

Thank you for your message. We are committed to guaranteeing clarity and transparency with readers about how their give a boost to is vulnerable. On the donation page, it is miles clearly stated that donations rush to the Wikimedia Basis (which runs Wikipedia) and lists diverse ways the donation will likely be vulnerable. Additionally, the model of the Wikimedia Basis also looks on the build of living. Whenever you’ll want to hold ideas for improvements on the clarity, I am happy to listen to those.   JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07: 34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The WMF doesn’t urge Wikipedia. While the WMF’s contributions are valued (alongside side each and every its webhosting and diverse give a boost to activities), Wikipedia is a volunteer-urge mission. On reducing confusion: I point out reverting the swap to the touchdown page that used to be utilized this three hundred and sixty five days, which added the Wikipedia text tag above the Basis model within the left sidebar. (Ideally, there would even be a rewrite of the text command material, which has many problematic points on this relate, but I doubt the WMF would accept that.) —Yair rand (talk) 12: 55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The text command material is deceptive in that it points the WMF taking credit rating for Wikipedia and makes out that donations—

(1) are urgently wanted (they’re no longer, provided that the WMF exceeded its hold fundraising target within the three hundred and sixty five days actual performed by nearly $50 million),

(2) are desired to believe up Wikipedia thriving (Wikipedia grew into surely one of the most arena’s high-10 web sites at a time when the Wikimedia Basis did no longer even exist or consisted of lower than a dozen other folks, as compared to over 500 personnel on the present time … and Wikipedia is no longer any longer a high-10 web build of living),

(3) to the WMF are a glowing methodology to particular gratitude to “The heart and soul of Wikipedia … a community of alternative folks working to raise you unlimited rating admission to to reputable, fair details”, as if the cash were by some potential to be liable to recompense them –which is no longer the case (whereas WMF fundraiser salaries appear to be skyrocketing),

(4) are desired to “believe” Wikipedia when if truth be told the WMF is asking for an increasing number of cash yearly (eyeing annual income of a thousand million bucks a three hundred and sixty five days and extra) no longer in expose to believe up Wikipedia going but in expose to develop its hold organization of paid personnel.

An factual fundraising message would eschew all these manipulative and subtly deceptive tactics. It could perchance well spell out one thing like this: that the WMF desires to exercise cash from Wikipedia in expose to develop actual into a necessary larger organization, that it plans to pressure and incentivize the arrival of copious free command material by frequently unpaid volunteers in all languages of the International South (for folk to exhaust with out spending a dime and Immense Tech to carry out trillions with, thru search engine adverts, dispute assistants, etc.), and desires to change into the dominant supply of reference details across the globe, shaping other folks’s thought of actuality in each build in its image. Something like that … —Andreas JN466 16: 56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is no longer the WMF, by taking credit rating and asking other folks for cash, all of which it retains, in actuality behaving as if volunteers were unpaid WMF personnel? Because if that were glowing, then it wouldn’t be an interactive computer provider but a web based publication, with all that that entails. —Andreas JN466 17: 06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the reason a truly unhealthy road. I suspect that the barrage of unwanted adjustments has introduced many of us to the brink of resigning. Gentle, $50m could presumably calm fund hundreds of paid editors to amass our build. Certes (talk) 15: 47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair some positive enter. The most stressful part after I seek the advice of with news sites like The Guardian is that they’ve monitored precisely how many articles I’ve be taught. I gain it creepy and intrusive. I reflect it is miles a listless thought monitoring how over and over you’ll want to hold considered the fundraiser. That will presumably carry out me less likely to are looking out out for to donate than donate. I create no longer know how others if truth be told feel but I gain it intrusive and demanding.Encyclopædius (talk) 16: 00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A reminder that even the most seemingly-innocuous web sites are continually monitoring you is no longer precisely one thing that gets me jazzed up about contributing to the reason within the attend of “the free online encyclopedia.” –Elmer Clark (talk) 03: 18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whenever you are going to take a look at on us, you wish better spying. It continually says it is my 2d time. Artwork LaPella (talk) 14: 30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Onerous agree. It be creepy. Stuff like, “you donated XYZ within the past” is vivid to me, but how over and over I’ve considered the banner? I’d be less likely to donate. Shushugah (talk) 00: 07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am a digital fundraising book and would LOVE to sight if this explicit line of text on how over and over you’ll want to hold considered it has been tested and whereby international locations. My intuition is that it is off-putting, but I know I am moderately unique frequently in my giving behaviour. What I hold considered tested somewhere else is the the ‘98% of alternative folks scroll past’… that text looks to waste a social norm that americans create no longer give and nor could presumably calm you. I’d wager it is counterproductive and would truly like to sight the take a look at outcomes. (As I continually advise to my purchasers, frequently your viewers bucks the vogue so you continually decide on to take a look at.) —Rachelcollinson (talk) 22: 10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We possess reader privacy very severely, and we create no longer tune what other folks be taught on Wikipedia, or how prolonged they discontinuance in our pages (sight Wikipedia’s privacy coverage for added details). That’s a limitation we’re proud to work with. Our banner considered depend characteristic highlights the reality that we believe tune of the appeals we inform readers, which is extremely runt and on life like necessary lower than most nonprofits. We take a look at improvements to this characteristic continuously and could presumably calm proceed to accomplish so in due route, for that reason your feedback is so vital! Thus far, we now hold got heard that with this depend readers realize how necessary tag they rating from Wikipedia, but we understand it is miles a balance between looking out out for the reader’s attention whereas having the least disruptive influence on the reading expertise. We hear this feedback and could presumably calm possess it into consideration as we proceed to iterate on the message throughout the campaign. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07: 19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

[edit]

Copied from: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

Why are fundraising queries ending up at the Teahouse and the Motivate Desk? The volunteers there create no longer urge the fundraiser, the Wikimedia Basis does. Have to no longer the basis be answering these questions? Have to no longer there be some contact details integrated within the banner messages?


Many such comments are from other folks who reflect they’ll influence the command material of the encyclopedia by donating or withholding donations. Indubitably they are able to’t, but there’s nothing within the fundraising banners (that I’ve considered) that can well rating them organized that. However there’s loads advanced and wrong stuff like “this is the sixth time we now hold interrupted your reading”, which could presumably be glowing for each person the usage of this IP build together, but no longer for me, the particular person reading the message. Loads of comments also point that out. I sign it is miles a technical limitation – but since there could be no longer if truth be told any decide on to consist of one thing like that in these messages, the acknowledge is evident.


It looks there are just a few informational hyperlinks integrated within the banner, but they’re hidden until you click on a button to donate. It be sure from the comments on the Teahouse and Motivate Desk that different readers create no longer carry out it that far. The most efficient contact details given for the Wikimedia Basis is an e-mail address on the very discontinuance of the FAQ.


This details could presumably calm be integrated within the banner message, the build other folks will if truth be told sight it, no longer buried within the honest print.


2601: 194: 300: 130: 78B1: 37FF:1DC6:F52B 23: 21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for your vital work with the Teahouse and relieve desk. Our donor family participants personnel is responding to hundreds of messages from readers this week. If readers or donors reach out on diverse channels, please let other folks know our personnel is standing by at [[3]]. While readers could presumably gain diverse contact channels on the accumulate build of living, we proactively present the [[4]] e-mail within the FAQ hyperlink and Complications Donating hyperlink within the banner actual below the message. We plot to lighten the burden of the fundraising campaign on volunteers as necessary as that you simply’ll want to well believe and are monitoring the donate@ inbox as effectively as fundraising talk pages. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07: 59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): , other than what the donor family participants personnel are busy with and what details has been relayed to them, has there been any communication with the, lets’re asserting, “banner influence personnel”, up to now as the OP’s feedback concerns them? Which seemed as if it could most likely well be to be the main complaint, that the fundraiser banners’ influence & what details is presented on them looks to be falling short..2600: 1702: 4960:1DE0: 75EB:E3E3:2B4C:6EA1 03: 25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes we accomplish be obvious that that that our influence groups hear about community concerns and as well they’re repeatedly working to strengthen the banners. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07: 22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Copied from: en:Discuss:Predominant Page#Fundraiser banner

Some feedback on the banner which I create no longer gain very intuitive. To birth with it continually presentations me £2. I’m no longer from Europe, am no longer mindful of Euro rates, and I create no longer hold the conversion fee at hand. There are not any diverse precious hyperlinks for added particulars or FAQs within the banner (they’re if truth be told hidden, and inform up most efficient after we click on on surely one of the most fee modes). After some effort I managed to gain my country-linked hyperlink to carry out the fee, and acquired the values in my forex. On looking out out for to carry out the fee there, it lists many most well-known fields (name, twin carriageway, metropolis, e-mail) but presents no rationalization of why these are required, or how we can carry out a fee with minimal details. Jay 09: 06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There are a lot of the rationalization why the quantity proven to you’ll want to well be in British pounds. You need to to presumably presumably need lately traveled there and your cookie cache has no longer redirected itself yet. You need to to presumably presumably need also lately vulnerable, or are the usage of, a VPN whereby case the cookies will bewitch this up as your predicament. If neither of these command, we can connect with be taught extra details.

I am happy to listen to that you simply stumbled on each and every the FAQs, we also hyperlink to them factual below the banner text, and the fee systems for your country. We compile and exhaust diverse personal details from donors that involves: quantity donated, address, donor comments and e-mail address. For extra details on what details we compile and how we exhaust it, please seek the advice of with our coverage. To account for the language of the disclaimer, the simplest knowledge we compile is from the donation create throughout the donation job, and the provider services that we portion it with are simply the monetary organizations that allow us to job donations. We would also equivalent to you to know that we neither job nor store bank card particulars or bank details. As a change, we work carefully with third occasion fee processors affiliated with banks to job donations. Most productive needs, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08: 05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

[edit]

I’m going to duplicate my comment I made on EN wiki’s Teahouse talk page (I create no longer know straightforward systems to hyperlink to yet any other wiki from a various wiki). I lately went to the main page whereas logged out and HOLY CRAP THAT IS A HUGE BANNER. Seriously, I’d advise that banner took up about half of my veil. It says this: “To all our readers within the U.S.,
Please create no longer scroll past this. This Thursday, for the 1st time lately, we humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia’s independence. 98% of our readers create no longer give; they simply ask the assorted methodology. Whenever you’ll want to well be an unprecedented reader who has already donated, we sincerely thank you. Whenever you donate actual $2.75, or whatever you’ll want to well this Thursday, Wikipedia could presumably believe thriving for years. We ask you, humbly: please create no longer scroll away. If Wikipedia has given you $2.75 fee of knowledge this three hundred and sixty five days, possess a minute to donate. Narrate the arena that rating admission to to reputable, fair details matters to you. Thank you.” Whenever you ignore it, when you rush attend to the main page, the banner is calm immense (even supposing a slight bit smaller) and says this, “Hello reader. Here is the 2nd time we’ve interrupted your reading lately, but 98% of our readers create no longer give. Many reflect they’ll give later, but then neglect. This Thursday we ask you to protect Wikipedia. All we ask is $2.75, or what you’ll want to well hold the funds for, to secure our future. We ask you, humbly: Please create no longer scroll away. Whenever you’ll want to well be surely one of our uncommon donors, we warmly thank you.” and whereas you reload the number will increase to third, 4th, 5th, etc. The Teahouse and Motivate Desk hold lately got an influx of questions equivalent to “I’ve already donated! Why is it calm asking me?” and Shushugah on EN Wiki has lately created a template response to those questions given the quantity of them we get hold of. Also, after I checked out the main page whereas logged out and saw the total donation banner and the increasing series of occasions they’ve “requested” you after that, I will sight why IP readers are bothered by them. I’ve if truth be told heard the WMF has hundreds of cash for the time being. So moderately than an overly vivid banner that continues to bother you even when you occur to could hold donated (most IP readers don’t hold any ardour in creating an memoir as they actual are looking out out for to be taught Wikipedia), why no longer a smaller message underneath the header on the discontinuance of the main page that asks the user to donate within the occasion that they are ready to. Also, if we must believe the banners, 1. Accomplish no longer carry out the first one so huge and 2. Embody details that tells the IP reader that WMF doesn’t tune the identity of an IP so there’s no methodology of luminous within the occasion that they’ve donated within the past, and consist of the steps they’ll possess to rating rid of the banners. Apologies for the dimensions of this, but I reflect one thing could presumably calm be executed if IP readers are this bothered by it. Blaze The Wolf (talk) 18: 17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for your vital work with the Teahouse and relieve desk. One amongst your comments, about the quantity of occasions the reader has considered the banners, is already addressed above. Whenever you sight readers or donors reach out on diverse channels, please let other folks know our personnel is standing by at donate(@)wikimedia.org.

Donation banners are designed to inform to donors that hold enabled cookies on their browser, and to mask after the banner is proven just a few occasions or after a donation. Hiding, nonetheless, relies on a cookie that we insert within the browser. Banner hiding could presumably no longer work when you occur to scramble your browser’s cache, delete cookies, or swap browsers or computers. Also, when you occur to occur to sight a vivid banner, this is designed to inform most efficient on the first glimpse, and could presumably calm seem in a reduced dimension on subsequent views.

There are a lot of alternatives on hand to you to mask the fundraising banners in due route:

• Whenever you click on the X within the corner of our banner (or No thanks/Shut on a banner on a cell tool), it could most likely well mask for one week;
• Whenever you come to the ‘Thank You‘ page, it could most likely well give the browser cookie a chance to reinsert. Whenever you be taught Wikipedia on diverse units, please seek the advice of with this page on every of them to suppress the banners; or
• [You seem to already have an account but this is an option for IP readers] You need to to presumably presumably waste or log in to an memoir on Wikipedia – banners are infrequently proven to users that log in to Wikipedia accounts. More details on creating an memoir could presumably be stumbled on here.

Thank you also for sharing your thoughts. We if truth be told tag feedback about the messaging within the fundraising banners, and luxuriate in you taking the time to send us your comments.

Most productive needs, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13: 43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

So what you are telling me is that you simply’ll want to hold completely no ardour in making the banner less evident and as a change actual decide on users to mask it? You appear to no longer be looking out out for to address the topic but moderately actual hope it goes away. This in my glimpse is truly unacceptable. Blaze The Wolf (talk) 14: 09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Julia can accomplish nothing here. The board units Fundraising the targets (and the job to exceed them). Every little thing about the banners is repeatedly A/B-tested, with income maximisation the discontinuance priority. I reflect you’ll want to well gain the importance of your complaint pales into absolute insignificance as compared to the skill to raise in yet any other million or nonetheless necessary the distinction would be. Whenever you are sad, create no longer complain here, the build you’ll want to nearly completely be disregarded – inform the opposite folks accessible. —Andreas JN466 15: 34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. So assuredly the WMF is actual like every diverse corporate company. They most efficient care about the cash, and no longer their community. Handiest, their cash comes most efficient from donations. Also, if I am sad about it and I”m disregarded, then what on Earth is the point of this page? Blaze The Wolf (talk) 20: 31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Julia can accomplish nothing here – presumably no longer for my allotment, but if she’s the PR face that is build forward to address….family participants with the public, then it is miles her accountability to relay whatever feedback she receives thru appropriate channels.

• As has been famed by diverse americans here, the banners’ verbiage has been lower than factual. While the train letter of the phrases could presumably be freed from outright falsehoods, they past an inexpensive doubt painting the WMF’s monetary notify in a counterfeit light: they elicit donations