Hello Friends, hello mrs. tretikov,
unfortunately, I was reported the causa of DANIELE GANSER vs. Wikipedia
So, I feel obliged to inform you about the strange behavior of special
admins `Phi and copilot`in
the german wikipedia. For ensurance the reputation of wikipedia, it will
to defend the personality rights of Daniele Ganser.
Please check the problem and clear the keeping of the internal rules of
For further information, please see this video:
Die dunkle Seite der Wikipedia, Ein Film von Markus Fiedler und
(The dark Site of Wikipedia)
by the now 300.000 clicks!
I will trust in Your Seriosity and will look forward to your answer.
Moreover, because fundraising reports are now so stingy, we can't even
know the (per-country) effects of such decisions (cc fundraiser@), hence
public accountability is impossible.
Lodewijk, 17/11/2014 20:28:
> A while back now, the chapters were no longer allowed to fundraise, because
> the Wikimedia Foundation argued they would be better able to do this. At
> the time, this sounded somewhat reasonable. However, since then, there have
> been some disturbing developments - at least for Dutch donors.
> No longer it is possible to pay electronically (iDEAL, one of the most
> common methods is no longer supported - 'electronic banking' simply refers
> you back to the credit card page) or even via regular bank transfer (using
> an IBAN) in the Netherlands. The donation page
> allows credit card and paypal, and the 'other ways to give' simply sends
> you to the helpdesk if you want to make a bank transfer payment.
> What is the reasoning behind this? Have bank transfers become a legal
> swamp? Are there statistics suggesting that this method was no longer
> required by donors? Did the European bank account somehow get temporarily
> If it has become so hard to donate, maybe it makes more sense to send the
> donors to the local chapter pages where they can actually donate in the
> local suitable methods (in this case, Wikimedia Netherlands offers both
> iDEAL and IBAN
> One of the Dutch OTRS team members asked for elaboration, but didn't quite
> get a satisfying answer. I hope this is a temporary situation, and that
> this threshold will be removed again. It would be sad if we go through all
> kind of trouble to enable long tail methods like bitcoin, but skip bank
We received some alerts from our users that donations are now blocked when
user is from Russia:
The only WMF comment I received in #wikimedia-fundraising was that "we
don't run fundraising in Russia at the moment". Russia is now blacklisted
like Libya, like Congo, like Iraq.
I always though that WMF is free from politics and tends to be transparent,
but why such a decision was made? And why nobody informed us (at least,
Wikimedia RU) about it?
Now we are starting to receive negative feedbacks from users and readers
who treat WMF as a politically motivated organization, not a non-profit
organization promoting free knowledge.
And as we got no comments from Fundraising team and have no idea what
happened, we at Wikimedia RU are not able to cope with such negative
It's now late evening in Russia, but the messages were already posted to
some top websites of Russia, and this will be promoted quickly via social
networks: so, tomorrow will be a bad day for wiki-movement in our country.
WMF, I want to thank you a lot for your transparency.
Takashi OTA, 16/10/2014 18:16:
> Translations:Fundraising/Translation/Problems donating/13 and
> Translations:Fundraising/Translation/Problems donating/14
> are saying about certificate. Does this certificate mean SSL/TLS
> certificate? (I'm assuming so and translating as such.)
I still don't see documentation in /qqq answering these questions.
Jessica or others in fundraising, please edit those pages.
Since 2012 it's almost impossible to get information about the WMF
fundraising... Does someone have insight in how WMF could be made again
interested in fundraising transparency? Poking doesn't help.
For instance: me, Perohanych and Mike Peel have been waiting 16 months
for two simple and crucial pieces of information: how many times the
fundraising banners have been displayed; what are the totals raised per
a lot of sites discovered Wikipedia as a useful source for teasers (not new) but there are more and more $$$-companies offering full text contents of Wikipedia.
Consequently readers won't see our banners and readers of the "original" are bugged with donation requests. I think this is an undesirable situation. Any plans how we can address this issue? Should the terms of service for big consumers be amended to, let's say add the requirement of displaying a donation requests when e.g. advised to do so through API? Is it possible at all of a charity organization? Will the OPS team be able to block requests from sites not complying?
Currently most of the big re-users add links to "edit wikipedia" out of courtesy (and inside articles because they are too lazy to remove them) and they might decide not do so if we are going to add usage restrictions...
Just raising this as some services start to advertise "a better Wikipedia experience". Perhaps not a big issue as of now but I fear in future.