On 11/9/06, lars <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote:
James Forrester wrote:
One particularly powerful way in which we can
increase funds is
to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x
units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit.
[...] I think that a line (in the site notice),
saying something
like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our
[[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text
("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would
First Jimbo's $100 million and now this. I must warn against
spending too much time thinking about money. If you like money,
do business. Money is not what brought me here. Money is an idea
that infests your brain, and after a while you start to think that
you cannot do anything if you don't have money. That is a trap.
Wikipedia is and should be a monument to how much good can in fact
be done with almost no money.
This a good point, and one the board should think long and hard about.
I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that "money" received the
largest value under "opportunities" during the SWOT exercise.
That said, I think there is a lot that could be done by the
foundation, if only the foundation had more money. There are a lot of
improvements that need to be made to the software, for instance, and
they're not getting done under the current programmer budget. I think
it's important to remember that these goals are what are important,
and money is merely a means to reach them (or reach them faster).
I also think these goals should be spelled out *before* the money is
accepted, and that an organization shouldn't take in a lot more in
donations than is necessary to reach those goals. I used to think
that a non-profit should run itself like any other business in that
they should try to collect as much money as possible, but upon further
reflection and reading a number of excellent articles on the subject I
think you're right that the two need to be run very differently.
Non-profits should try to minimise their revenue, not maximise it.
I do not agree that matching donations increase funds.
If someone
has $200 thousand to spend, let them donate it without waiting for
a match. Their donation is added to everybody else's. That's
simple addition, not a multiplication.
If properly handled people might be motivated to donate more if they
know their donation is going to be matched. Putting a time deadline
on things can be a real motivator. Of course, with maximum matches
that are easily reached in the time alloted, it can just as easily be
a de-motivator ("why donate now, they already reached the goal/maximum
match").
So, why would anybody want to do a matching donation
rather than
just silently submit what they have? To get their name and
logotype displayed? If they want this kind of display, tell them
to buy advertising from companies that sell advertising space.
But...then Wikimedia doesn't get to spend that money...
If they want to help Wikipedia, the way to do so is to
donate.
There are lots of people who silently donate. Why should WMF give
special treatment to people who want to make this process more
complicated? If silent donors don't get this special treatment,
why should they continue to be silent?
Why should Wikimedia be concerned over whether or not someone is
silent? I don't have a problem acknowledging *every* contribution.
If every donor wants acknowledgement, then we should give it to them.
Anthony