On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
*Fundraising "operating principles"* I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical "operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on this list from the last few weeks here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this fundraiser is finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative process with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the future, the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it will go away as quickly as possible.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:12 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums.
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down. The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a "Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_ that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
MZMcBride
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
+1
And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant falsehoods.
- d.
I share these sentiments, but hasn't it become abundantly clear to you by now that your appeals are falling on deaf ears? Wake up and smell the coffee.
In these discussions we have had over the past couple of weeks, I have seen absolutely no indication to disconfirm the hypothesis that the fundraising team is doing *exactly* what the Wikimedia board and management wants it to do, and that they will do *exactly the same thing next year, however much you object now. *They will weather the storm, and rely on it that everybody will have forgotten by December 2015.
Unless you are masochists, and thrive on being ignored, I suggest you take your complaints to journalists and the public, including those currently suckered into donating under false pretences – because the only way you'll change this pattern of manipulative campaigning is by making the monetary cost greater than the monetary benefit.
Social media is that-a-way.