Hoi,

I presented two existential threats to our ecosystem. We have a technical debt in the legacy software we use for our functionality. The engine for Wikidata is not likely to survive, it desperately needs replacement. When the question is: are we in dire straights, yes we are. Is this about fundraising, hell yes. Do fundraisers require a compelling message, they do. I remind you of this "branding" issue. We are raising money for Wikimedia.

The notion of a budget is to fulfill ambitions. We have gone over the message, let's talk about the mission. It is about "sharing the sum of all knowledge". Opening up Commons in a Wiki way to nine year old children worldwide is easy, we already have the software and it will cost money to implement properly. It needs an integral implementation that fits our infrastructure. There are other examples that demonstrate that we do not even "share the knowledge available to us". Increasing a budget to fulfil ambitions is what you do to get things done. Fundraising is what we do to pay the cost of enabling the fulfilment of what is budgeted.

The Wikimedia Foundation has the best platform to raise funds. Much more is possible. We can easily get more institutional money. However, it is well known that the WMF retains its independence by keeping a balance between public and institutional funding. Therefore the fundraising is essential for "Wikipedia" to retain its independence.

What I point out is not new, it should be well known. To me your point of view is bizarre. It is only about appearances and numbers without a context in what we do

Thanks,

GerardM

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 16:26, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

Gerard,

Do you think the banners have to paint a mental picture of Wikipedia being in dire financial straits for people to donate? With wordings like "We need you to make a donation this Friday so that we can continue to protect Wikipedia's independence"?

Isn't it pretty bizarre to portray your financial situation in this way, when you're planning to increase your expenses by 40% from one year to the next, and are literally taking 10 times more money from the public per annum than you did ten years ago?

It's not about the money per se – there are surely few people and organisations who would say that they couldn't do with some more money than the amount they have – but about whether you give the public and prospective donors a more or less accurate impression of your financial situation and your spending intentions.

Do you think the current fundraising banners do that?

Andreas

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 2:50 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
No it is not. When we do not find a solution for the technical issues for Wikidata it will crash and burn..

The ferocity that some people display about the WMF fundraising astounds me. We are operating one of the biggest websites in the world, it is hugely problematic in that its bias for English prevents us from providing a service that is of the same quality for everyone. The legacy that exists in our code and the rising expectations are obvious signs that we are under investing, not over investing. There is a limit to the growth of our organisation as such I applaud the WMF even though it could and should be so much better.

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
This is exactly the previously mentioned idea of "collect money, then we will find a way to spend it".
Instead, we should be honest with donors and volunteers, the urgency portrayed by banners is not true, there's no risk of closing our projects.

Assumes that there is only one project is true, but in terms of current fundraising communication.

Vito

Il giorno ven 24 set 2021 alle ore 14:50 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hoi,
There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money and raising expectations.
We want to raise less money in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people donate money everywhere they too will gain a sense of ownership. This sense of ownership is to be distributed more equally around the globe
With our projects owned more equitably around the globe, the notion that "any child of nine year old can find pictures in Commons" is reasonable and self-evident; the world pays for results that are globally relevant ..
We need a delivery manager, his/her task is to research and define what it is our projects deliver to their public. The objective is to increase both quantity and quality of what is delivered by a project and discuss with project communities what it is that can be done to improve the service to its public. Commons does provide material to Wikipedia, that is good but not enough.
Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive have projects to document all scientific papers / output. The Internet Archive provides an important service to the Wikimedia Foundation and we can integrate the two projects, reduce costs and have the WMF pay the IA for its services. Closer ties with the Internet Archive provide many other benefits. One of these benefits is that we can bring the Wikipedia references into a modern age.

For Wikidata there is a technical limit in what we can achieve on the current platform. Because of Wikidata the WMF is a very big fish in the data pond. We need to (imho) pick up the challenge and develop our own software. This will cost significantly and it demonstrates that we accept that Free software is not Free as in Beer. With the IA as a partner, we may find a partner in this endeavour.

The notion that we raise too much money, the notion that there is no urgency is a fallacy. It is all too easy to identify how our service is lacking and where we can improve our service. The arguments why the WMF raises too much money assumes that there is only one project, their project and they consider that its status quo suffices. The question is, sufficient for who,for what and for how long.
Thanks,
GerardM
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DEUD2GEI5CNSKGJLZKQB2JYPZVNSW6CF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/O6SXN6BX4JT3ZSR6IRINCALLXDOB266U/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IOJVJSWMOJGON2KEYGM7QEWXRN7N2ZBE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B22EFROPUNW6NCD7NL2DNBLE3ZA4I2HR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org