On 12 Jan 2015, at 11:25 pm, Liam Wyatt
Now that the 2014 Fundraising campaign has finished and which, according
a WMF blogpost from a week ago, "surpassed
our goal of $20 million"
According to the data provided at https://frdata.wikimedia.org/
Foundation seems to have taken $30.6 million over the period from December
2 2014 to December 31 2014.
This is $10.6 million more than the $20 million fundraising goal indicated
in the blog post. (At any rate, that's the sum I get; I'd welcome anyone
double-checking my math.)
(receiving donations from 2.5 million people in 4
weeks) , I hope that
the fundraising team has had the time to get some
well-earned rest and
relaxation over the new-year period.
But there were
also more fundamental/theoretical questions, including:
- what degree of 'urgency' is morally acceptable in a donation request,
especially when the financial situation of the
WMF has never been
healthier/stable? (e.g. threatening phrases like "keep us online and
ad-free for another year")
This is my main concern too.
- Is the
practice of "finishing the fundraiser period as fast as possible
by any means" the correct interpretation of the the official fundraising
principle of "minimal disruption"?
As for the fundraiser's duration, I believe the 2014 fundraiser ran for 30
days (December 2 to December 31, 2014). This is longer than last year, and
at any rate much longer than 2012, right?
Because according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2013
"In 2012, we were able to shorten the fundraiser down to nine full days,
the shortest fundraiser we've had."
- Is the
official fundraising principle of "maximal participation" being
adhered to? That principle calls for "empowering individuals to
constructively contribute to direct messaging, public outreach..." Does
WMF Board believe this has happened?
- Is the current "we don't like asking for money so just give it to us
we'll stop annoying you" approach to
fundraising (implied by the final
phrase in the final 2014 campaign email "Please help us forget
get back to improving Wikipedia.")
potentially damaging to the Wikimedia
brand value, even if it does raise the money in the short term? Lila said
that there has been "sentiment analysis" done about this, what was the