To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia. We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0> . https://donate.wikimedia.org <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0> Thank you, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Founder PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running. Your contribution counts! *DONATE NOW »* <http://links.email.donate.wikimedia.org/ctt?kn=3&ms=NDc2NDYzOTUS1&r=NzU3Mzc1MDY0NjcS1&b=0&j=NTgzMzA0NDgwS0&mt=1&rt=0> ------------------------------ "our final email"? This is the last email reminder you'll receive"? Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."?? If that weren't embarrassing, what about... - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the same time in the heading. - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!! - On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another year". - Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of donors didn't donate enough)? - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a "thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and mission-oriented]. *Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency. I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient *at getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been honed with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the core WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they actually appear to be following a principle of being "as *maximally *disruptive as they can get away with, for as short a time as required". Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective fundraising" is defined in practice, and how they are measured? *Shareable vs Desperate* On the same day that the WMF communications team release this inspiring and positive "year in review" video <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/17/wikipedias-first-ever-annual-video-reflects-contributions-from-people-around-the-world/>, this fundraising email sounds negative and desperate. It is all about not advertising and staying online for another year. Couldn't the "year in review" video have been used in the fundraising email to tell a positive story about all we have achieved this year? That's the kind of thing Wikimedians will want to share and feel proud about, not something that almost bullies you to donate out of a sense of moral-obligation. *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. After all, the final official WMF fundraising principle is: "Maximal participation: Consistent with the principles of empowerment underlying Wikimedia’s success, we should empower individuals and groups world-wide to constructively contribute to direct messaging, public outreach, and other activities that drive the success of Wikimedia’s fundraising efforts" -Liam p.s. by the way, has anyone from the WMF talked the Russian community yet about why they aren't allowed to donate? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

*Effectiveness != Efficiency* One of the official WMF Fundraising principles <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles> is "*minimal disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis is original]. I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest that "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.

On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; 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.

On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; 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. 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.