I agree that the WMF needs to slow its growth and look at stabilizing around its currently level of funding. Continuing to grow at 20% is simply not sustainable while maintaining our values and our reputation. I am not yet sure what the rest of the board's position is on this matter but I share many of the concerns raised here.
Dear everyone,
The ad industry took ages to reckon they were messing things up¹, looking only at how much money they were earning. I sincerely hope WMF's fundraising is not following the same path. I wouldn't be honest if I didn't write that year after year, I find the fundraising banners more intrusive and less respectful of readers and that I observe much more angry readers around me. No offense to whoever works on fundraising: the issue is in the objectives the fundraising team has to meet.
Best regards,
¹ http://www.iab.com/news/lean/
The world's economy is driven by greed and stupidity. Can we be different? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jérémie Roquet Sent: Friday, 16 October 2015 12:23 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update
Dear everyone,
The ad industry took ages to reckon they were messing things up¹, looking only at how much money they were earning. I sincerely hope WMF's fundraising is not following the same path. I wouldn't be honest if I didn't write that year after year, I find the fundraising banners more intrusive and less respectful of readers and that I observe much more angry readers around me. No offense to whoever works on fundraising: the issue is in the objectives the fundraising team has to meet.
Best regards,
¹ http://www.iab.com/news/lean/
-- Jérémie
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6172 / Virus Database: 4447/10827 - Release Date: 10/15/15
Fundraising folks, can we get an update in response to the concerns raised in this thread?
Thanks, Pine
Sure, Pine. I am happy offer some thoughts:
The two main challenges for the online fundraising team are the decrease in page views in the countries where we raise the most funds and the shift from desktop to mobile, where the donation rate and the donation size are much smaller. In response to this, we estimate that we will need a campaign that performs approximately 20 percent better than last year – just to keep revenue constant – not to grow.
Leila is right that page views are not a perfect indicator. Page views do not donate, people do. We know page views are going down but we do not know who is leaving us. Still, we *are* seeing an impact on donations from a decrease in page views. This is the second big fundraising season where we have been up against a page view decline. Last year, we responded with a dramatic shift in tactics. This year, we are focusing on finding smaller refinements that will get us there. The good news is that we are getting close! And, I think the online fundraising team is working in earnest to engage with community members and other staff who have ideas around the message. Some ideas have been incorporated into the campaign, others not. The process has been helpful to us and I hopefully not too disappointing for you. For what it is worth, the team does not use the vast majority of my ideas – and I respect them for that. :)
There are some concerns around the urgency of the message that we are still trying to work through. To be honest, we haven’t seen this surface in past research or when we talk to our donors. Still, we recognize that we may not have been asking the right questions or framing it right. We care a lot that that we are giving an accurate impression about our need for donations. So, we have drilled down on this more in our research to better understand what our readers think on this topic. We should have more to share on that in a week or two.
The concerns raised about the size of the budget and the rate of growth of the organization need to involve more people than just fundraising. We will give our perspectives on what is happening with the “topline” as a part of a larger planning conversation.
Best,
Lisa Gruwell
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Fundraising folks, can we get an update in response to the concerns raised in this thread?
Thanks, Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for following up.
Regarding the topline number: given the issues that happened with the 2015-2016 WMF annual plan, I am wondering if WMF Finance can start planning early for 2016-2017 around with the following goals. These are some brainstorms, other people may want to add their own suggestions.
* Zero topline budget growth * 3 percent reduction in recurring non-labor costs such as energy and supplies * 10 percent increase in the value of major gifts and in kind donations (thus reducing pressure on the online fundraising) * 5 percent increase in the combined budgets for grants to be disbursed to individuals and affiliates * 5 percent reduction in travel costs * 10 percent average monthly increase in global readership * 10 percent increase in total active editors * 5 percent increase in the quantity of content (measured in bytes) * 10 percent increase in the number of educational organizations in WEP * 10 percent increase in the number of people who are registered members of affiliates.
Further thoughts and comments welcome. We can move this discussion to Meta if more than a handful of budget and governance geeks are interested. (:
Pine
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, we have drilled down on this more in our research to better understand what our readers think on this topic. We should have more to share on that in a week or two.
What readers think about this topic will very much depend on what information they have been given.
You need to find out what readers think who know
1. the cost of Internet hosting relative to the total budget (about 3 percent); 2. that you took five times as much money last year as you took five years ago; 3. how much money the Foundation has in cash and investments; 4. that the number of paid staff has increased more than twentyfold since 2007; 5. how the vastly increased spending is affecting reader experience.
Do you know what readers who know all of this think about the banners? Have there been focus groups with donors who were given all of this information?
This is necessary to make sure that when (not if) readers do find all of this information out, there won't be a storm of protest from people who feel they were misled as to the Foundation's financial situation.
(Sorry, something went awry with my mail client. Let's try this again to keep the thread intact).
Besides what readers think when they're fully informed, I'm also concerned about the legal issues surrounding the fundraising. IANAL, but I have a feeling that consumer protection attorneys may take an interest if they feel that there is a meaningful disconnect between what messages FR conveys and (1) how the funds are actually spent and/or (2) the overall financial health of WMF. Let's avoid inflicting legal costs and PR damage on ourselves, please. (:
Pine
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, we have drilled down on this more in our research to better understand what our readers think on this topic. We should have more to share on that in a week or two.
What readers think about this topic will very much depend on what information they have been given.
You need to find out what readers think who know
- the cost of Internet hosting relative to the total budget (about 3
percent); 2. that you took five times as much money last year as you took five years ago; 3. how much money the Foundation has in cash and investments; 4. that the number of paid staff has increased more than twentyfold since 2007; 5. how the vastly increased spending is affecting reader experience.
Do you know what readers who know all of this think about the banners? Have there been focus groups with donors who were given all of this information?
This is necessary to make sure that when (not if) readers do find all of this information out, there won't be a storm of protest from people who feel they were misled as to the Foundation's financial situation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think the PR people really need to be more reflective in the reasons and uses of the donations in their messages because its rather easy to show the inconsistancy between the message and the use of donated funds... IMHO some of the drop off in donations is due to this lack reflectivity in the messages being sent .
even the simplest throw away tag in almost every banner of "lets us get to back to improving wikipedia" doesnt hold as everyone knows WMF doesnt have any control over content and therefore cant improve it, very little of the fu nds ever trickles down to coal face where the contributors are.
On 4 November 2015 at 10:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
(Sorry, something went awry with my mail client. Let's try this again to keep the thread intact).
Besides what readers think when they're fully informed, I'm also concerned about the legal issues surrounding the fundraising. IANAL, but I have a feeling that consumer protection attorneys may take an interest if they feel that there is a meaningful disconnect between what messages FR conveys and (1) how the funds are actually spent and/or (2) the overall financial health of WMF. Let's avoid inflicting legal costs and PR damage on ourselves, please. (:
Pine
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, we have drilled down on this more in our research to better understand what our readers think on this topic. We should have more
to
share on that in a week or two.
What readers think about this topic will very much depend on what information they have been given.
You need to find out what readers think who know
- the cost of Internet hosting relative to the total budget (about 3
percent); 2. that you took five times as much money last year as you took five
years
ago; 3. how much money the Foundation has in cash and investments; 4. that the number of paid staff has increased more than twentyfold since 2007; 5. how the vastly increased spending is affecting reader experience.
Do you know what readers who know all of this think about the banners?
Have
there been focus groups with donors who were given all of this
information?
This is necessary to make sure that when (not if) readers do find all of this information out, there won't be a storm of protest from people who feel they were misled as to the Foundation's financial situation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
What gnangarra has wroten is soo true...
100% agree
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:23:29 +0800 From: gnangarra@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update
I think the PR people really need to be more reflective in the reasons and uses of the donations in their messages because its rather easy to show the inconsistancy between the message and the use of donated funds... IMHO some of the drop off in donations is due to this lack reflectivity in the messages being sent .
even the simplest throw away tag in almost every banner of "lets us get to back to improving wikipedia" doesnt hold as everyone knows WMF doesnt have any control over content and therefore cant improve it, very little of the fu nds ever trickles down to coal face where the contributors are.
On 4 November 2015 at 10:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
(Sorry, something went awry with my mail client. Let's try this again to keep the thread intact).
Besides what readers think when they're fully informed, I'm also concerned about the legal issues surrounding the fundraising. IANAL, but I have a feeling that consumer protection attorneys may take an interest if they feel that there is a meaningful disconnect between what messages FR conveys and (1) how the funds are actually spent and/or (2) the overall financial health of WMF. Let's avoid inflicting legal costs and PR damage on ourselves, please. (:
Pine
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, we have drilled down on this more in our research to better understand what our readers think on this topic. We should have more
to
share on that in a week or two.
What readers think about this topic will very much depend on what information they have been given.
You need to find out what readers think who know
- the cost of Internet hosting relative to the total budget (about 3
percent); 2. that you took five times as much money last year as you took five
years
ago; 3. how much money the Foundation has in cash and investments; 4. that the number of paid staff has increased more than twentyfold since 2007; 5. how the vastly increased spending is affecting reader experience.
Do you know what readers who know all of this think about the banners?
Have
there been focus groups with donors who were given all of this
information?
This is necessary to make sure that when (not if) readers do find all of this information out, there won't be a storm of protest from people who feel they were misled as to the Foundation's financial situation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'd rather see an honest onlinr fundraising campaign for a longer period of time than an ethically questionable one for a shorter period of time.
On the cost side, I continue to have reservations about the WMF's location in San Francisco. I get the impression that the staff like the location, but I increasingly question whether an organization that relies on charity should be expending donor funds on maintaining itself in such an expensive locale. There could be substantial long-term cost savings from moving WMF headquarters to a more cost-effective metro area and adjusting salaries accordingly. Staff might also appreciate lower rents, faster commutes and/or greater financial ability to live closer to where they work.
Pine
On October 30, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its audited financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2015.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/0b/Audit_Report_-_FY_14-...
The figures contained in these statements have a bearing on the present discussion. Some highlights:
Net assets at end of year: $77.8 million (up $24.3 million from $53.5 million)
Current assets include: $35.2 million in cash and cash equivalents $29.0 million in short-term investments.
Total support and revenue: $75.8 million (up $23.3 million from $52.5 million)
Total expenses: $52.6 million (up $6.7 million from $45.9 million)
Internet hosting costs: just under $2 million (down $0.5 million from $2.5 million)
I was happy to see increasing net assets and increasing revenue. The fundraising messages that WMF sends should to reflect the facts about where the money will go and about the current financial status of WMF.
I've been told by someone whose history with the Wikimedia community is longer than mine that many years ago, the chapters used to be in stronger financial positions than WMF was. Eventually this flipped. As recently as a few years ago were consistent questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the chapters. In more recent history, the chapters seem to be doing well in terms of effectiveness and integrity, and now the bulk of the revenue is going to WMF where there are more questions about effectiveness and integrity. I'm particularly troubled by the lack of responses from WMF to a number of questions that I repeatedly asked about the 2015-2016 Annual Plan, and I'd really like to see some work done on increasing financial transparency in WMF as well as enhancing the integrity of the online fundraising messages.
Pine
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On October 30, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its audited financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2015.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/0b/Audit_Report_-_FY_14-...
The figures contained in these statements have a bearing on the present discussion. Some highlights:
Net assets at end of year: $77.8 million (up $24.3 million from $53.5 million)
Current assets include: $35.2 million in cash and cash equivalents $29.0 million in short-term investments.
Total support and revenue: $75.8 million (up $23.3 million from $52.5 million)
Total expenses: $52.6 million (up $6.7 million from $45.9 million)
Internet hosting costs: just under $2 million (down $0.5 million from $2.5 million) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I see that the fundraising banners currently running in Germany[1][2] no longer speak of "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free", but instead encourage people to "give something back to Wikipedia" if they find it useful.
That is a much, much better wording. Thank you. I trust the English banners that will run in December will follow the same approach.
Note however that the German FAQ[3] that is linked from the German Donate Now page[4] is several years out of date. It refers to 2013/2014 as the current financial year, and directs readers to the 2011/2012 annual report (!!!).
The English FAQ[5] has much less content than the German one (I'm told all the outdated content has been commented out) and now lacks any specifics that would give donors an idea of what the Foundation is doing with their money.
In all languages, the link to the FAQ on the Donate Now page is in such small print as to be barely legible. Please update the FAQs in all languages as a matter of urgency, and change the font size of the links to something more reasonable.
In general I would like to see the Foundation communicate more clearly, transparently and proactively about where the money goes, and what the user benefits are. Reports like the one last year on improving access speed[6] are useful.
Andreas
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Spendenbanner-de-s5mini-151112_Kopie.jpg [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fehlerhafte_Spendenkampagne.png [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/de [4] https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage... [5] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en [6] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/29/how-we-made-editing-wikipedia-twice-as-...
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I was happy to see increasing net assets and increasing revenue. The fundraising messages that WMF sends should to reflect the facts about where the money will go and about the current financial status of WMF.
I've been told by someone whose history with the Wikimedia community is longer than mine that many years ago, the chapters used to be in stronger financial positions than WMF was. Eventually this flipped. As recently as a few years ago were consistent questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the chapters. In more recent history, the chapters seem to be doing well in terms of effectiveness and integrity, and now the bulk of the revenue is going to WMF where there are more questions about effectiveness and integrity. I'm particularly troubled by the lack of responses from WMF to a number of questions that I repeatedly asked about the 2015-2016 Annual Plan, and I'd really like to see some work done on increasing financial transparency in WMF as well as enhancing the integrity of the online fundraising messages.
Pine
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On October 30, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its audited financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2015.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/0b/Audit_Report_-_FY_14-...
The figures contained in these statements have a bearing on the present discussion. Some highlights:
Net assets at end of year: $77.8 million (up $24.3 million from $53.5 million)
Current assets include: $35.2 million in cash and cash equivalents $29.0 million in short-term investments.
Total support and revenue: $75.8 million (up $23.3 million from $52.5 million)
Total expenses: $52.6 million (up $6.7 million from $45.9 million)
Internet hosting costs: just under $2 million (down $0.5 million from $2.5 million) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
By the way, was there any follow up at WMF to Risker's suggestion from awhile ago that its budget get a peer review from a similarly situated organization?
I've taken a peek at the discussions in the current round of FDC proposals. I have some concerns about WMF staff critiquing the budgets of affiliates while WMF's own budget practices are in need of improvement. I would like to see WMF make efforts to improve that will be reflected in the new WMF Annual Plan cycle. I am hoping that the WMF Board takes an interest in these matters, particularly in light of concerns about fundraising targets and top-line budget growth.
Thanks,
Pine
Andreas,
Thank you for this positive feedback. I can't comment on future banner messages because I don't have the requisite knowledge.
Here's where we are right now... I've seen Megan and the fundraising team really apply themselves on this concern. They've interviewed many people and they are starting to collaborate with some of the people who have not liked our banners.
I have no promises. None. I am just filling you in on the process. We're also headed into the busiest times of our year and we are a small team so we may not be able to update you in a timely fashion.
/a
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I see that the fundraising banners currently running in Germany[1][2] no longer speak of "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free", but instead encourage people to "give something back to Wikipedia" if they find it useful.
That is a much, much better wording. Thank you. I trust the English banners that will run in December will follow the same approach.
Note however that the German FAQ[3] that is linked from the German Donate Now page[4] is several years out of date. It refers to 2013/2014 as the current financial year, and directs readers to the 2011/2012 annual report (!!!).
The English FAQ[5] has much less content than the German one (I'm told all the outdated content has been commented out) and now lacks any specifics that would give donors an idea of what the Foundation is doing with their money.
In all languages, the link to the FAQ on the Donate Now page is in such small print as to be barely legible. Please update the FAQs in all languages as a matter of urgency, and change the font size of the links to something more reasonable.
In general I would like to see the Foundation communicate more clearly, transparently and proactively about where the money goes, and what the user benefits are. Reports like the one last year on improving access speed[6] are useful.
Andreas
[1]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Spendenbanner-de-s5mini-151112_Kopie.jpg [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fehlerhafte_Spendenkampagne.png [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/de [4]
https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage... [5] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en [6]
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/29/how-we-made-editing-wikipedia-twice-as-...
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I was happy to see increasing net assets and increasing revenue. The fundraising messages that WMF sends should to reflect the facts about
where
the money will go and about the current financial status of WMF.
I've been told by someone whose history with the Wikimedia community is longer than mine that many years ago, the chapters used to be in stronger financial positions than WMF was. Eventually this flipped. As recently
as a
few years ago were consistent questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the chapters. In more recent history, the chapters seem to
be
doing well in terms of effectiveness and integrity, and now the bulk of
the
revenue is going to WMF where there are more questions about
effectiveness
and integrity. I'm particularly troubled by the lack of responses from
WMF
to a number of questions that I repeatedly asked about the 2015-2016
Annual
Plan, and I'd really like to see some work done on increasing financial transparency in WMF as well as enhancing the integrity of the online fundraising messages.
Pine
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
On October 30, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its audited financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2015.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/0b/Audit_Report_-_FY_14-...
The figures contained in these statements have a bearing on the present discussion. Some highlights:
Net assets at end of year: $77.8 million (up $24.3 million from $53.5 million)
Current assets include: $35.2 million in cash and cash equivalents $29.0 million in short-term investments.
Total support and revenue: $75.8 million (up $23.3 million from $52.5 million)
Total expenses: $52.6 million (up $6.7 million from $45.9 million)
Internet hosting costs: just under $2 million (down $0.5 million from $2.5 million) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Anna,
Thanks for your note. For what it's worth, Lisa Seitz Gruwell[1] said[2] a couple of days ago on Meta, in response to Liam Wyatt,
Thanks for the feedback. I think you are referring to language about
"keeping Wikipedia ad-free." We have taken that language out of the banner.
She added, in response to myself,
Thanks for the suggestions. Here is the language we are now using to
summarize costs: "If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take one minute to keep it online and growing. We're a small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers, staff and programs."
I personally like the simple German wording about "giving something back to Wikipedia" very much. I think many of us started editing with that sort of sentiment in mind.
However, "to keep it online and growing", too, is a vast improvement over "to keep it online and ad-free". I am very happy to see Lisa confirming that "ad-free" has been dropped.
Andreas
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lgruwell-WMF [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising%2F2015-16_Fundraisi...
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Andreas,
Thank you for this positive feedback. I can't comment on future banner messages because I don't have the requisite knowledge.
Here's where we are right now... I've seen Megan and the fundraising team really apply themselves on this concern. They've interviewed many people and they are starting to collaborate with some of the people who have not liked our banners.
I have no promises. None. I am just filling you in on the process. We're also headed into the busiest times of our year and we are a small team so we may not be able to update you in a timely fashion.
/a
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I see that the fundraising banners currently running in Germany[1][2] no longer speak of "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free", but instead encourage people to "give something back to Wikipedia" if they find it useful.
That is a much, much better wording. Thank you. I trust the English
banners
that will run in December will follow the same approach.
Note however that the German FAQ[3] that is linked from the German Donate Now page[4] is several years out of date. It refers to 2013/2014 as the current financial year, and directs readers to the 2011/2012 annual
report
(!!!).
The English FAQ[5] has much less content than the German one (I'm told
all
the outdated content has been commented out) and now lacks any specifics that would give donors an idea of what the Foundation is doing with their money.
In all languages, the link to the FAQ on the Donate Now page is in such small print as to be barely legible. Please update the FAQs in all languages as a matter of urgency, and change the font size of the links
to
something more reasonable.
In general I would like to see the Foundation communicate more clearly, transparently and proactively about where the money goes, and what the
user
benefits are. Reports like the one last year on improving access speed[6] are useful.
Andreas
[1]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Spendenbanner-de-s5mini-151112_Kopie.jpg
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fehlerhafte_Spendenkampagne.png [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/de [4]
https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage...
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/29/how-we-made-editing-wikipedia-twice-as-...
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I was happy to see increasing net assets and increasing revenue. The fundraising messages that WMF sends should to reflect the facts about
where
the money will go and about the current financial status of WMF.
I've been told by someone whose history with the Wikimedia community is longer than mine that many years ago, the chapters used to be in
stronger
financial positions than WMF was. Eventually this flipped. As recently
as a
few years ago were consistent questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the chapters. In more recent history, the chapters seem to
be
doing well in terms of effectiveness and integrity, and now the bulk of
the
revenue is going to WMF where there are more questions about
effectiveness
and integrity. I'm particularly troubled by the lack of responses from
WMF
to a number of questions that I repeatedly asked about the 2015-2016
Annual
Plan, and I'd really like to see some work done on increasing financial transparency in WMF as well as enhancing the integrity of the online fundraising messages.
Pine
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
On October 30, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its audited financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2015.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/0b/Audit_Report_-_FY_14-...
The figures contained in these statements have a bearing on the
present
discussion. Some highlights:
Net assets at end of year: $77.8 million (up $24.3 million from $53.5 million)
Current assets include: $35.2 million in cash and cash equivalents $29.0 million in short-term investments.
Total support and revenue: $75.8 million (up $23.3 million from $52.5 million)
Total expenses: $52.6 million (up $6.7 million from $45.9 million)
Internet hosting costs: just under $2 million (down $0.5 million from $2.5 million) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It's nice to hear of these changes. Thanks, Andreas and Lisa.
Pine On Nov 15, 2015 5:52 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
Thanks for your note. For what it's worth, Lisa Seitz Gruwell[1] said[2] a couple of days ago on Meta, in response to Liam Wyatt,
Thanks for the feedback. I think you are referring to language about
"keeping Wikipedia ad-free." We have taken that language out of the banner.
She added, in response to myself,
Thanks for the suggestions. Here is the language we are now using to
summarize costs: "If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take one minute to keep it online and growing. We're a small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers, staff and programs."
I personally like the simple German wording about "giving something back to Wikipedia" very much. I think many of us started editing with that sort of sentiment in mind.
However, "to keep it online and growing", too, is a vast improvement over "to keep it online and ad-free". I am very happy to see Lisa confirming that "ad-free" has been dropped.
Andreas
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lgruwell-WMF [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising%2F2015-16_Fundraisi...
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Andreas,
Thank you for this positive feedback. I can't comment on future banner messages because I don't have the requisite knowledge.
Here's where we are right now... I've seen Megan and the fundraising team really apply themselves on this concern. They've interviewed many people and they are starting to collaborate with some of the people who have not liked our banners.
I have no promises. None. I am just filling you in on the process. We're also headed into the busiest times of our year and we are a small team so we may not be able to update you in a timely fashion.
/a
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
I see that the fundraising banners currently running in Germany[1][2]
no
longer speak of "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free", but instead encourage people to "give something back to Wikipedia" if they find it useful.
That is a much, much better wording. Thank you. I trust the English
banners
that will run in December will follow the same approach.
Note however that the German FAQ[3] that is linked from the German
Donate
Now page[4] is several years out of date. It refers to 2013/2014 as the current financial year, and directs readers to the 2011/2012 annual
report
(!!!).
The English FAQ[5] has much less content than the German one (I'm told
all
the outdated content has been commented out) and now lacks any
specifics
that would give donors an idea of what the Foundation is doing with
their
money.
In all languages, the link to the FAQ on the Donate Now page is in such small print as to be barely legible. Please update the FAQs in all languages as a matter of urgency, and change the font size of the links
to
something more reasonable.
In general I would like to see the Foundation communicate more clearly, transparently and proactively about where the money goes, and what the
user
benefits are. Reports like the one last year on improving access
speed[6]
are useful.
Andreas
[1]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Spendenbanner-de-s5mini-151112_Kopie.jpg
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fehlerhafte_Spendenkampagne.png
https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage...
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/29/how-we-made-editing-wikipedia-twice-as-...
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I was happy to see increasing net assets and increasing revenue. The fundraising messages that WMF sends should to reflect the facts about
where
the money will go and about the current financial status of WMF.
I've been told by someone whose history with the Wikimedia community
is
longer than mine that many years ago, the chapters used to be in
stronger
financial positions than WMF was. Eventually this flipped. As
recently
as a
few years ago were consistent questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the chapters. In more recent history, the chapters seem
to
be
doing well in terms of effectiveness and integrity, and now the bulk
of
the
revenue is going to WMF where there are more questions about
effectiveness
and integrity. I'm particularly troubled by the lack of responses
from
WMF
to a number of questions that I repeatedly asked about the 2015-2016
Annual
Plan, and I'd really like to see some work done on increasing
financial
transparency in WMF as well as enhancing the integrity of the online fundraising messages.
Pine
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
On October 30, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its audited
financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2015.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/0b/Audit_Report_-_FY_14-...
The figures contained in these statements have a bearing on the
present
discussion. Some highlights:
Net assets at end of year: $77.8 million (up $24.3 million from $53.5 million)
Current assets include: $35.2 million in cash and cash equivalents $29.0 million in short-term investments.
Total support and revenue: $75.8 million (up $23.3 million from $52.5 million)
Total expenses: $52.6 million (up $6.7 million from $45.9 million)
Internet hosting costs: just under $2 million (down $0.5 million from $2.5 million) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org