I have been mulling-over an idea for fundraising, but I think that, due to the details, it should probably be discussed here first, rather than just get discussed inside the Foundation proper. Yes, this really does mean "input welcome", not "isn't this a wonderful thought, all supplicate afore me". :-)
One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit. Although this increases the value of donations to us (by a factor of x/y, obviously), which is really great in and of itself, it actually works much more positively to leverage donations, making people significantly more likely to donate, and more likely to donate /more/. This means that (in the case where x and y are both 1 - i.e., a direct matching donation) we wouldn't just get twice as much (which would be fantastic), but thrice or even more so (I've somewhat run out of superlatives).
There is a catch, however - this second effect only occurs if the people donating are aware of it. The awareness cannot be achieved through a press notice; it has to be displayed alongside the donation request, and the display has to be rather prominent to have the best effect.
I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
I think actual advert-style copy would be a bad idea (and would rupture the community, which is a no-no), and a logo (for example) would be going too far, and be too flashy; it would distract readers, suggest a stronger influence than many would be happy with, and on a terribly practical level, companies might not be happy if we required their logo to squish into a 30 by 100 pixel block, or whatever - and are we sure that we'd have the strength of character not to allow a 20% increase in the sponsor logo box when they're offering so much dosh?
In the end, we could allow only matching personal donations (from the rich, obviously, but still), if people thought that corporate matched giving was too far - but do recall that we already accept donations from many companies, including really very large ones, so it might not be that significant a step. However, for a non-profit, the image of neutrality is king, and we would want to be careful not to do anything to sully ours.
Obviously, we would carefully vet proposed individuals and organisations for suitability, both on legal but perhaps more importantly vision/moral grounds - it would be difficult were the so very conspicuous supporter to have a significantly different view of the purpose of copyright, or the goal of the Foundation and the projects. The exact wordsmithery for the text of the hook-line would have to be hammered out (ho-ho), too. But these are a procedural issues, not a philosophical ones, and I trust us all to stick, at least at first, to the more pressing demand before getting diverted into the less critical matters.
So... what do you all think? Worth considering? And, if it is, what boundaries should we (we the Foundation, that is) set?
*Please note* that I post this in no official capacity whatsoever, merely as a guy with an idea who cares about the Foundation and our projects, like the rest of you. :-)
Yours,
On 08/11/06, James Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
We wouldn't get away with naming the company in the sitenotice - it'd have to be a link to a page listing the matching donations. Think that'd work for anyone?
- d.
We could list the Top 5 donors in the watchlist and see if people feel they can take the challenge to add themselves to that list. But that may be seen as some sort of advertising... and companies won't like that individuals are allowed yet they aren't, even though they have $1,000,000 to donate and the wealthiest individual philanthropic benefactor only has $100,000 set aside.
On 11/8/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/11/06, James Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
We wouldn't get away with naming the company in the sitenotice - it'd have to be a link to a page listing the matching donations. Think that'd work for anyone?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/8/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
We could list the Top 5 donors in the watchlist and see if people feel they can take the challenge to add themselves to that list.
Watchlist is full on en.wikipedia and will be intill the second week of december.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/11/06, James Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
We wouldn't get away with naming the company in the sitenotice - it'd have to be a link to a page listing the matching donations. Think that'd work for anyone?
Why not? Simply stating that a particular person/organization is going to match all donations made in a certain day of the drive is not advertising. It is simply giving credit where credit is due and inducing individual donations. Having different large donors sponsor each day of the drive in this way would be great.
-- mav
____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com
On 11/12/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Simply stating that a particular person/organization is going to match all donations made in a certain day of the drive is not advertising. It is simply giving credit where credit is due and inducing individual donations.
I agree that it's not really advertising, after all, buried in the fundraising pages are lists of donors, if they choose to give their name when donating (which could probably be more prominent - although I understand there's a new system underway for tracking donations, will it enable lists to be more prominent?). Lists of donors who will match other donations is essentially the same thing.
On 11/8/06, James Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit. [snip]
I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
Sounds like a great idea, if you can get someone to donate the $200,000. It could also be arranged as a "challenge" ("if X people donate $Y in $Z minutes, whoever has pledged to match it"). I find it significant though that you didn't hyperlink "Foo".
Is it advertising? I'd say not at all. In fact, under IRS regulations it would probably be considered a "qualified sponsorship payment", and not an advertisement. But other than the tax implications, and as long as there was an easy way to turn it off, I wouldn't care even it *were* advertising.
Anthony
----------------- Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Nothing in this email is intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -----------------
James Forrester wrote:
One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit.
[...] I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would
First Jimbo's $100 million and now this. I must warn against spending too much time thinking about money. If you like money, do business. Money is not what brought me here. Money is an idea that infests your brain, and after a while you start to think that you cannot do anything if you don't have money. That is a trap. Wikipedia is and should be a monument to how much good can in fact be done with almost no money.
I do not agree that matching donations increase funds. If someone has $200 thousand to spend, let them donate it without waiting for a match. Their donation is added to everybody else's. That's simple addition, not a multiplication.
So, why would anybody want to do a matching donation rather than just silently submit what they have? To get their name and logotype displayed? If they want this kind of display, tell them to buy advertising from companies that sell advertising space. If they want to help Wikipedia, the way to do so is to donate. There are lots of people who silently donate. Why should WMF give special treatment to people who want to make this process more complicated? If silent donors don't get this special treatment, why should they continue to be silent?
Perhaps the person who has a lot of money to donate wants to help the WMF to get even more money than if he had just donated it anonymously. Products tend to be greater than sums, so if there's a way for us to multiply instead of add, then we get more money. You're wrong that money isn't important- with more money, we could afford more servers and be more reliable and faster.
On 11/9/06, lars lars@aronsson.se wrote:
James Forrester wrote:
One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit.
[...] I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would
First Jimbo's $100 million and now this. I must warn against spending too much time thinking about money. If you like money, do business. Money is not what brought me here. Money is an idea that infests your brain, and after a while you start to think that you cannot do anything if you don't have money. That is a trap. Wikipedia is and should be a monument to how much good can in fact be done with almost no money.
I do not agree that matching donations increase funds. If someone has $200 thousand to spend, let them donate it without waiting for a match. Their donation is added to everybody else's. That's simple addition, not a multiplication.
So, why would anybody want to do a matching donation rather than just silently submit what they have? To get their name and logotype displayed? If they want this kind of display, tell them to buy advertising from companies that sell advertising space. If they want to help Wikipedia, the way to do so is to donate. There are lots of people who silently donate. Why should WMF give special treatment to people who want to make this process more complicated? If silent donors don't get this special treatment, why should they continue to be silent?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/9/06, lars lars@aronsson.se wrote:
James Forrester wrote:
One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is to see if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x units, so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit.
[...] I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would
First Jimbo's $100 million and now this. I must warn against spending too much time thinking about money. If you like money, do business. Money is not what brought me here. Money is an idea that infests your brain, and after a while you start to think that you cannot do anything if you don't have money. That is a trap. Wikipedia is and should be a monument to how much good can in fact be done with almost no money.
This a good point, and one the board should think long and hard about. I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that "money" received the largest value under "opportunities" during the SWOT exercise.
That said, I think there is a lot that could be done by the foundation, if only the foundation had more money. There are a lot of improvements that need to be made to the software, for instance, and they're not getting done under the current programmer budget. I think it's important to remember that these goals are what are important, and money is merely a means to reach them (or reach them faster).
I also think these goals should be spelled out *before* the money is accepted, and that an organization shouldn't take in a lot more in donations than is necessary to reach those goals. I used to think that a non-profit should run itself like any other business in that they should try to collect as much money as possible, but upon further reflection and reading a number of excellent articles on the subject I think you're right that the two need to be run very differently. Non-profits should try to minimise their revenue, not maximise it.
I do not agree that matching donations increase funds. If someone has $200 thousand to spend, let them donate it without waiting for a match. Their donation is added to everybody else's. That's simple addition, not a multiplication.
If properly handled people might be motivated to donate more if they know their donation is going to be matched. Putting a time deadline on things can be a real motivator. Of course, with maximum matches that are easily reached in the time alloted, it can just as easily be a de-motivator ("why donate now, they already reached the goal/maximum match").
So, why would anybody want to do a matching donation rather than just silently submit what they have? To get their name and logotype displayed? If they want this kind of display, tell them to buy advertising from companies that sell advertising space.
But...then Wikimedia doesn't get to spend that money...
If they want to help Wikipedia, the way to do so is to donate. There are lots of people who silently donate. Why should WMF give special treatment to people who want to make this process more complicated? If silent donors don't get this special treatment, why should they continue to be silent?
Why should Wikimedia be concerned over whether or not someone is silent? I don't have a problem acknowledging *every* contribution. If every donor wants acknowledgement, then we should give it to them.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
This a good point, and one the board should think long and hard about. I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that "money" received the largest value under "opportunities" during the SWOT exercise.
Please don't over-interpret the report from that SWOT exercise. Money was not given "the largest value", it was the term mentioned by most of the participants. That only means it is the least original idea, one that everybody can think of. Really original ideas, such as "Wikipedia can change the way humans breath oxygen" would only be mentioned by very few participants, and could be completely wrong, or could be completely revolutionary. The most interesting and important aspects are probably somewhere at the middle of this scale, between radical and trivial.
That said, I think there is a lot that could be done by the foundation, if only the foundation had more money.
No, I don't agree. This is the trap I'm warning against. You are about to fall into it. Rather than paying more programmers, we should think of ways that more programmers can be stimulated to contribute for free. Today that can be quite difficult, because only very few have access to the centralized running server. Two important methods are already in place: Anybody can download a database dump and analyze it on their own computers and develop new services such as those running on the German Toolserver. And since Mediawiki is free software, many develop their own plugins for special functions. These are examples of distributed software development that don't require money to run through the WMF. Instead of collecting more money, we should think about how we can achieve even more without involving money.
Also the Knams proxy in Amsterdam is paid for by an external organization (Kennisnet), and that saves the WMF a lot of money. Why not ask for similar proxies inside the USA, rather than collecting more money to buy more servers.
But...then Wikimedia doesn't get to spend that money...
There is a lot of money in the world that the WMF doesn't spend. I just had breakfast for money that I spent, without passing through the WMF.
Why should Wikimedia be concerned over whether or not someone is silent? I don't have a problem acknowledging *every* contribution. If every donor wants acknowledgement, then we should give it to them.
Of course. What I'm against is that special treatment should be given to people who want to make things more complicated.
On 11/10/06, lars lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
This a good point, and one the board should think long and hard about. I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that "money" received the largest value under "opportunities" during the SWOT exercise.
Please don't over-interpret the report from that SWOT exercise. Money was not given "the largest value", it was the term mentioned by most of the participants.
You know, I went through several iterations of that sentence before settling on "the largest value". But your explanation is simpler. It was the term mentioned by most of the participants (twice as many as the next most popular term). That's still saying a lot, and it still disturbs me.
That only means it is the least original idea, one that everybody can think of.
My feelings are that it shouldn't be an opportunity listed by anyone, let alone 18 people (I don't feel like looking up the number, but I think it was 18, if I'm wrong substitute the actual number).
That said, I think there is a lot that could be done by the foundation, if only the foundation had more money.
No, I don't agree. This is the trap I'm warning against. You are about to fall into it. Rather than paying more programmers, we should think of ways that more programmers can be stimulated to contribute for free.
IMO that in itself would require spending money. I stand by my belief that money would make some things possible, and would make a lot of other things get done faster. There are millions of us, myself included, who could contribute more to Wikimedia if only someone would pay the doctor bills, the rent, and the food costs for myself and my family. Give me $10,000 and I'll write single sign-on and anything else I can complete in the next 6 months. Don't give me $10,000, and sorry, I have a family to provide for that comes first. (And don't take this as a demand from me, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the one hired to do this sort of thing, I'm just using myself as an example.) Of course I'm open to suggestions as to how to accomplish these things without spending any money.
Also the Knams proxy in Amsterdam is paid for by an external organization (Kennisnet), and that saves the WMF a lot of money. Why not ask for similar proxies inside the USA, rather than collecting more money to buy more servers.
When it comes to bandwidth and servers I agree that's a place we should be working on one day spending $0.
But...then Wikimedia doesn't get to spend that money...
There is a lot of money in the world that the WMF doesn't spend. I just had breakfast for money that I spent, without passing through the WMF.
Why should Wikimedia be concerned over whether or not someone is silent? I don't have a problem acknowledging *every* contribution. If every donor wants acknowledgement, then we should give it to them.
Of course. What I'm against is that special treatment should be given to people who want to make things more complicated.
Acknowledging every contribution (except for contributions from people who actively oppose being acknowledged) would resolve the issue of special treatment.
Anthony
lars wrote:
Anthony wrote:
This a good point, and one the board should think long and hard about. I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that "money" received the largest value under "opportunities" during the SWOT exercise.
Please don't over-interpret the report from that SWOT exercise. Money was not given "the largest value", it was the term mentioned by most of the participants. That only means it is the least original idea, one that everybody can think of. Really original ideas, such as "Wikipedia can change the way humans breath oxygen" would only be mentioned by very few participants, and could be completely wrong, or could be completely revolutionary. The most interesting and important aspects are probably somewhere at the middle of this scale, between radical and trivial.
That said, I think there is a lot that could be done by the foundation, if only the foundation had more money.
No, I don't agree. This is the trap I'm warning against. You are about to fall into it. Rather than paying more programmers, we should think of ways that more programmers can be stimulated to contribute for free.
By the way, we should also think of ways that more editors can be stimulated to help on OTRS for free.
We have a need for people to help on press inquiries as well.
We apparently also lack help for writing press releases.
Volunteers welcome. And ideas to stimulate them as well ;)
Ant
Today that can be quite difficult, because
only very few have access to the centralized running server. Two important methods are already in place: Anybody can download a database dump and analyze it on their own computers and develop new services such as those running on the German Toolserver. And since Mediawiki is free software, many develop their own plugins for special functions. These are examples of distributed software development that don't require money to run through the WMF. Instead of collecting more money, we should think about how we can achieve even more without involving money.
Also the Knams proxy in Amsterdam is paid for by an external organization (Kennisnet), and that saves the WMF a lot of money. Why not ask for similar proxies inside the USA, rather than collecting more money to buy more servers.
But...then Wikimedia doesn't get to spend that money...
There is a lot of money in the world that the WMF doesn't spend. I just had breakfast for money that I spent, without passing through the WMF.
Why should Wikimedia be concerned over whether or not someone is silent? I don't have a problem acknowledging *every* contribution. If every donor wants acknowledgement, then we should give it to them.
Of course. What I'm against is that special treatment should be given to people who want to make things more complicated.
On 11/10/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
By the way, we should also think of ways that more editors can be stimulated to help on OTRS for free.
We have a need for people to help on press inquiries as well.
We apparently also lack help for writing press releases.
Volunteers welcome. And ideas to stimulate them as well ;)
Ant
Try makeing the requirements clear so that the people with the skills you want can find out.
On 10/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
By the way, we should also think of ways that more editors can be stimulated to help on OTRS for free.
We have a need for people to help on press inquiries as well.
We apparently also lack help for writing press releases.
Volunteers welcome. And ideas to stimulate them as well ;)
We somehow need to make people among the general Wikimedia population aware that they could be more effectively working for for Wikimedia. Programmers need to know that they could make a much-appreciated contribution, those who are eloquent writers should be made aware that they could help on press releases and whatnot.
I'm not exactly sure how this could done but it should probably involve utilizing community areas and selectively reaching out to some users.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org