I think both of these issues are about community involvement, Lodewijk, or
rather the lack of it. The community is simply being stonewalled, on both
issues.
And to be clear, I am absolutely in favour of fundraising. I just want it
done transparently, so donors understand clearly that their donations are
NOT about keeping Wikipedia from blinking out of existence, but about
something different altogether.
I want the Foundation to tell donors what they are doing, in concrete
terms, and to tell it compellingly, so that people are *inspired* to
donate, rather than guilt-tripped into it or made to donate out of fear
Wikipedia might go off-line, or have to host advertisements to survive.
Having said that, I have no problem with it if someone wants to start a new
thread on the latter issue.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
wrote:
Please let us not mingle two very separate and
delicate discussions:
1) Whether we should do the extra effort of fundraising at all (this is
what Andreas was arguing about, it seems)
2) If we decide to fundraise, how to involve the community and affiliates
in a timely, orderly and effective fashion
While we can have lots of discussions about the first question, I think
most people here will agree that there is a lot of improvement possible on
the second. And the second question is equally valid for several other
departments of course...
Communicate early, communicate often, and communicate in a two-way fashion.
Lodewijk
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Note also that there is an on-going discussion
with the WMF Board on
fundraising ethics here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Disc…
Every year, readers are told that money is required to "keep Wikipedia
online and ad-free another year" (a hangover from ten years ago, when
bandwidth was indeed the main cost). At the end of the December 2014
fundraiser, donors were told in the thank-you email that "each year, just
enough people donate to keep the sum of all human knowledge available for
everyone".
Every year, members of the community point out here on this list that
given
the Foundation's present-day wealth, these
phrasings are misleading and
manipulative. They report feeling ashamed when friends and family ask
them
about the Foundation's apparent money
problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-18/Op-ed
We all know that the Foundation asks for and receives more money every
year:
2006-2007: $3 million
2007-2008: $5 million
2008-2009: $9 million
2009-2010: $18 million
2010-2011: $25 million
2011-2012: $38 million
2012-2013: $49 million
2013-2014: $53 million
2014-2015: $75 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_summary
By no stretch of the imagination is it accurate to say that "each year,
just enough people donate to keep the sum of human knowledge available
for
everyone". (This is quite apart from the
fact that Facebook and many
others
host complete mirrors of Wikipedia, and mirrors
like Wikiwand for example
would JUMP at the chance of getting Wikipedia's top spot in Google. If
the
Foundation disappeared tomorrow, others – not
least Wikipedia's
volunteers
– would stand in line to replace them in
"keeping the sum of human
knowledge available for everyone".)
What donors really have been financing is a huge organisational expansion
at the Wikimedia Foundation.
WMF staff levels have skyrocketed, from a dozen in 2007 to 278 today (not
counting another 100 or so paid chapter staff).
From Megan's responses on the page Liam posted a link to a few days ago:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2015-16_Fundraising_ideas
and Patricio's responses at the Wikimedia Foundation board noticeboard:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Disc…
it is abundantly clear that the Foundation intends to use the same
approach
in this year's December fundraiser. Banners
observed in testing earlier
this month still used the same wording, despite last year's controversy.
So, as things stand, fundraising banners and emails in December will once
again tell readers that they must donate money to "keep Wikipedia online
and ad-free", "keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year", "keep
the
sum of all human knowledge available for everyone" etc., rather than
telling them where the lion's share of the money actually goes. In this
method of fundraising, there is no accountability to the donor.
Does the unpaid volunteer community really agree with this? Has there
ever
been a Request for Comment to find out?
According to the annual plan, the Foundation's revenue target for the
2015-2016 financial year is $73 million. (Note that the Foundation took
several million more last year than the publicised target.)
We are now at the end of August. If we don't want to have the same
fruitless conversation in December in 2015 that we had in December 2014,
and the Decembers before, I suggest now is the time to do something about
it.
Let's do our best to ensure that this year's main fundraiser will be an
honest one, consistent with the letter and spirit of the fundraising
principles: open, honest and transparent about the Foundation's finances,
and what it has done and will do with donors' money.
This is what ethical charities do.
I would suggest that Lila's introduction to the 2015/2016 plan would be a
good place to begin:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan#Lila.27s_Foreword
The tens of millions of dollars the Foundation aims to collect this
financial year can potentially do a lot of good. But shouldn't we try to
make sure they're not collected under false pretences? You can't build
anything of lasting value on a rotten foundation.
Andreas
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:35 PM, rupert THURNER <
rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
dear board,
allow me to directly ask you to stop these fundraising persons to spoil
wiki loves monuments because of less than intelligent KPIs. WMF cannot
and
should not behave like an elephant in the
porcelain shop. there is a
simple
technical solution to the problem below, to have
a combined banner for
WLM
> and donation. it is impossible that more money at stake as is covered
by
> the reserves, isn't it? i am really
lacking words here ... the only
ones
i
could find would not be compliant with the
friendly space policy. if we
as
movement do not follow through the
"volunteer first" rule than it is
better
> to dissolve WMF, or split it in two parts, one holding the rights to
the
> web URLs, i.e. right to banner, the other
one employing all the people
> doing some work.
>
> best,
> rupert
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <
zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> Sorry for the long mail but we wanted to explain the situation for
> Wikimedia Italia.
> The conversation is going on and it's better to clear some important
> points.
>
> In the second week of August Wikimedia Italia has been contacted by
> Kalliope Tsouroupidou and later by Jessica Robell, who explained that
the
> Wikimedia Foundation was planning to have a
fundraising campaign in
Italy
> in September.
> We have been surprised by that, since Wiki Loves Monuments is
well-known
> to
> > run in September, and it has been like that for years.
> > Moreover, there has been a similar clash in 2014: we discussed for
> several
> > days, and in the end we reached a compromise, and the FR banners went
> live
> > just for the last days.
> > It was not perfect, but we had WLM banners for almost all September.
> > This year the clash is on the whole month of September. Given the
> history,
> > and the very fact that Wikimedia Italia has planned WLM and written
so
in
> the FDC application, we feel that WMIT has
not been negligible in
matters
> > of
> > communication.
> > We are not *happy* with the situation,
> > the very existence of the clash, the fact that all this appeared in
the
>
middle of August, while we were all on holiday and just few weeks
before
> > the beginning of WLM.
> > We just decided not to pick up a fight, as we believe in constructive
> > conversation and negotiation.
> > The agreement we reached is very painful for WMIT and WLM: it's just
> better
> > than not having the banners at all, or to have them for just a few
days
> in
> > the middle of September.
> > Conversations with the FR team has been firm, but polite: this does
not
mean that we are happy about what is happening.
Moreover, we will have to discuss with FDC to renegotiate expected
results
for WLM in 2015.
Having the fundraising campaign in September in Italy has a clear
negative
> impact on Wiki Loves Monuments, the largest project of Wikimedia
Italia.
> This will not only likely reduce the number
of participants and
uploaded
> > pictures, but will also put us in a difficult position in front of
our
sponsors and partners, including 200+ municipalities,
100+ cultural
institutions, and some major partners, like FIAF (the Federation of
Italian
photographers' associations), ICOM (the
International Council of
Museums),
> the Toscana Foto Festival (a major photo festival), Touring Club
Italiano
(the
largest Italian touristic association), and others. WMIT spends
thousands of euros in WLM each year - not because we waste money, but
because we have higher stakes.
This year, we will have in the Italian Jury international renowned
photographers like (prabably: yet to be confirmed) Steve McCurry (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McCurry) and Franco Fontana (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Fontana).
This year, in June, we were received by several politicians from the
Italian Parliament for an official meeting regarding the law we are
fighting
as WMIT.
Because of the specific challenges we face, WLM in Italy goes beyond
being
a photographic competition and is also an
opportunity to create
relationships and advocate for the freedom of taking pictures of
monuments.
>
> Italy does not have "freedom of panorama".
> Worst, Italy does not have freedom of panorama for any kind of
monuments,
> even if copyright has expired.
> We need to ask for permission to make pictures of monuments. For.
Every.
Monument.
We have to create lists of monuments to be photographed. There is no
official list of monuments in Italy.
There is *extensive* documentation here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Italian_cultural_heritage_on_the_Wikimedia_…
This is very important to know to put in perspective WLM Italy stats:
http://stats.wikilovesmonuments.cl/italy. As an example, it is the
reason
why we have so many participants who contribute
for few pics each. In
2014
> alone, we had 1038 uploaders, but we were only 6th in terms of number
of
> photos.
>
> The global fundraising is essential to our movement.
> It funds Wikipedia operations, software development, the Wikimedia
> Foundation, many chapters and affiliates, and, of course, also Wiki
Loves
> > Monuments (even tough in Italy it is primarily funded from other
> sources).
> > The global fundraising is meant to support the Wikimedia movement:
but,
for
> this very reason, it is a pity to have it clashing to one of the very
> activities it is meant to support.
> Especially since we are not talking about a 2 hours editathon in a
small
> library in the middle of nowhere, but about
an international
competition
> who ended up in the Guinnes World Records,
bringing thousands of
pictures
> to the Wikimedia projects.
> We understand that fundraising is not an easy job, especially when it
is
> done on a global level. Yet we feel obliged
to use donors money to
build
> and deliver the best projects we can:
firstly out of respect for all
the
> > people who decided to donate their time, their money or their career
to
> the
> > movement; secondly because a badly executed projects could also have
a
negative impact on the next fundraising campaigns.
We are all part of the same movement: the work of the WMF fundraising
team
is strictly linked to that of the community. We
would like to be
confident
> that what is happening now won't happen for a third time, and that in
the
> > future we will be able to communicate more effectively and work more
> > collaboratively.
> > We really are looking forward a more effective cooperation with WMF
and
> all
> > other Wikimedia Affiliates: collaboration is the very pillar of all
the
Wikimedia movement.
We would like to thank all the people who supported us and gave us
opinions
> and advices on this mailing list and elsewhere.
> We are very proud to be part of such a great community, and we would
like
> > to see it become wider and bigger.
> >
> > Andrea Zanni
> > for the board of Wikimedia Italia
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>