[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money
On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 16:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I have asked before who sets these "required" amounts, and who directs staff > to continue fundraising well after publicised targets are met. I have not > received > a straight answer. Where, please, does the buck, literally, stop? Who has the > final word? How can the latter be anyone but the board? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/44LKLBAEOTODQU5ZRDUF2DKCYF4BRNWQ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money
Hi Guillaume, Thanks for a thoughtful, perceptive, enlightening and multidimensional post that's been a pleasure to read. I think we grow as people when we can see things from more than one perspective, and there is much in your post that is worth pondering. I will try to add some complementary perspectives in this post. There are two – closely related – assumptions in your mail that strike me as particularly worthy of being examined. First, you say, "as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to advance our mission". I would argue that this is not something that you objectively "need", but something that you "want". Which leads me directly into the second assumption, underlying your assertion that your co-workers "have literally spent years doing A/B tests to soften the tone and figure out the least alarming language possible to raise the required amounts. All that while enduring constant criticism of their work. They are heroes." The key word here is "required". You present your colleagues as people trapped in a system where they are condemned to desperate efforts to, as you say, figure out the "least alarming language" that will "do the trick" (while not getting them hated on too much). That means you are looking at the question of banner wording from one end only (one anchor, to use the phraseology you introduced in your post): whatever amount is "required" this year. In doing so, you tacitly accept and endorse the need for "alarming language" – you're effectively saying that reducing it to the level of the "least alarming language" possible is all your team can be asked to do, and enough to fulfil their ethical responsibilities. This isn't right. You are unmoored from the other end of the equation, i.e. to what extent the fundraising banners would still be considered consistent with your actual financial situation by an average person in full possession of the facts. This unmooring is how you end up, year after year, based on your A/B testing, with messages that prominently paint a picture of Wikipedia being threatened. These messages have been about "keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free", impressing on people the need to make "a donation this Sunday" so the WMF can "continue to protect Wikipedia's independence", and so on. They work not because donors share your ideas about the ever more comprehensive and costly global mission the WMF has set itself, but because they love Wikipedia and would not like to see it fail or disappear. It's as simple as that. You also elided the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation, in the 2020/2021 financial year alone, took at least $65M, but perhaps as much as $85M more from donors than its own budget "required": – Actual takings were $157M+ for the Foundation[1] and $40M? for the Endowment (the Endowment stood at $62.9M on July 1 2020[2] and has now exceeded $100M, as we've just been told; the June 30 2021 year-end figure is still not available, as you still haven't published the fourth-quarter tuning session deck). – Revenue targets at the beginning of the financial year were $108M for the Foundation and $5M for the Endowment.[3] Clearly, the budgeted amounts could have been taken with "less alarming" language. I have asked before who sets these "required" amounts, and who directs staff to continue fundraising well after publicised targets are met. I have not received a straight answer. Where, please, does the buck, literally, stop? Who has the final word? And are Advancement managers' salaries, which appear to have a startling upward mobility (just like the CEO salary in the past five years), indeed tied to increases in Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Endowment and Wikimedia Enterprise revenue? Do you use such incentives? I would really appreciate it if you could be open about these questions. I don't think they are unreasonable questions to ask a donor-funded organisation that regularly takes public pride in its transparency. Elsewhere in your post you speak eloquently about the urgency of your global mission. I would encourage you to base your fundraising messages around this vision. Then people will know what you want the money for, and the funds will be used the way donors imagined they would. I assure you that to many people's minds this is not currently the case. This tweet had over 1,750 likes and nearly 1,000 retweets, at a time when there were no English fundraising banners on display: https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1399236909495328771 It speaks to this. The fundraising is part of a pattern. Throughout WMF history, there have been ethical lapses and stark management failures at the Foundation and its subsidiaries. This is an opinion shared, I believe, even by a good number of WMF staff. Off the top of my head, I would count among such lapses: – Jimbo's early indiscretions, – the Stanton Foundation/Belfer Center affair and the handover of the Kazakh Wikipedia to a repressive regime, – Gibraltarpedia, – ignoring the fascist
[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money
Dear Guillame, as well as others who may share his position: I write as a partial rebuttal to a number of points within your response. "In it, we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably require an annual budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion dollar" Much of this is premised not on direct spending for our projects, our editors, or even a reasonable growth rate for the endowment. Instead it is an attempt to resolve knowledge equity on a global scale by transferring huge sums of money outside Wikimedia. This despite the fact that the strategy recommendations have dubious binding power in general, having never undergone a consensus method. But in the case of knowledge equity it's even more dubious, as it's a recommendation that had unanimous stated disagreement on the actual recommendation. The WMF seems to take them as a given, which since they were responsible for the close, would inherently make them INVOLVED. Beyond that, the first tranche of donations, huge donations, to external projects this year did not notify the broad community of this, did not take on full community feedback as to a) whether we should do this at all, or b) whether these particular efforts were wise/cost-efficient etc. You say that the fundraising team has done years of A/B testing, but while they do a fantastic job at raising money, it clearly *isn't* set for the lowest level of alarmist needed to raise the necessary sum of money. The necessary sum of money is what's been set as the budget for the year. If you want that budget to be forward-facing, increase the target budget. Instead we smash past it, which demonstrates highly effective fundraising abilities, but that the dial for acceptable alarmism is way too high. I am an OTRS/VRT agent, and some of the tidal wave of tickets we get as a result of this phrasing make me consider resigning the position every Nov-December, when the bulk come in. "denying ourselves the resources we need is harmful" Not doubt, but you're defining "need" (not, would find beneficial [if you can prove that]) and "we" (not somewhat aligned organisations) without having got Community agreement for a mass expansion of these definitions. If you genuinely believe that these are needed, then the banners should be reading "we need to get up to $1 billion/year fundraising, with roughly 1/8th to actually maintain our projects, and 7/8 to support a variety of external projects in different countries to encourage knowledge acquisition". Just because it's effective doesn't mean you're allowed to use alarmist language unless it is 100% accurate in every facet. I have told the state of our finances and the use of money to a number of non-wikipedians, and about 75% cease donating, at least for that fundraising wave. If the language were correct, then I shouldn't be able to convince *anyone*. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DX2H6PEHENLQ4MPQKYDH2VNJJOKNBNGP/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money
> > > > So now we're left with how we raise money, and the common complaints about > the size, frequency, and tone of fundraising banners. The argument is that > fundraising messages use unduly alarmist language, and that donors are > therefore misled into thinking that Wikimedia is facing imminent danger. I > do believe that not enough credit is given to the people who craft those > messages in banners and emails. These people care an extraordinary amount > about doing the "right thing." They have literally spent years doing A/B > tests to soften the tone and figure out the least alarming language > possible to raise the required amounts. All that while enduring constant > criticism of their work. They are heroes. > > But beyond that, there is also a real sense of urgency that the most vocal > of us here generally do not sense. There are very real threats to our > mission, much closer in time than we imagine. [5] Assuming that, just > because we've been around and successful for 20 years, we'll be around and > just as successful for the next 20, is wishful thinking underpinned by > normalcy bias. [6] > > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2018_Revenue_strategy/Summary > [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias > Stressing the good will and effort of the people who craft these messages to do the right thing is important. That doesn't make the outcome beyond reproach though. Questioning the outcome doesn't have to involve questioning the good will and effort of these people. Getting the impression that questioning the outcome in some way makes people believe it questions the good will and effort of these people is hurtful. Without going in to that point too far, is there data on whether the perception of donors about the financial situation of the foundation reflects reality, what donors think the WMF spends money on vs what it spends it on, and perceptions vs reality of after how much time which projects would go black without new funding. I have the anecdotal impression these lay pretty far apart, but anecdotal impressions don't make data. If we don't at least have a common understanding of those facts, we can argue about this for another two decades without coming any closer to an understanding. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/72J4E7BLNJRXNQ75PBEE6RBAPNBEW6VB/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money
Mentioning the first two points can be either red herring or an interesting digression to read, I'll opt for the second interpretation. The International Committee of the Red Cross had a global budget of $1.6 > billion in 2016. > Quite a rilevant comparison, I'd say. Discussions on this mailing list and elsewhere are a classic example of the > concept of voice, as formalized by Albert Hirschman in his work on > responses to decline in organizations. [4] We are unhappy with a decision > but reluctant to simply exit the group, either because we don't > see an alternative, or because of the sunk costs of emotional investment, > or because of the sense of identity that comes with belonging to the group, > or because ultimately we can live with the decision. And so, with exit not > available as an option, we use our voice instead, even though it has proved > to only have a very limited effect on making different decisions. (And also > because we *do* love to argue.) > "Cope or go away" in this context is interesting rather than simply rude highlighting some widespread misconception about what is the most interesting part of the Wiki-ecosystem for the majority of people around. So now we're left with how we raise money, and the common complaints about > the size, frequency, and tone of fundraising banners. The argument is that > fundraising messages use unduly alarmist language, and that donors are > therefore misled into thinking that Wikimedia is facing imminent danger. I > do believe that not enough credit is given to the people who craft those > messages in banners and emails. These people care an extraordinary amount > about doing the "right thing." They have literally spent years doing A/B > tests to soften the tone and figure out the least alarming language > possible to raise the required amounts. All that while enduring constant > criticism of their work. They are heroes. > They don't do the "right thing", instead, they do the "most effective thing". Also, * to raise the required amounts* is not true, given that targets were always exceeded. > if we look beyond privileged communities and we strive to make up for > historical oppression. The modesty of financial ambitions reflects a > certain privilege and ignores the vast resources required to actually focus > on communities left out by structures of power and privilege. If we are to > live up to our commitment to epistemic justice, we must give ourselves the > financial means to do so. The longer the injustice persists, the more > compounding harm is done. Our work *is* urgent, even if it's not the same > urgency that drives donors. > There we go with this strawman, once again. Totally unrelated to how donations are asked, definitely unrelated to how funds are currently allocated. Summing up a long, brilliant, essay to justify ambiguity in banners. Vito ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DHJBMN7ZURCCSCJFYI6XVJPRFTNPKM2X/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money
Hoi,
Thank you for your reply. I am grateful for the insight that you offered
and find that my notions have mostly aligned. They will align even more as
I consider it further.
There is one other aspect that you miss.. probably quite deliberately.
There are those that consider that Wikipedia is all that counts and English
Wikipedia at that. You find it in the reply "is there a commitment to
saveguard Wikidata", it is however widespread. I find that I have no more
tolerance for the "Wikipedia only" attitude. Yes, the consensus in English
Wikipedia can be what it may but when it is stupid, the consensus is
stupid. It takes good arguments to convince me otherwise.
When you then consider that the cost of "any nine year old child can find
pictures in Commons" has a cost of less than 25.000 Euro. It is mostly
evangelism and separating the existing code from the existing search
functionality. Just consider, with such functionality available, it will be
easier to raise funds globally. What will be left of the 25K is enough to
add functionality to find a building, a tree, a fireman and an ambulance
that is local.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 22:51, Guillaume Paumier
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>
> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve the
> same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating in
> those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>
> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue
> generation) tend to stem from three main sources:
> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
> * improper means used to raise money.
>
> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any
> relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've
> been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is
> inextricably woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should
> only raise the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything
> more is an attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.
>
> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software
> community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around
> paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be
> done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But
> let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more
> fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>
> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who
> remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we
> can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>
> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get
> to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is
> also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board
> understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they
> directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be
> able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members
> of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
> understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding
> question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Revenue_Streams#Guiding_Questions
>
> People who attended the meeting of strategy working groups in Berlin in
> early 2018 might remember a thought exercise led by the Revenue Streams
> group. In it, we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably
> require an annual budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion
> dollars. There is nothing intrinsically outrageous about that amount, as
> long as the money advances the mission efficiently and equitably. The
> International Committee of the Red Cross had a global budget of $1.6
> billion in 2016.
>
> And that's the heart of the argument about fundraising goals; it's less
> about how much we raise,
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members
Hoi, Facts are in and of themselves not copyrightable. Collections of data may be copyrighted.We choose not to and as a result Wikidata is the powerhouse that it has become.The CC-by-sa license is our license of choice for Wikipedia however, the way it has been enforced so far has been defensive, we are quite happy when our material is used. At Wikidata we are long past the point where the majority of the data is from a Wikipedia. From day one Wikidata has provided essential services to every Wikipedia, Wikidata can provide superior services to Wikipedia. Because like Commons, we have to maintain the data only once and have it available everywhere. Wikidata is instrumental in sychronising death information among our projects. It has been shown over and over again to have more complete information as can be found in Wikipedia lists and categories. Wikipedians choose to stick with their arguably substandard practices. The notion that a Google or an Amazon are not capable of extracting facts from a Wikipedia is silly. They have the capacity and the skills and the software to do just that. Wikidata provides them additional information making their information more complete. They have their reasons to be model citizens and contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation. We now provide paid for services to them making their bot activity less of a strain to our services and provide them a (paid for) service. Thanks, GerardM On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 04:32, The Cunctator wrote: > Sorry for not being explicit; the connection is that protection of > copyleft would be inconvenient to major endowment donors such as Google and > Amazon. WikiData is a Wikimedia project that converts copylefted content > into (what Wikimedia asserts to be) copyright-free content. > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Mabbett > wrote: > >> On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 19:27, The Cunctator wrote: >> >> > It's really disappointing to me that the Structured Data work has been >> used to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft. >> >> 1. Your message has nothing to do with the endowment >> >> 2. You offer no evidence that "the Structured Data work has been used >> to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft." >> >> 3. You do not explain what you mean by "blow up Wikipedia's copyleft." >> >> If you wish to discuss copyright and/or structured data, please start >> a new thread; and be clear there about the point you wish to make. >> >> -- >> Andy Mabbett >> @pigsonthewing >> https://pigsonthewing.org.uk >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ME3ZHE4EKPUG6XA3N53YWGZMCE7XBZKN/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWN3E4ORWWLDHQ7PBX675KBQV5BAUPBV/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BN5BMT6YPILRPMZJQX4MJQDUL7DXP7BV/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
