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 <jayen...@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#Discussion_of_fundraising_ethics
>
> 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#Discussion_of_fundraising_ethics
>
> 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.thur...@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.andre...@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_projects
> > >
> > > 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to