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 <lodew...@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 <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 > > > > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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 > > > Wikimediaemail@example.com > > > 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 > > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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 > Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>