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
> > > > 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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