Besides what readers think when they're fully informed, I'm also concerned
about the legal issues surrounding the fundraising. IANAL, but I have a
feeling that consumer protection attorneys may take an interest if they
feel that there is a meaningful disconnect between what messages FR conveys
and (1) how the funds are actually spent and/or (2) the overall financial
health of WMF. Let's avoid inflicting legal costs and PR damage on
ourselves, please. (:


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Lisa Gruwell <>
> wrote:
> > So, we have drilled down on this more in our research to better
> > understand what our readers think on this topic.  We should have more to
> > share on that in a week or two.
> >
> What readers think about this topic will very much depend on what
> information they have been given.
> You need to find out what readers think who know
> 1. the cost of Internet hosting relative to the total budget (about 3
> percent);
> 2. that you took five times as much money last year as you took five years
> ago;
> 3. how much money the Foundation has in cash and investments;
> 4. that the number of paid staff has increased more than twentyfold since
> 2007;
> 5. how the vastly increased spending is affecting reader experience.
> Do you know what readers who know all of this think about the banners? Have
> there been focus groups with donors who were given all of this information?
> This is necessary to make sure that when (not if) readers do find all of
> this information out, there won't be a storm of protest from people who
> feel they were misled as to the Foundation's financial situation.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to