Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196

RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign
Are the WMF's banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign appropriate? If they are not, what changes need to be made before the campaign can start?

Note that due to the WMF not providing a complete listing only four examples are available; a sampling of banners run by the WMF between September and November 2022 may be indicative of what content the other banners will contain. 05:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

See below for comment from the WMF.

Survey (2022 fundraising banners)
If opposing, please specify what changes need to be made to the banners before the campaign can start.
 * Satisfied (the phrasing of the RfC feels...odd. Anything that isn't an "oppose" is inherently a support, as that's what the default is) - while there are changes I would like, and the tone is somewhat "whiny" through the repeated recalls, it is a significant improvement over those of the past year or two. The desktop ones are not as drastic visually (though the mobile ones are), and the text is not indicative of imminent bankruptcy as it was, which is also a significant improvement. I'd advise those "opposing" to split their changes into "what are the minimum changes do I need to not oppose" and "what changes should be made, in toto". Nosebagbear (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you know where examples of previous banners and emails can be found? It'd be nice to compare them side by side for those of us who weren't involved in this last year; I can draw an idea of what about the wording I don't like, but I don't know what's changed from previous years and what hasn't.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 22:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * might help. Seddon talk 23:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The basic problem I have remains unchanged: the implication that money donated is primarily for the day-to-day upkeep of Wikipedia when, in fact, the money is used at the behest of the WMF board, only some of the uses which include Wikipedia. Far, far more is raised and requested than is actually used directly on Wikipedia sites. The board ought to be free to argue in favor of the WMF's nebulous "movement" expenses, the opaque financial relationship with Tides, the poorly documented payroll bloat that has little to do directly with Wikipedia, and fattening the Endowment, but those uses should be directly laid out to donors, not hidden behind "keeping Wikipedia independent." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I did not initially address that and only looked at the financial plea, I fully support @Bilorv 's follow-up about including other ways that people can make Wikipedia better besides money. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose all banners. Where to begin? 5P1 says that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Donors' money goes, it seems, towards the Tides Foundation, though transparency over WMF donations is decreasing. The use of donations is not made clear in these banners, which say things like: If you donate just $2.75, or whatever you can this Tuesday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years. The price of a cup of coffee is all we need. This is a lie. If every reader donated just $2.75 then next year we'd see a banner saying "If every person reading this donated just $5.50, our fundraising campaign would be over". It is already true from a financial perspective that Wikipedia could keep thriving for years if the WMF's money was decimated (literally, divided by 10). These banners provably guilt people into donating money they would be better off keeping for their own living costs. The English Wikipedia serves a large number of readers worldwide, many of whom live in countries where incomes are much smaller than the U.S. Even for donations within the U.S. and similar countries, many readers are pressured to give more than they should. Read Thomas' comment here: meta:Talk:Fundraising/Archive_6 I have heard from those that run OTRS that these messages are commonplace, though Thomas' was a rare on-wiki one.  More fundamentally, the nature of banners asking readers to donate misinforms them about how they can support Wikipedia. We have a crisis of lack of admins. We have a crisis of small bus factors in areas from NPP to bot maintenance. We have a crisis of editor retention. The principal way that a reader can support a wiki is by editing. Where are the editor recruitment banners? With our numbers in decline and malicious agents (UPE) on the rise, there has never been a more harmful time for our website to seemingly promote donation of money as the primary way in which readers can support Wikipedia.  The Wikimedia Foundation has exceeded its Endowment target. Why are they actively fundraising? What is the target amount for the current fundraising period, which group of volunteers has undersigned the target, and when will the fundraising end? Until the en.wiki community actively endorse the WMF's fundraising target, there should be no banners on our website. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the example banners are an improvement over previous years they do contain some problematic content and the sample banners are worse. In the example banners, key issues are the implication that Wikipedia is under threat; these are less explicit than in previous years, but need to be removed entirely (humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia, please take a minute to secure [Wikipedia's] future by making a donation, This day we ask you to help us sustain Wikipedia). The sample banners also present worse examples of this, like humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia’s independence. A similar issue is with the implication in some banners that Wikipedia might need to resort to advertising or a subscription service to remain online if donations fall. This can be seen prominently in the sample banners which say things like We don’t charge a subscription fee, and Wikipedia is sustained by the donations of only 2% of our readers. Without reader contributions, big or small, we couldn’t run Wikipedia the way we do., but it can also be seen in the example banners which say We don't run ads, and we never have ... Without reader contributions, we couldn’t run Wikipedia the way we do. I also oppose the section on Here’s what your donation enables:; given the issues we have had receiving support from the WMF in key areas such as New Page Patrol and WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU it seems dishonest to place so much focus on improvements the WMF make to Wikipedia and the support the WMF provides for volunteers.  The banners should also make clear the distinction between the WMF and Wikipedia; one of the sample banners did this (we humbly ask you to support the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia.), and I believe all banners should do the same.  Finally, the WMF said that in response to editor concerns they no longer use the term 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. As such, it is disappointing that they continue to use phrase 98% of our readers don't give; they keep reading, which is functionally identical. BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , (who asked a similar question below): Thanks for flagging this. The “98% of readers don’t give…” sentence has been removed from all banners. This was an error in copying that we provided to Julia and has been corrected. Thank you. SPatton_(WMF) 19:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That at least fixes one of my issues with it. could you answer the question in my 2nd comment below in the discussion section? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find the updated example of the small mobile banner; the one linked at WP:VPM still contains the 98% language. Can you link the updated example? BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, here is the update banner. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've updated the RfC examples. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having seen the changes the WMF has made to the most recent round of test banners I don't consider the issues raised with the banners to have been addressed. I also endorse the objections on grounds other than banner content that other editors have made. BilledMammal (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On banner format, I will add that I oppose the small desktop banner and the large mobile banner as being too disruptive to the reader; the small desktop banner violates MOS:SANDWICH, and the large mobile banner is simply too large, requiring the reader to scroll several page lengths to get to content.
 * I also oppose the sticky banners on the same general grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to all banners – I haven't got the time to break them down at the minute, but the retention of guilt-tripping language and insinuations that we're desperately grasping onto the 2% of people who donate (because "most people decide they will but then forget" – hard citation needed on that fact) is still plain, with the desperate insinuations being the worst thing. This is a fundraiser for Wikipedia – this is a fundraiser for the WMF. The decision to paint this as funding "Wikipedia" and not "all the institutions the WMF oversees" is insidious; I can see how painting it as 'Wikipedia' is more of a draw, donations-wise, but that doesn't make it okay. Wikimedia Commons? Wikisource? Who uses those? (Rhetorically.) But  The average user, reading just the lead of any article while sat on the toilet (guilty), isn't going to care about those. The others can go hang; put the words "Wikipedia relies on just 2% of its users to survive in this cold, cruel world" and "I Vow To Thee My Wiki" starts playing in people's heads (and wallets). We could be highlighting the very important  work that the WMF does (and should do more of). Above all else, all minor points about wording, the guilt-tripping over Wikipedia being in danger, when all it is in danger of is the WMF hoarding money and tossing us a shilling now and then, has to go. It's unacceptable to keep that in and attempt to fundraise in good faith, when it is not true.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 23:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Edit: I've had some more time to look over the banners. I'd  like to know what $2.75 of knowledge looks like – half a paragraph and one quarter of an image, maybe? I'd  very much like there to be wider explanation of what "Support for volunteers" looks like; how does our funding go towards that? I want an explicit explanation, or else it continues to give the false impression that we in some way receive money occasionally for editing. We don't. It'd be nice to be paid for trawling through articles and endlessly updating formatting, templates and syntax, but we aren't.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 13:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed the average reader won't have heard of commons. But if a donor were to query it and be told that most of the images that they see on Wikipedia are actually stored on Commons, I suspect they'd accept that as a legit cost of keeping Wikipedia going.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  23:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm certain they would; I wouldn't doubt that. There's just a real lack of emphasis on what the WMF does from Wikipedia, and it's really a shame.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 13:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of the things that the WMF spends money on are hard to defend as either an agreed part of its mission or justified by its appeal to keep Wikipedia going. But given the cost of running Commons and its close relationship with Wikipedia, I don't think we can criticise them for running Commons with money raised for Wikipedia. Going back to our hypothetical casual reader who never gets past the lede, if commons was deleted that user would suddenly notice they were seeing far fewer images on Wikipedia (disclosure, I have about twice as many edits on commons as I have on Wikipedia).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, my point isn't criticising them for running the Commons – sorry, I should've clarified. What I meant was that the WMF puts a strong emphasis on Wikipedia in its fundraising, but its other projects – including the Commons, Wikisource, all of that – don't get enough of a look in, in terms of "hey, we also run these other extremely important things too" sentiments in fundraising drives.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 11:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully oppose all fundraising on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's servers cost around £2 million a year. WMF's assets are over £230 million. See the 2021 Audit Report. If the existing assets are invested, then Wikipedia could run till the end of time and live comfortably off the investment returns with plenty to spare. However, WMF staff costs are nearly £68 million, and there's money thrown around in all directions, very little of which has anything to do with Wikipedia itself. The fundraising has nothing to do with keeping Wikipedia going, it is about making WMF richer and more powerful. WMF can fundraise elsewhere - not here. We should make clear that Wikipedia is about truth, transparency, and honesty. It's not about raising money for an already disturbingly rich organisation that has very little to do with the creation and running of Wikipedia. We should not accept any banners that give the impression that Wikipedia needs money. We don't. That's dishonest. So, we should say no to WMF's fundraising here.  SilkTork (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I predict the most contentious ad used will not be one of the four listed above, instead it will be one we weren't warned of in advance. But of these I'd like to point out some obvious mistakes. We don't count our audience in millions, we count it in the hundreds of millions (over the course of a year, I suspect over a thousand million people will read some of the content of our sites). The WMF is selling us short. We don't share our knowledge - we are not Quora. We actually try to avoid having people come here to share their knowledge. This is not a site for veterans of the Gulf War to give their accounts of putting out burning oil wells, we are here to summarise and curate the world's published knowledge. If the WMF understood the difference between that and "sharing our knowledge" I suspect there would be a better relationship between the paid and volunteer parts of the community. On a practical note, emphasising that the normal thing is not to give money normalises the behaviour of not giving money. If I were writing such ads I would not normalise not giving unless with the caveat that our mission is global, many of our readers are in countries where $2.75 is a lot of money, but if you are in that small minority of people worldwide who can afford to give us $25 we'd really appreciate it. In other words, make people feel good about being one of the few who can pick up the tab for all of us.  Lastly, as far as I'm aware, money spent by the WMF to support the volunteers who write and curate Wikipedia is such a small part of the budget that it is a bit misleading to include it so prominently in an ad (unless of course the WMF plans to usefully expand this such as by funding legal actions against those of its friends in big tech who don't honour the conditions of CC-BY-SA when reusing our work).  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  23:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The implication that Wikipedia survives on donations, rather than editors, is as bad for Wikipedia as it is for the misled donors: People committed to supporting the project, who might otherwise have become regular editors, instead make donations that won't even go to improve the content. Wikipedia misses out on vital volunteers, and could-be-editors miss out on a rewarding hobby. The banner should say "If Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to share  $2.57 worth of knowledge back."small jars  23:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose all banners above as unethical bullshit. An honest one would start by pointing out the assets the WMF already has, and an admission that the funds aren't needed to maintain 'Wikipedia’s independence', since it isn't remotely under threat. At least, not from anything that the WMF adding to its pile of loot would rectify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's downright immoral that every year the WMF deludes users with limited incomes into thinking Wikipedia is on the verge of insolvency ("If you donate just $2.75...Wikipedia could keep thriving for years"), implying Wikipedia is somehow going to die if the readers don't pay up, despite the fact that hosting is a minority of the WMF's spending, with most of it going to grants and executive compensation. Everybody I've ever talked to who gave money to Wikipedia believed that 1. Wikipedia needed the money to survive, and 2. the money was benefiting the Wikipedia administrators (you know, the people who actually edit the site). Both of those falsehoods are directly and deliberately implied by the wording of these banners, which suggest that donation money pays for "Support for the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day", "support" being a weasel word intentionally chosen so donators will think the money is somehow directly benefiting WP contributors (and what's with the mention of "sharing [volunteers'] knowledge"? I thought original research wasn't allowed here.) The WMF budget tells a different story than the flashy, obtrusive banners: as of June 30, 2022, the WMF generated $154.68 million in income, of which $2.7 million (1.7%) was spent on hosting: almost equal to the $2.7 million they gave out in executive salaries as of the end of the 2020 financial year. Wikipedia is clearly in no great financial danger (and could probably run for a couple decades on just the WMF's current financial assets and giant endowment), and yet the WMF insists on guilt-tripping ("Please, don’t ignore this message") its vulnerable readers ("Only 2% of our readers give.") into giving their hard-earned money to the Tax Exempt Executive Compensation Machine. I oppose these banners because they're clearly designed to generate profits, not communicate the truth. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 23:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Satisfied I'll repeat much of I said on the talk page. I've experienced being a fundraiser first hand, and in my case I've specifically done fundraising as a job at the WMF in the past (currently a WMF Engineering Manager). It is incredibly easy as an observer to simply say "it should read like this instead" but creating and designing fundraising messaging that works is incredibly challenging. Even with decades of combined experience, minor changes can result in profoundly unexpected consequences. It is an actual science as it should be, and it requires an iterative approach to be successful. We can't expect the to WMF tear up its messaging and halt on a dime in a way that simply isn't compatible with that iterative testing. Fundraising messaging by committee (or in this case, consensus) just doesn't work.
 * For this RfC to have a genuinely productive way forward, it should seek to propose a full suite of possible changes and variations than can then be tested rather than trying to cement a messaging that requires sign-off by consensus. That way we can help the WMF carve a path forward that leverages that iterative approach rather than simply throws a road block which works against it. Spending the time to clearly identify concerns, come up with a whole host of ideas and then give the team the time to test them. If those fail, we propose more. And we keep at it: carving a way forward, being accountable and testing more and more. That way we a fundraising campaign that is both effective and matches the needs and expectations of the community in messaging that represents us. I genuinely believe that can be a productive and effective approach for bringing about change.
 * Trying to create and then enforce consensus without any informed testing, is a destination filled with nought but disappointment and failure. I don't think it has to be like that. We, as a community, have been in far more dire circumstances and even then avoided such over-the-cliff-edge approaches. It is a lever that should only be flipped in the most extreme of circumstances and we simply aren't there. Let's gives ourselves time to think and be smart about this, be creative, and then give the WMF time to get to work based on our collective input.
 * Regarding some of the specifics brought up, whilst there is always room for improvement in the specifics. I whole heartedly disagree that the intent in the messaging is immoral or no longer appropriate:
 * Supporting and growing the foundations budget with small donors does protect its independence and our communities ability to full OUR own mission rather than someone else's. Large numbers of non-profits of our size frequently end up being in receipt of large amounts of government or other foundation grants, and can often become the majority income source for a charity. That results in organisations chasing funding and loosing a focus on mission. The effect is a pseudo-erosion of a charities independence. Keeping a strong small donor base as the majority source of our funding is core to maintaining the independence of websites and projects etc. (addendum: especially when diversifying funding)
 * A good chunk work is focused on keeping Wikipedia online. Denial of service is a huge threat to all websites and combatting that really is about keeping us online and we've invested hugely in that area and its still a massive challenge. But that challenge is no longer just technical one. It's not just about keeping a handful of servers running. For much of the last decade its also been about keeping the legislative and regulatory environment conducive to our continued existence and remain accessible to our end users. Whether it be things like section 230 in the US, or challenging governments like Turkey who have in the past denied access. That really is all about keeping us online and available.
 * It's really hard and a big challenge in trying to keep messaging accessible and concise, and the result will always result in ambiguity in wording with multiple interpretations. Seddon talk 23:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The WMF is in an excellent financial position. It does not need donations from private individuals and therefore ought not to be begging money off them.—S Marshall T/C
 * (Later) I think the key takeaways for the WMF here are:
 * (1) We as a community are very accustomed to people who want to use Wikipedia for fundraising or marketing. We've developed efficient and effective processes for dealing with them.  We block them, revert them and ignore them.  We don't spend a lot of volunteering time on fundraisers or marketers because volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource.
 * (2) We as a community try to demand accuracy and verifiability. We're accustomed to deception from fundraisers and marketers -- the less professional ones lie, and the more professional ones deceive by telling people carefully-selected truths.  The word for that is paltering.  We don't tolerate it from anyone else and we shouldn't tolerate it from the WMF when they're sitting on enough money to fund them for decades.
 * (3) Below, WMF staff ask how they can adapt their fundraising banners and still hit their fundraising targets. We need to talk to the people who're setting those targets, please, not the poor people who're trying to hit them.
 * Hope this helps and clarifies.—S Marshall T/C 11:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: People aren't dumb. Most know that we are rich and are spending it recklessly. They won't donate unless we show our excellent use with their money. And guilt-tripping donors will trip us down the road. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To the WMF: you have plenty of money. But somehow Khan Academy is more effective at spreading knowledge than us. It's time to reevaluate ourselves whether we are worthy of the money. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Genuine question, by what measure is Khan Academy more effective at spreading knowledge than Wikimedia? Seddon talk 01:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per their 2020 report card, they have 27 million registrations in one year with a revenue of $52.6 million. Compare that to us, in our 21 years of existence, we have only 44 million registrations, with our revenue in 2020 is $129 million. I don't compare the page view between the two sites because KA does not make that info public, and having a KA (Khan Academy) account is different than having a WP account. KA accounts are used to save learning progress, while you can use Wikipedia whenever for whatever without needing an account. Let's see some other statistics:
 * KA in 2020 reported having 8.7 billion minutes spent on the platform. Per a third-party research in 2019, the average minutes spent on Wikipedia's readers spent 352 billion minutes total in one year. (Wikipedia is more productive)
 * KA is much more children-friendly than Wikipedia. This is because our articles are written for a general audience, though in practice articles such as Group theory are nigh impossible to understand. In contrast, KA's mission is to help children learn, so it's understandable why.
 * KA spent almost all of its money it received (52.6 - 52.3 million = 0.3 mil). In contrast we withheld a significant portion of the money (129 - 112 = $17 million).
 * Per the Skoll Foundation, KA has 100 million users viewing the page every year. We have 1.5 billion unique devices per month, though it is worth noting that KA mission is more specialized than Wikipedia.
 * CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose We just need to kill the fundraising until we actually need it. It's just making the rich richer and making the WMF seem even more like a corporate company. "If Wikipedia provided you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, please take a minute to secure its future by making a donation." just sounds like we are begging for money. Wikipedia already has a pretty secure future for the time being because guess what? The WMF is rolling in cash and does not actually need more. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, below someone from the WMF said this: "The line “98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way” has been removed". Yes you've removed it but you've pretty much just replaced it with the inverse which says "Only 2% of our readers give. Many think they’ll give later, but then forget." which is another way of saying the same exact thing. Heck, the mobile small banner still says the original line, but modified. It now says "but 98% of our readers don't give; they keep reading." which again says the same thing. If we must keep the banners then we need to just get rid of this statistic altogether as it doesn't do anything but try and guilt-trip readers. I've never even seen any actual proof provided for this statistic anyways so it could just be completely fabricated. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Blaze Wolf a real question here, how does WMF fundraising make "the rich richer"? We don't have any share structure that would feed it back to the c-suite, whose salaries are a matter of public record. Alongside that, are you indicating that they are lying about the % but telling the true about the absolute numbers? More relevantly, do remember that the staffers who post the figures are editors - and are entitled to the same protections you and I are. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (disregarding Nosebagbear's post above which I am choosing not to answer) I am pulling out of any further comments on this RFC. It's starting to just feel like a complete mess of repeating the same statements with new info and it's clogging up my notifs. If anyone needs me further in this please ping me. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer banners that don't guilt trip the reader, don't imply the WMF is frugal, and don't suggest the need is dire or urgent. Maybe something like: Levivich (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit worse imo. It sounds like we're demanding readers to donate, rather than simply asking them. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:CANCER.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1668496268560:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(proposals)" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  07:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Considering all the above, including the refusal (both now and during the trials and other fundraisings in previous months) to present all banners in advance, and considering the dreadful donation blog post (see the village pump wmf page) which continues their efforts to misuse the Wikipedia brand whenever the Wmf wants money, and considering the money wasted on stupid projects and disruptive grants, the WMF can Go Fund Themselves. Fram (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who's attacking Wikipedia? What are we supposed to be defending it from? Sorry...it's all monetized fear-mongering as far as I'm concerned. Couple that with the lack of transparency and misleading statements about where the money goes...get rid of the banners. Or just be honest about it and go with the format used in Rockstar's GTA Vice City: "If you're using Wikipedia without donating, you're stealing." Intothatdarkness 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Costs increase every year, transparency goes down. I love Wikipedia, but the endless increase in costs, money not being actually spent on Wikipedia and the lack of clarity of why a website that has about $3m hosting costs needs nearly $200m I don't understand. I am losing faith tompagenet (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this. It's a bit difficult to unpick general WMF-hating from specific concerns about the actual content of the banners in this kind of RFC. As one of the few Wikipedians who's also a professional fundraiser, I think the messaging that's used does a really good job of reflecting the Wikimedia movement in a way that's going to be comprehensible to most people. The standards of neutrality and evidence that we require for Wikipedia articles just don't apply to Wikipedia fundraising. Also, the WMF are to be applauded for doing so much work to find effective messaging that reduces the amount of time fundraising banners are displayed. The Land (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that our standards of neutrality and evidence apply to everything displayed on a rendered mainspace page.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose using Wikipedia as a cash cow on steroids to fund WMF growth through misdirecting phrases like "humbly ask you to support Wikipedia's independence" (if anything, it is the ever-expanding WMF's independence that is at issue here); "humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia" (Wikipedia is not under threat; the only thing conceivably under threat is the WMF's ability to follow through on its plans for further rapid inflation of its budget and headcount); "If Wikipedia provided you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, please take a minute to secure its future by making a donation" (it's not about Wikipedia's future, but about Wikimedia's expansion plans that it never talks about or explains or justifies on these banners); "This Monday we ask you to help us sustain Wikipedia" (ditto). The WMF more than doubles its expenditure every five years, gives millions of dollars away to external organisations via Tides Advocacy, and still regularly enjoys eight-figure annual surpluses. The insinuation that it is short of money to keep Wikipedia online or spends a lot of money on supporting volunteers feels sneaky and misleading. As S Marshall says above, it's paltering and the precise opposite of what Wikipedia at least strives to be about. --Andreas JN 466 15:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Along with all the other issues mentioned by editors above and below, this is beginning to affect Wikipedia's credibility. I've seen more and more people on external websites (pretty correctly) stating that your donations to WMF don't go to Wikipedia, and more and more people seeing WP:CANCER. The blatant advertising, guilt tripping, downright keeping facts from Wikipedia readers is absolutely ridiculous, and people are seeing it for what it is. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also feel it necessary to point out these worrying statements that the WMF felt they needed to include:
 * We ran the banners for 4 days towards the end of the campaign, and the overall result of the new banner was a 65% decrease in donations. and this exact message won't reach the revenue target for the year. Although WMF did state that there are interesting concepts to further develop, this is insane. The body owning Wikipedia values adding even more money to their piggy bank over truth. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support SunDawn's proposal below to segregate donations. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 13:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I'm also strongly opposed to all these nag-banners. If wikipedia were skint, but it's far from skint. Set up an endowment (for Wikipedia specifically) with the money you've already been given. Don't use Wikipedia to guilt-trip people into funding random schemes and political donations. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Echoing all the above points. This is really causing a loss of credibility to Wikipedia. Keep the WMF power and money grab away from Wikipedia. I thought the mission for Wikipedia was building an encyclopedia. I don't remember seeing advertisement on Brittanica encyclopedia about funding political donations. Just stop already before the damage cannot be undone. This is also highly unethical behavior given that the fundraising is not for the people or the site these ads are being shown on. Seems like a blatant power and money grab and nothing more. WP:CANCER --Molochmeditates (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - All fundraising banners should cease on Wikipedia. They're dishonest, annoying, and unnecessary.  Wikipedia has all the money it needs to fund its operations. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Asking people to donate money Wikipedia doesn't need, during an economic crisis and a huge refugee crisis, is just bullshit. But the real problem is that the yearly Fundraising campaign misleads people into thinking Wikipedia is independent and reader-supported: it is not. It receives millions from large corporations, including Amazon and Google, and has created a new "premium" API companies can sign up for. "Independent" — not. DFlhb (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The banners are not truthful regarding how the donations are spent. The only halfway truth is "Resources to help the Wikimedia Foundation advance the cause of free knowledge in the world". The banners should state what the donations are used for. — RockMFR 16:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Wikimedia Foundation's banners are socially and ethically inappropriate. The unethical part is that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing fundraising in the name of the Wikimedia community based on the trust that the public has for the Wikimedia community, but even after years of community objections, the Wikimedia Foundation has not even started a reasonable attempt at dialogue with the community about these problems. The Wikimedia Foundation has internalized and wishes to deepen a soulless mindset of a commercial corporation where money is the highest priority and any ethics can be disregarded if it increases the money, but we are a nonprofit project and activist community where we distinguish between right and wrong. There are major ethical conflicts between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community, and to continue without change would only widen those conflicts. The Wikimedia Foundation response below is oblivious to community concerns, and indeed, the Wikimedia Foundation will persist in ignorance and error until and unless it either relinquishes ethical oversight of some issues to the Wikimedia community, or the community attacks the Wikimedia Foundation to commandeer control of the ethical issues where the Wikimedia Foundation is transgressing. Some time ago the Wikimedia Foundation passed the point of ignorance and innocence and has become openly aggressive against the values and ethics of the Wikimedia community. That is becoming scary. I am on the side of democracy, community empowerment, protection of the underclass, diversity for underrepresented voices, and letting people speak for themselves. I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation chooses to join the people rather than spend donation money to suppress these voices. The steps to take to correct the error is that the Wikimedia Foundation should directly fund the Wikimedia community to organize social and ethical conversations about how to manage fundraising, and when the WMF gives this money, it should keep its staff out of those conversations, and confirm to the community that the community is free to oppose the WMF. It scares me when the WMF runs diversity programs in lower and middle income countries, and with those programs, the underrepresented minorities come out like zombies who only support the WMF, never disagree with anything, are sure that they want the WMF to speak for them, and ask for much less than empowered communities.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The basic problem is that while much of these banners are literally true, they're lying by implication and by omission.  I could go through all the other not-votes and summarize them, but I think people know the reasons already.  Also, the comments from the WMF below seem to miss the point.  It's not specific phrases that people object to, it's the ideas that Wikipedia is in danger, and that all donations directly go to maintaining Wikipedia.  The banners need a massive overhaul to be good, not just rephrasing to make it seem slightly less like Wikipedia is in danger. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Satisfied The rest of the Internet is a giant advertising machine constantly tracking you and manipulating you. Other nonprofits waste way more time and resources sucking up to megarich donors with weird agendas. The WMF runs banners for a few weeks and then basically the rest of the time we don't bother readers, because they've figured out campaigns that work. I can't imagine a better system for funding a top 10 website. Every year some group of editors wants to start a holy war over the wording or style of the banners. The real alternatives are one of two things: use banners that work less well, so we'd have to show them to more people (annoying, no thanks) or just raise less money. I think about whether we need it or not. Our goal is to give everyone on the planet a free encyclopedia. There are about 5 billion people with Internet access. We reach less than half of those people today, across all languages of Wikipedia . We need to be doing a lot more to expand access, not less. Like most people, I have gripes about how they spend the money, but cutting off the tap is like shutting down the entire government because you disagree with parts of the budget. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull;  talk  20:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per SilkTork. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, per the reasons of many others above. I would also support getting rid of them entirely, as they seem to just be a bunch of lies to get more unneeded money (especially statements like Here's what your donation enables: ... Support for the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day – what? Writers here don't get any money.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose all fundraising on Wikipedia until further notice. As many have said, Wikipedia has enough money to operate for quite some time. Until the WMF can show us they have reformed their finances and fundraising style, they shouldn't be asking for money. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, might as well add mine to the pile. For what does Wikipedia need more money? It's a website. The website's biggest assets are its volunteers and the content they create. Also, I think it's rather disingenuous to give readers the impression that Wikipedia is in dire need of cash when that's not true at all. Wikimedia collects the cash and spends most of it on things that aren't directly related to the upkeep of Wikipedia, such as racist bullshit. Frogging101 (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't mind that the WMF is fundraising and building a nest egg. Better too much money than not enough. I also think its fine that the WMF is expanding the services it provides. This isn't 2004 anymore; we face a lot of real world problems that we have to face realistically. But I do object to the tone and prominence of the banners. They get bigger and bolder seemingly each year. Our readers are annoyed with them. We, the editors, then have to deal with their anger. The banners disrupt the reading experience, and destroy the very hard won goodwill editors have fought for. Practical solutions: smaller banners, up for a shorter time. Focus more on email outreach. Less fear mongering in the messages tone. Wikipedia needs to make money, but it can't do that if it is pissing off its readers and editors. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 02:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The WMF is spending $17M a year on fundraising, according to the annual plan. We should get more from that expenditure than running banner ads that spend a month interrupting access to free knowledge. Banner ads made sense when the WMF was a lean organization, not today. TomDotGov (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For a small donor based fundraising model, the WMF's fundraising cost per dollar is industry leading. The only way you get more efficient fundraising is through substantial individual and corporate major gifts and noone should want us to go in that direction. Seddon talk 04:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the WMF advertises on the seventh most visited website for free, I don't think they can be compared to other non-profits with the same fundraising model without estimating how much such a campaign would normally cost. BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is the carousel that keeps turning, each time similar to those that went before, without proper re-evaluation. I previously commented that these messages detriment the benevolence essential to this project. The WMF Audit Committee Charter requires fundraising exercises to "ensure full transparency into the use of all donor funds raised under the Wikimedia name or on its sites"; my view is that transparency must be not merely retrospective (evaluating what was done with moneys - which, despite 's  persistence remains too often unclear) but also prospective: clearly setting out both need and target as the basis for any new fundraising. While I doubt that "We already have $xM and wish to boost that to $(x+y)M to achieve (...)" would be an effective as a fundraising message, it would be transparent and honest. A practical suggestion: replace "Wikipedia" with "Wikimedia Foundation" in each text, as a minimum requirement to comply with the WMF Audit Committee Charter. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of transparency and misleading nature of the campaign, per XenonNSMB and others. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 16:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per and   who sum it up so well that there's no need for me to elaborate, and  who with his mention of NPP illustrates a classic example of how the funds  are used for everything else rather than supporting the volunteers' dedication to keeping the corpus clean to the best of their ability. Without NPP, there will be no confidence in the content and consequently no donations anyway. Where does the $17M a year on fundraising go exactly? Less than $300K would solve all of NPP's problems. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per SilkTork, Bluerasberry, and Kudpung. These banners are ethically compromised and misleading. I have many a friend who believe that the donation money is desperately needed to keep the website online, while many more millions are going to other projects hardly related to Wikipedia at all. In addition to that, I affirm my support for at least some funding towards professionalizing NPP.  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   19:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh still not interested in micromanaging fundraising initiatives. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . I oppose all fund-raising by the WMF until greater transparency and honesty is shown, which this is not. Wikipedia (and its sister sites) are not under threat in any way, they are not being sufficiently supported by the WMF with the money they already have, and neither are the volunteers being supported. The only thing I don't mind is that the staff (not the useless directors) should be paid well, which can be done with existing funds easily enough. Ciridae (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They're fine The WMF needs to fundraise regularly. They need to tell people they are fundraising.  Banners are fine.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's no point in rehashing everything that has been written above. Suffice it to say that these banners are misleading and disruptive. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose On the one hand, the banners are improved (over the emails and past banners) enough that I would tolerate them being shown on their own, and I thank the fundraising people for it. The single biggest remaining issue, in my opinion, is that the banner still implies some sort of financial pinch when there isn't one at all (but it's less overt). However, I recognize that the only way to (force) having a voice in how funds are spent is to prevent the banners from being shown. Related to this is objections about how the banners present money being spent; I interpret that sentiment as objecting to how funds are spent more than the banners themselves. Others have elaborated why funds are misspent; I don't think I need to elaborate. I also feel bad for the fundraising team folks--they aren't the issue. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 01:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites's proposal below about the WMF committing to X% of income going to the community tech team is an easy first step. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 01:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In my experience on WP, nothing has been more continuously distressing and frustrating for myself and other content creators than the lack of support from WMF on basic updates and support for the volunteers whose actual work generates their ridiculously unneeded fundraising. I have had so many people IRL who know I work on WP say they donated or spoken about how they feel bad that WP doesn't have enough money. Over and over again. It is a blatantly manipulative and harmful lie and should be removed immediately from banners and elsewhere.  Aza24  (talk)   05:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose us hosting any more fundraising banners until the banners all clearly report boldly, in the banner not behind a link (a) the current balance of the endownent fund (b) previous year's all sources revenue (including endowment fund revenue) and (c) what percentage of annual revenue is spent on hosting, maintaining, improving and defending Wikipedia. And, of course, they must stop implying there is any threat to Wikipedia's existence or independence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I used to think WMF funding was merely wasteful, but I've become more cynical over the years. Benjamin (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per everyone. The banners are misleading at best, and the funds definitely aren't being used to support the community in any meaningful way. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Satisfied the WMF does good work and having a "war chest" available is important should other funding sources cease to exist or economic conditions worsen. I agree with some other folks that the donation messages should sound less "desperate", however, as the WMF is not presently under any financial duress. Nicereddy (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * could you expand a bit on the "war chest" point? From what I understand per the WMF employee comments below, the WMF keeps about 16 months of operating costs in reserve for crisis, but any more money they receive would simply go towards increasing their operating costs or towards unrelated projects like the Tides Foundation. How much money do you think they need in case of crisis? Is 16 months worth of $175 million per year not high enough?I can't imagine that readers would notice a major difference (at least, not a more major difference than the one we're seeing from the chronic volunteer labour shortage) if the WMF ran on $10 million per year, kept $165 million in reserve and stopped accepting donations. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bilorv You are correct, I had assumed since I'd heard for so long that "the WMF doesn't need the donations", they meant that they had enough to last them for at least 3+ years on their current burn rate. It's pretty crazy to me that the WMF is working with only a 16 month runway (though they could, of course, cut costs drastically if needed, should a major recession or other such event occur). Seems somewhat irresponsible to continue to grow without preserving more runway to work with. So I will admit I was wrong regarding the "war chest", and apologize for that. It seems cutting operating expenses somewhat and slowing down their growth to get more runway would be a reasonable decision for the WMF to make in the next few years. But it's also not something they can do overnight without disrupting people's lives or the product work currently going on.
 * Now, having said that, I want to comment on the idea that $10m/yr would be a realistic amount to run the WMF on. Server costs (the thing everyone says is by far the most important thing) would eat up 2.7m of that, and then at least 0.5m on conferences (assuming they cut their conference schedule down a decent amount). Then, add another 2m for general operating costs, now you've only got 5m left for salaries (and that's ignoring various other expenses that exist, but let's ignore those for now). Currently, salaries are 88m. Whether you think people are paid too much (software engineers, especially good ones, are quite expensive), the fact remains that you can't just cut everyone's salaries to 1/3rd of what they're currently paid, many wouldn't be able to pay the bills if you did that. You'd realistically need to cut around 90% of the staff to get down to 5m/yr in salaries. And, well, we'll see how that goes at Twitter. Nicereddy (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The runway is short because the budget continuously goes up to make it so. The revenue goal for 2020-2021 was $108M. The WMF has 240 million in assets and well over $100 million in its Endowment. Andreas JN 466 18:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral We've had too many discussions about this, here, in WP:VPW, etc. I have become disinterested in the topic. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is never under threat of losing its independence. While it is more covert this time - the gist is still clear - that Wikipedia can only run because of the donation of its readers. Wikipedia is not dying, it is not in financial distress, it is not under threat of bankruptcy, and it is in a good financial position. I can even add that some editors of Wikipedia that are contributing to the project are in worse financial shape than Wikipedia. What the donation is enabling is also highly misleading. is misleading, as they used Tides Foundation, an organization that is leaning to the left causes, many of them are not related to "free knowledge", instead of using a neutral organization that is focusing on free knowledge.  is never felt, and many  are done by volunteers. What should be done by Wikipedia is simple - just do what most US charities are doing - plainly and simply announce how much money they are using for improvements, how much money they are "wasting" on Tides, how much money they are paying for the board of directors, etc. And WMF should segregate the donation - let the donor choose which cause they wanted to support. If the donor wanted to give to "supporting the editors" then that money should be sent into providing fixes to the site that supported the editors, not to Tides. If the donors wanted their donation to be used to "maintain the site" it should be used for site maintenance, not doing some conference somewhere. Wikipedia should be clean and lean.   &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   04:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose all banners for the reasons explained above.  Sandstein   22:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These banners are deceptive. Attempts to place them on Wikipedia may need to be treated as a scam. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Satisfied I donate to a lot of charities and the banners shown are similar in content and tone to standard fundraising messages. I'm not a fundraising expert but these sorts of messages are what works and are what I expect to see. I accept that they need money both to build up reserves and to expand things (like grants or software or whatever). If we're directing them on how to spend their money, I'd like to put in a request for improvements to editing on mobile because it sucks so much. Like, so much. It's awful in Desktop view, where the cursor focus does weird things, and lacks functionality in Mobile view so it's awful there too. I don't use a desktop or laptop: I only have my phone, and the terrible interface makes editing Wikipedia difficult and generally not worth it. Cauldron bubble (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Opppose these deceptive and shameful banners in their entirety, this year and any year. Begging readers for money as if the site is on the verge of collapse, when in reality you have assets of $250m, earned $160m in donations in the preceding year, and then spent $88m of it purely on salaries, is disgraceful. Spend some of those vast reserves on a root and branch review of your corrupt and bloated organization. —  Scott  •  talk  13:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we need a Wikipedia space page on fundraising to save time on these discussions, and achieve our goals? If we created an article, we could have community concerns, outstanding questions, options, responses from WMF, fundraising examples etc. Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose These misleading banners promote guilt among the less informed and deep cynicism among the better informed. I am tired of reading messages at the Help Desk and the Teahouse from poor retirees and disabled people apologizing that they cannot afford to give more money when they should not be donating a single penny. Especially galling is the false assertion that the WMF does not advertise, when they advertise for free on the English Wikipedia which is created and curated by us unpaid volunteers. And when active volunteers ask for desperately needed software upgrades, we are brushed off by people sitting on a pot of gold worth several hundred million dollars. WMF, go advertise elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blueraspberry above. Ajpolino (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I am completely unmoved by the high powered commenters swooping in below. The Foundation has huge assets, and if it chooses to spend its own money on funding other projects and other wikis, so be it.  The English Wikipedia's users are the heavy donors?  Alright, I'll buy that, but if the WMF wants to dun en-wiki's userbase to fund those other projects and wikis, let them explicitly make that case.  And if that case doesn't move the users to open their wallets, so bloody well be it.  Like many another respondent, I've poured hundreds of hours over the better part of two decades to help make this wiki so very valuable, and the least the WMF can do is be honest with us.   Ravenswing      10:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The statements by the Board and WMF representatives below are appalling. No one can drop the Powerpoint Presentation Vocabulary and actually address the points being made, so instead now they're resorting to veiled threats. Just address the damn problems with the Tech Wishlist and NPP, for starters, like a real person. No one cares about how much you "respect the vision" and "want to work hand-in-hand to workshop how best to address the challenges". Are you, or are you not, going to actually put the money you're manipulating our readers into sending you into supporting the needs of the community? It sounds like not. So no banners. Parabolist (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * +1, the corporatespeak is annoying. Levivich (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I had been trying to think of changes I could suggest that would make even one of these banners acceptable. There aren't any. The WMF doesn't need any more money to fulfil its purpose, keeping the servers running and maintaining and improving the software in support of the projects. It has a huge endowment, has steadily increased its surpluses, and is spending large amounts of money on projects way beyond its remit, including the conferences, while much of its software expenditure winds up impeding work on the projects rather than facilitating it (whether through failures of planning like not pre-testing breaking updates or through ignoring volunteer needs as in not building talk page functionality into the mobile apps from the start). The glancing mention of in one banner Support for the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day is revealing: the WMF's monetary support for volunteers is limited to choosing a favored few to give tickets to junkets, and to underwriting regional associations who see the WMF as presiding over the projects rather than supporting them. The WMF shouldn't be fundraising to finance editors, doesn't need to fundraise any further to do its job, and is asking for money yet again in ways that show it's lost sight of its role, or, worse, seeks to mislead peopleso it can do things other than what they believe they are donating for. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support $2.75 per annum is a lot less than paying $8/month for a blue tick on Twitter. And being affluent is a lot better than being billions in debt.  So we should count our blessings and be glad that our project has a good cash cushion.  Naturally there's a debate to be had about what's to be done with the money – I'd like more and better library facilities to assist article writing, for example.  But that's a different question. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose all banners that humbly ask you to support Wikipedia's independence. Giving money to the WMF is not supporting Wikipedia's independence. Arguably it's doing the opposite. This RfC speaks loud and clear to the Foundation's Board that the English Wikipedia community is independent. I support a short-term, first-time block on the fundraising banners (12 to 24 hours) as a behavioral sanction on the Foundation. This block must be allowed to stand in order to re-establish or reconfirm the independence of the English Wikipedia editing community. If the Foundation prevents or reverts such a block before it's run its course that would signal and establish that the English Wikipedia community is not an independent equal of the Foundation (separation of powers) but rather is subservient to the Foundation. I'm more concerned about the Foundation's independence than Wikipedia's. The more influential Wikipedia becomes, thanks to Google, Alexa and Siri, and the larger the pot of cash under Foundation stewardship grows, the more vulnerable the Foundation becomes. What's stopping some billionaire like Elon Musk from bribing 50% + 1 of the Board members with cash (say $100 million each) in return for nominating Elon's picks to the board and then resigning their seats? wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose all banners. We already badger readers enough with banners about fundraising and donating when most of it is not used for Wikipedia's purpose in the first place, and is instead funnelled to other purposes as outlined by others like Bilorv.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Leave the banners be like Wugapodes I'm not sure we should be micromanaging the fundraising banners. I'm particularly concerned about the implications of the English wikipedia community being the one to micromanage banners since it feed the perception that the English wikipedia community is the only one who gets a say effectively riding roughshod over other communities particularly the small ones. But I'm also concerned about the way we're handling this. I appreciate we're in a bit of a catch 22 situation here since the WMF only offered their banners on November 14 and they're due to run soon OTOH the banners are fairly similar to the stuff they've always been running and the time frame of when they'll run their banners is known well in advance. If we want to get into another superprotect fight with the WMF, it seems to me we need to make sure to dot our Is and cross our Ts. A rushed RfC is not the way to do that. Even more when that rushed RfC isn't well advertised. Yes it's on cent, but it's very unclear from that cent notice that we plan to get into a superprotect fight with the WMF by trying to hide their fundraising banners without their agreement. The notice on ANI at least let those who check out ANI & saw it know, still ANI is only a small subset of active editors. The participation in this RfC is low compared to some other RfCs. Maybe it's simply because editors don't care enough either way, maybe it's because they don't know what being planned. The net result of all this is that if anyone in the media decides to write about the drama, the WMF will easily be able to spin this into a minority of editors making a decision without following their normal processes. Despite the catch-22, we still handle it better. For example, we could have had a properly advertised RfC running the full 30 day period where we came to an agreement to get into a superprotect fight with the WMF over the fundraising banners if they did not adequately address our concerns with the clear agreement that we'd come to that final decision in a rushed and shortened RfC as necessitated by the WMF's time frame, and then this as a final RfC on whether to go ahead after the WMF posted their samples. While I'm sure they'd still try, it would be far harder for the WMF to spin something where they forced the timetable and we did everything like we normally would to make such a drastic decision. As for the banners themselves, I'm in two minds. On the one hand, I've generally personally found them misleading and agree that I don't think many people who read them and including most who donate really know much about what the WMF does, where the money goes etc, and it is quite likely many don't appreciate that almost no money goes to editors who actually write the encyclopaedia. OTOH, I get it that the reality is this is how stuff tends to work everywhere and perhaps more importantly It'd unlikely many donors are interested in reading the stuff they'd need to actually understand how things work, where their money goes etc. But in the end, I think the WMF should seriously consider being more honest and less naggy as much as that's possible in a simplified banner even if it reduces donations. Finally, I'm not as negative about how the WMF spends their money as some, or about the direction in general as many; in particular I think there's IMO an unfortunate tendency by the community to conflate what regular experienced editors prefer with what less experienced editors would find useful and especially with what readers may find best. However there are some areas which are IMO hard to defend, in particular, their failure to devote sufficient resources to stuff which will not harm readers or their other efforts in any way yet which does matter to regular editors. NPP is an obvious one raised a lot here, but there are plenty of others, I'd put the failure over sight impaired CAPTCHAs as another one since as difficult as that is, for a long time that seem to receive very little attention (it looks like it slightly improved recently [//phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845] but still not enough & let's remember this is 15+ years old). Concurrent with that while ACC is a community thing and it looks like the long backlog has finally been solved (Wikipedia talk:Request an account), AFAIK the WMF never really tried to see if they could work with the community perhaps even devoting paid staff to the task to help with the situation if they could come to some sort of agreement. The combined result being those with problems might have had to wait months before they could edit. (There may have been alternative ways for those who explored enough but many people aren't going to explore enough to find them so this was a really shitty way to treat editors.) Another example would be talk page notifications on the mobile website and mobile apps. This is one case where I've fiercely disagreed with those who suggest they are useless, pointing out the evidence to the contrary especially for readers. And I also somewhat understand why the WMF dislikes talk pages especially for mobile users. However none of this changes that the situation of such editors not having any idea what was going on was never acceptable, I mean it even affected block notices in some cases. The 5% proposal would help in this regard but the WMF also needs to change stuff so they're not continually ignoring stuff which do matter to the editing community and which don't in any way harm or conflict with their wider efforts. (The CAPTCHA issue is a particularly interesting example of this given the obvious contradiction between trying to be social responsible and yet utterly failing on accessibility.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Know my comment is already very long but just clarify that a better process of doing this also mean the WMF would have had adequate time to respond to the community and it'll be hard for them to claim otherwise. If for example, we came to a decision to do this in principle before 1 September, they'd have 3 whole months where we'd told them, we're going to try and stop your fundraising banners if you don't address our concerns and this is how we'll decide if you have. It'd be far harder for them to claim, 'well we had no time, how on earth do you expect us to fix something which takes months of planning in a 2 weeks?'. Beyond the media angle, I think it's in everyone's interest that everyone is given adequete time. Yes the WMF may not have given us much time, but this doesn't excuse us not giving them any time either. We can be better than them! Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Qualified support I really don’t think we have the numbers here to flat out decide that the WMF shouldn’t be allowed to run banners at all. I’m not saying that is a discussion we shouldn’t have (along with the question of the alarming increase in foundation spending) but its the kind of thing that will need to be more widely advertised and better structured.


 * Desktop large could be trimmed a bit. lose the “This Wednesday, for the 1st time recently” Seen far to many of these things of late for the claim of recently to hold up. You run far to many trials. “Many think they’ll give later, but then forget.” doesn’t seem to add much information. “We don't run ads, and we never have.” isn’t technically true but I’ll accept that whoever wrote this is probably a decade too new to remember the virgin matching funding issue. Beyond that OK I guess.


 * Desktop small has an exceptionally annoying placement and interacts with infoboxes to create Manual_of_Style/Images issues. Probably shouldn’t be used.


 * Mobile large lives up to its name. It takes up 2/3rds of a 4K monitor. But mobile isn’t my thing.


 * Mobile small Drop the “We've never run ads” and I quite like this one. ©Geni (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The language of these banners is unethical and untruthful and makes me unconfortable. The WMF does not need more money. I would much rather they rein in their spendthrift ways first. OrgoneBox (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a comment from me, but I have thought in the past that the WMF's fundraising banners to be very.....guilt trippy, if not outright manipulative. I also share concerns of multiple editors here in the way the money's being spent. I can't remember where I read it, but someone said somewhere that there's bugs on Phabricator dating back to the early 2010's that are still not resolved. That's pretty revelatory to me. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Where is this money going? A small amount goes towards server infrastructure. Another small percentage goes to the developers. Very little, if any, goes towards assisting editors with creating the encyclopedia. What about the rest? Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support/Satisfied. I am commenting as a long-time editor (since 2003), a former WMF community-elected trustee, and a current trustee of the Wikimedia Endowment, so I can speak from first-hand experience on several of the points raised by various commenters. It costs much more to run a global web project ethically and sustainably -- a project that is constantly getting sued, getting ddos'd, and trying to expand languages, features and projects and support its community of editors -- than you think it does. The Endowment, even with its generous funding to date, does not have enough to run Wikipedia for long even if we spent down all the principle immediately, which, uh, is not how endowments work. And I was around and participated in helping with the fundraiser before we had any paid staff to support it; we do not want to do that again. I am sad to see so many people here confusing dissatisfaction with the WMF spending priorities and annual plan (valid!) and the specific language and size of the banners (also valid!) with the idea of fundraising to keep the site an ad-free non-profit. How exactly do you all think the projects -- not Wikimedia, but the projects -- would run without English Wikipedia fundraising? Yes, Wikipedia fundraising supports the rest of the ecosystem -- and how exactly do you think Wikipedia would work without Commons photos, say, or without the legal team supporting editors who get sued, or the tech team fixing bugs and keeping the site up? We can turn the fundraiser down, or off, of course! But there are real-world consequences: services being lost and people losing jobs. The WMF is not perfect, and yes, there's been a years-long debate over toning down the banner language (though they are more measured compared to past years, seems like). But the extreme responses here are not reflective of our greater community of editors (the vast majority of whom have not commented here, and probably don't even follow RfCs), and they are not reflective of members of the public who are proud to donate to Wikipedia. I have done outreach for many years in many settings, speaking and writing about Wikipedia and organizing events, and have talked to hundreds, probably thousands, of people about the process of being an editor. People love to tell me that they have donated: they want to participate in this remarkable thing we've built. This RfC -- or rather the comments some have made -- have strong cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face vibes. In recent weeks, we've seen what reckless management can do to well-established tech companies. The Wikimedia Foundation is much, much smaller than that company, and our community is more fragile. Let us not be reckless with our own infrastructure. phoebe / (talk to me) 04:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments here are reflective of everyone who wants to find a simple piece of free knowledge on their phone, but is instead forced to deal with a full page banner ad that makes their life worse. It's important to minimize or eliminate these interruptions, unless they're necessary to fulfill the mission of getting those people free knowledge.
 * I agree that the reckless management of the WMF has caused a problem by expanding the budget at an unsustainable pace, and then using that expansion to justify advertising that implies the site would disappear. It's unfortunate that it takes a crisis to bring the WMF to the table, but that's another failing of the WMF. It isn't clear why support for projects would be affected, when there is a lot that could be saved by cutting things like the pointless Movement Strategy work, the Brand Studio, Equity Grants, and other ways the WMF spends money on things other than projects.
 * Finally, would it be possible to get the current value of the assets that compose the endowment, and what the Tides foundation takes to manage that money? As an Trustee of the Endowment, you're in a position to know. The value of the endowment really matters when we're considering ads that imply that $2.75 would make a difference as to if Wikipedia thrives or not. TomDotGov (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * TomDotGov, you are agreeing with something that I did not say; I didn't say there'd been reckless management at the Foundation. I was referring to Twitter, which has been dominating the headlines so I figured everyone would get the reference. Re: Endowment balances, that info is here. I expect we'll publish updated numbers in Jan, though I can check on that. It's not wildly different from the start of the year -- we've gotten gifts this year of course, but the market has also gone haywire, so the exact number fluctuates. Regardless, you can figure out that at best we'll generate a few (1-5) million in investment returns to support Wikimedia projects this year, since the point of the endowment is you hold on to the principle and re-invest or divest the earnings: we don't spend the 100M. Those returns are not enough to keep the lights on for Wikipedia for any definition of that work. I don't know the Tides expenses off the top of my head (and we're entering a holiday break in the US so I'm not going to bother the staff), but it, along with the rest of our operating expenses (staff time, legal support, etc), is not a great amount. (Tides is also not a "forever" solution; they are a good and responsible fiscal sponsor, who I have also worked with for other unrelated organizations, for when you're getting a new organization off the ground. It saves money to have various functions centralized, and enables you to move faster). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "It's important to minimize or eliminate these interruptions" that is exactly what the WMF fundraising team does. Every year for over a decade they've been testing banner language and designs to try and optimize for showing the least number of banners per reader to hit the budget, and then they stop. Like phoebe said, what's the alternative? You can argue about the particular budget items (I probably agree with you about axing some of those items listed) but the actual method by which we fund the movement is precisely aimed at gaining the money we need with the least impact on readers possible. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk  05:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the WMF fundraising team does try and optimize for showing the least number of banners per reader to hit the budget; the number of banners per reader has remained constant at 10, and the duration of the campaign has been slowly growing, from 31 days in 2020 to 33 days in 2022. I'm also not convinced that they stop when they reach the budget; when was the last time the campaign was terminated before it reached its scheduled end date?
 * In addition, fundraising effectiveness is not the only consideration - the banners must be moral. BilledMammal (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The duration matters less than the number of banners shown per reader, if we care about how much we're distracting each person from reading Wikipedia. The number of days has also grown because our total traffic is flat or declining, in addition to the budget increasing. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk  06:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The WMF does not stop when they reach the budget.
 * In 2020–2021, WMF Advancement started out with a revenue goal of $108 million for the Foundation ($88 million from online gifts, $10 million from major gifts and $10 million from chapters): . In the second quarter, this was raised to $125 million (by increasing the online gift target to $105 million): By the end of the year, however, WMF Advancement had taken $154 million, including $125 million in online gifts.  So it exceeded its own target by $46 million, most of this on the backs of people donating online. (I wrote about this for the Daily Dot last year: )
 * It was much the same in 2021-2022: by the end of the third quarter, Finance & Administration announced "We have already met our fundraising target of $150M [sic, $42M higher than the year prior] and are expecting to exceed our Online and Major Gifts targets". They then went fundraising in India, South Africa and South America, telling people there in emails to donate money "to keep Wikipedia online" and "to keep Wikipedia free and independent", and on banners to donate "to protect Wikipedia's independence" or "sustain Wikipedia", much like on these present banners. The fundraising total at the end of the year was $165 million, $15 million over target.
 * Incidentally, the links I am quoting here are the Tuning Session presentation decks which we were recently told the WMF would no longer publish (see Signpost report). Perhaps people can see now that no longer publishing the quarterly Tuning Session decks causes a very real loss of transparency and community oversight.
 * I do recall the Foundation did stop early once, in 2016, after the much maligned Andrew Orlowski made a fuss in The Register about the WMF smashing its target with two weeks of the fundraiser left and a subsequent mailing list discussion. Andreas  JN 466 08:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The alternative I think would be best would be to return the WMF to what it seemed to be at its start, a fiscal, technical, and legal sponsor for the various Wikis. The ideal fundraising message is "Your donation supports Wikipedia", and making sure it will, not because of trickery like the WMF trying to rename itself the 'Wikipedia Foundation', but because the funds are under Wiki control. Ideally, everything to beyond the actual cost of the fundraising (like credit card fees) would be under the control of Wikipedia or the other Wiki that raised it, and could be given to fund grants to the WMF, other Wikis (like Commons), and even outside entities that support the mission, like programmers to implement features the WMF can't and won't. TomDotGov (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Phoebe, you speak of a "public who are proud to donate to Wikipedia": I would argue that they are proud because the WMF has fooled them into thinking they are helping a friend in need (Wikipedia), rather than supporting rampant WMF growth. We know that millions of people even think the WMF writes Wikipedia, or checks and curates its contents. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
 * To reiterate: I have nothing against WMF growth, but people should know what they are funding. They are not funding an organisation that "often struggle[s] to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running", as this WMF PR fluff piece made several hundred thousand TV viewers believe last year:.
 * Lastly, I would echo the request above to let us know how much money is in the Endowment now, and how much Tides is being paid to manage the fund. And please publish the Endowment's financial statements for the past six-and-a-half years, detailing any other expenses there may have been, or tell us in your official capacity, on the record, that other than the stated Tides management fee there have been no expenses whatsoever and that every penny that has entered the Endowment still is in the Endowment. I will take a failure to answer as an indication that there have been outgoings from the fund. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 09:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Andreas, I'm not sure why you think information is owed to you personally from me or from anyone, paid or volunteer. I suppose it's because you've used much of the information you've demanded to make a nice line for yourself over many years criticizing the WMF's operation, which is a bit like a limpet hanging on to the hull of a ship and complaining vociferously about the free ride. "I will take a failure to answer"? You can take whatever you like, but it doesn't make you correct. I answered TomDotGov above about the endowment, in as much detail as I am going to in this mess of an RfC. I do want to publish more detailed information eventually, because the one thing we agree on is we should publish more information about the endowment in general, but it's not going to be right this second, here. (And the Endowment is largely irrelevant to the topic of annual fundraising, anyway; they serve two different purposes and any returns that we could grant to the WMF this year are not going to be a large percentage of the budget). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will note that the information that you are referring User:TomDotGov to above was actually added by me, as no one at the WMF saw fit to update the figures on the public-facing page for over a year.
 * I don't think you owe information to me personally; I think you owe it to the community, and to the general public. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 00:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Concerned more by the RFC approach than the problem. I think the underlying concerns about the banners are mostly reasonable, and I agree with some of them if not all. In general, I am sometimes annoyed by what WMF are doing, and I roll my eyes equally often at the people who are convinced the community and WMF are irreconcilable monolithic blocs; I find this framing a bit unhelpful and over the years I have tried to avoid engaging with it.
 * Having said all that, I just can't support the approach of an RFC that takes as its basic premise "the framers of this RFC have declared the enwiki community gets to approve the exact wording of banners, or insist they are turned off" - it feels like a really substantial change in the way things are run, presented as a very routine thing. There are comments in this discussion about holding our banners to our own standards of verifiability, which is not the worst idea: but from that same angle, any content RFC presented like this would rightly be challenged as begging the question. It presumes no-one would say the status quo is fine" or "I would like to leave WMF to it", or even maybe "these are real and concerning problems but should be addressed in a different way". Andrew Gray (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Do not undo any banners deployed by the Foundation: Per WP:CONSENSUS policy, it is fine to hold an RfC on messages to be sent to the foundation but also per CONSENSUS policy, editors and administrators of English Wikipedia MUST NOT undo the Foundation, here. No RfC such as this can override the Consensus policy, the policy is the overriding consensus. Please further note, that "Wikipedia"  is fairly well encompassing all projects of the Foundation, per Wikipedia.org. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR and ample precedent of the WMF only acting when forced tot he limit, and delaying over and over again (see, well, basically anything WMF imposed that turned out to be unwanted by enwiki but which was very hard to get rid of again). Plus, the page has no "MUST NOT undo the Foundation" but is a lot more nuanced and restricted, it even starts with "Certain policies and decisions". Please don't misrepresent policy. I'm not certain what your final point wants to convey, this RfC is only for enwiki, no decisions about banners on other Wikimedia sites (including other language Wikipedias) can be made here obviously. Fram (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not put it in quotes, you did, in an apparent effort to misrepresent my comment. No policy is misrepresented, MUST NOT is a fair rendering of what is linked there in policy (my linking itself also demonstates your claim regarding representation is a canard). It's the same policy by which undoing of acts of the Arbitration Committee MUST NOT be undone.  Banners are a "certain act" one that has been done since forever. I added the last sentence to clear up apparent confusion over "Wikipedia".  Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I made "an apparent effort to misrepresent" your comment by putting a quote from your comment in quotes? I think "Wikipedia" isn't the only thing you are confused about. I edit conflicted with your additional sentence, no idea what that is supposed to prove. You seem to mean that "certain decisions" may not be undone, banners are a "certain act", so banners may not be undone? If that is indeed what you mean, then you need lessons in logic and language. Fram (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * CONSENSUS policy expressly upholds "decisions" and "acts" of the Foundation, and by logic, acts flow from decisions. I need no such lesson, and quite obviously your comments such as that are poor and unproductive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. It expressly upholds "decisions, rulings and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees", not acts of the Foundation. Fram (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Foundation can only make decisions and take acts through its board and designees. That's true of all such organizations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really, the Foundation would not work effectively in that scenario, but I don't think it is worth my time continuing to correct all your errors here, I guess most people will have seen by now how your advice should be taken. Fram (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Only people make decisions and take acts - that is the only way it works. The board (people) designates (a decision and action) the executive power (the power to execute, that is to decide and act for the organization) is held in other people. Others can see what I say is correct, and per policy, and they got that in my first comment, before your unhelpful and erroneous interventions. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I remove the parts in brackets, I'm not even left with a sentence here: "The board designates the executive power is held in other people." Fram (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What quibble. It is the board, who are people, that decide and act to designate other people to have the executive power, the power to decide and act for the organization. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that "the board and its designees" actually means "the board and the foundation employees", seems a rather tortuous way to say something simple if that is what is meant. But we obviously won't convince each other. Fram (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "employees" is too limiting. Agency encompasses all representatives of the organization, including employees.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm curious, Alan. What is the WMF going to do about it if the community does proceed with its threaened civil disobedience and block the banners? Fire all the volunteers? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram when they point out that this policy does not appear to apply here, a position that it appears the WMF shares based on . Further, if it does apply then WP:IAR applies; this is the sort of extraordinary situation that that policy was written for. BilledMammal (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. WP:CONEXCEPT (and, relatedly, WP:OFFICE) has long recognised that there are some issues beyond the power of English Wikipedia editors. This is one of them. Further, as Andrew Gray points out above, this RFC is structured in a strange way. Contributors are invited to support or oppose the wording of the WMF's fundraising banners; but then the conclusion from the RFC will be an attempt not only to revise the fundraising banners, but that the result should be the English Wikipedia attempting to ban the WMF from using its largest fundraising stream. I do not believe the RfC is worded to prompt contributors to think about its consequences; for instance the idea of blocking the WMF from actually fundraising is buried in the 'information' section. That said, I do not believe any RfC, however worded, would have a mandate to do so. The Land (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. How will we have money for Wikipedia if English Wikipedia does not advertise? This is biggest project, so we must advertise for donations. Ghost of Kiev  (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See, this is part of the problem. This is a new-ish editor who has been led to believe that these funds are being raised for Wikipedia. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - the banners are fine and and  have put things much better than I could. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, especially the small mobile banner. I appreciate the specific examples of where funding goes. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 23:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Oh, I have my problems with the Foundation, but trying to stop this fund-raising campaign will not do anybody any good. It has been painful watching this RfC. It has made me worry about the future of the project. Under other circumstance I probably would have passed on participating here, but this idea that a consensus here to oppose would lead to attempts to block the Foundation banners is enough to force me to support the Foundation plans. - Donald Albury 01:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (2022 fundraising banners)

 * I do feel it should be fairly clearly noted that the effects of a local project severing the capability of the WMF to do a majority of their fundraising is likely to be...drastic. Some might actually view that as a feature not a bug, others may view it as a price worth paying. Personally (if perhaps mildly dubiously) I would reserve blocking the fundraising banners for a situation where the WMF is even more obstinate than some past occasions. Whatever your position on it, every person participating in this RfC should be aware of the potential for dispute. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Short of totally disabling the banners, I wonder if it would be possible to tone them down a bit with common.css? We could get rid of the big red outline, disable the sticky-positioning, and shrink the big donation buttons. Removing the sticky banner is especially justifiable because it's a real hindrance when trying to read an article. I don't know if it's possible with CSS, but I like the idea of moving the banner to the very bottom of the article, where I've seen donation banners on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.small jars 23:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * if we're able to modify the banners beyond just an on and off toggle, then at that point, we may as well rewrite them in big neon letters stating that the WMF doesn't need more money. Hell, we could have an RFC where we all decide to larp as those characters from Les Mis who barricade themselves in that street and point to an open letter where we lay out the fundraiser's problems. I jest (somewhat), but I feel I have to point out that if we can change things, and use those powers to move a banner, shrink things a bit and get rid of an outline, it's a bit of a wet fart. It doesn't feel like the right response if this has been going on consistently for so many years, and if we are going to admit to this fundraiser causing harm, or at least being unethical. I can understand starting small and ramping up, but I think there's a conversation to be had about whether we grab their attention and stop it now, or do this in stages before hitting the kill switch.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the current decision-makers at the WMF see not being dishonest and misleading as something that destroys their capability to fundraise, then either they should all resign immediately due to being fundamentally unqualified for the task or it was not something worth funding in the first place. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - slightly off-topic, for those of you who saw that I fairly-recently posted about my personal data potentially being breached by a payment organisation when I contributed to such a banner-appeal. I have now found the letter in the house (that I threw down in disgust), dated 5 December 2011, signed with RL identity by someone who (still) openly self-identifies with the organisation callled Wikimedia UK under Username. There was no tangible product supplied, or service performed, being purely a donation to a charitable body. I have not contributed again, and will never do so. I have not, as yet, formally contacted the payment organisation as I have had trouble accessing the 'old' records (and want to save it, in case they try to cover their tracks by deletion). I noticed in the recent appeal there is a further query: "Can we follow up and let you know if we need your help again?". Clickable Yes/No. It may be that I completed this in 2011, in the expectation of email contact, not that my personal postal address be supplied.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikimedia UK no longer fundraises via banners and is an entirely separate organisation. I would encourage you to email info@undefinedwikimedia.org.uk Seddon talk 23:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what happened there but if you would like to check what details Wikimedia UK holds about you, please feel free to email us. Thanks, Lucy LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment on conflicts of interest. In the survey section Seddon, a current WMF employee, has posted a !vote, but has not disclosed their current COI although they have disclosed a past conflict of interest (in my case I've specifically done fundraising as a job at the WMF in the past). Should WMF employees who chose to !vote in this discussion clearly disclose their conflict of interest, or do the unique circumstances of this discussion make it appropriate to not do so? BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be more explicit and that was my intent with the existing note. Seddon talk 23:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated my comment. Seddon talk 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seddon, given that you are a paid employee, and the fundraising pays your wages, you are clearly in a serious conflict of interest here. I think it is acceptable to make general factual comments in the discussion section, but I can't see it as acceptable that you take part in the vote section. Your vote doesn't actually matter as there is a clear consensus in the Wikipedia community that the WMF fundraising banners are unacceptable; however, as a point of principle, your vote should not be there, and on reflection I'm sure you'll agree. Would you please strike your !vote, and refrain from taking further part in the voting section of this page. SilkTork (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Seddon's participation at all is inherently manipulative and disingenuous. After being here 16 years they should know better—but since they're WMF I can't be surprised that they don't.  Aza24  (talk)   05:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck the !vote and indented the comment Seddon talk 02:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar to this, I am concerned that current trustees of the Wikimedia Endowment would have a conflict of interest here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any trustee and the advisory board will have a conflict of interest, as per previous discussions on Pump, because of
 * WMF first. As discussed on Pump, the Trustees WMF policies specify that they must put WMF first, can only be elected if they commit to the mission. The current electoral process makes it relatively easy for manipulation.
 * Personal interest. Trustees and board members do not have to declare travel, accomodation, honorariums, access to GLAM events, funds given to organisations they are/were a member of, Board members have been involved with competitive profit organisations, or could have other COIs.
 * WMF removal of controls. Trustees have a finiancial resposnsblity especially that tied donations and bequests are not re-directed. The removal of certain controls, promotion of staff from within, changes to committee structures, reduction in reporting to the board including the recent removal of quarterly reports, the dumbing down of annual reports, and the increased secrecy and tendency to do things off wiki,  puts them and WP at financial risk.
 * Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I notice a slight rhetorical slant toward identifying Wikipedia with the WMF as a whole; for example, Wikipedia … is like a library or a public park where we can all go to learn. Wikipedia is maintained by a nonprofit … Without reader contributions, we couldn’t run Wikipedia the way we do. I understand that lay readers may perhaps be better served by a simpler, more idealized view of Wikipedia's workings; nevertheless, this phraseology discomforts me slightly. The choice of libraries and public parks as a simile is (if I may speculate slightly) perhaps indicative of a cathedral mentality on the WMF's part: both examples are maintained by a centralized group of custodians or stewards, who provide a service for the public to see and use but not to touch (i.e., alter). Off the top of my head, I can't think of a better, more volunteer-focused analogy; perhaps a blood bank? I also don't quite like the words "maintained" and "run"; they carry the connotation that the WMF is directly involved in writing and editing the encyclopedia, which is a slight misconception. Perhaps "hosted" and "support", respectively, would be better word choices. In another banner, it's claimed that one's donation enables: Improvements on Wikipedia and our other online free knowledge projects [and] Support for the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day. It's technically true, perhaps, but I think it's stated a bit too strongly, implying (incorrectly) that the WMF is directly involved (to any significant degree) in the everyday affairs of the encyclopedia.Of course, there are probably more salient issues than my rhetorical quibble: the size of the WMF's piggy bank, the way it's publicly portrayed, its intransparency, etc. Perhaps others more knowledgeable than me can address those concerns. Shells-shells (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment BilledMammal next time when pinging people, make sure to do so in the RFC and not just at the top of the page and then delete it. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I click the notice "Your mention of ... was sent" it still links to this RfC. Does it not for the notice that the mentioned editors receive? BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. I get the message "This comment could not be found. It might have been deleted or moved." ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 01:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is annoying. I will make sure to leave the comment in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a small thing, but I'd like to point out the red circled "i" that's at the start of all the banners. It gives the false impression that the text following it is impartial information, rather than a message designed to inspire donations. It should go. small jars 08:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Query - why do so many of the opposes indicate that running the servers - the equivalent of keeping our lights on, is all the WMF need do? I would have hoped that the significant expenditure on the security team was viewed as beneficial, not to mention some degree of Legal team...and while the bare minimum T&S wouldn't need a disinformation team, I suspect our arbs would rather not have to take over handling CSE, all the threats of harm/suicide and so forth - I'd hope even those preferring a core Foundation would indeed consider them (and their salaries) core. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be the legal team that said it was ok to hire the outgoing chairman of the board, even though that's a Nonprofit-Board-101-type ethical mistake? The T&S team that brought us WP:FRAM? WMF spends more money on buying corporate stocks, mortgage backed securities, and donating to US political causes (via Tides, where the WMF's General Counsel and others used to work) than it does on Legal and T&S combined. (And that's without even talking about cost/benefit of the Product team.) If this campaign doesn't run, even if we shut off banners for an entire year, the WMF will be fine (they have enough cash reserves), maybe they'll stop treating Wikipedia like a cash trough. Starving this beast is a perfectly logical response to the excesses year after year, the beast doesn't work and we can't really trust it with money. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that WMF donated to US political causes and that some of WMF board members has been associated with Tides, that WMF donated to, should be reason enough to seriously question this fundraising.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   20:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Some updated figures and open issues:
 * The revenue goal for this year has been raised to $175 million, a $20 million increase year on year.
 * The WMF also plans to increase its expenses in 2022-2023 to $175 million; this is a 56% increase compared to 2020-2021 and a 21% increase year on year.
 * Salary costs have increased by $20 million year on year ($88 million in 2021-2022, vs. $68 million in 2020-2021, a 30% increase).
 * The Foundation reported a $12 million "negative investment income" in 2021-2022; questions about this on the mailing list have gone unanswered to date.
 * The grant totals the community are given on Meta do not match what the WMF tells the IRS in its Form 990 (which is required to be public by law). Questions about this on Meta and on the mailing list have gone unanswered to date. --Andreas JN 466 10:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why the revenue goal has increased by $20,000,000, despite a conversation in May where you say that the rate of growth seen in past years will not continue in the 2022−2023 fiscal year as we stabilize our growth and also ensure that new resources are delivering maximum impact for our mission? BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the new goal of $175 million marks an increase by $25 million in terms of goal-setting, because the 2021-2022 revenue goal was $150 million (up from about $110 million in 2020-2021). That $150 million goal was then exceeded by about $5 million. (The $110 million goal in the year prior was exceeded by over $50 million.)
 * So to sum up, in two years the goal has moved from $110 million in 2020-2021, to $150 million in 2021-2022, and now to $175 million for 2022-2023. Andreas JN 466 12:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Non-profit" Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the second paragraphs opening sentence on the RfC for accuracy because I'm fairly certain the WMF never shared every banner tested in advance. I know its not something I did, mainly because its essentially impossible to. might be able to clarify if that has changed since but its not something I've noticed. Seddon talk 13:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Seddon and yes we cannot share every banner that will run throughout the campaign. As mentioned in more detail in the Comment by the WMF section, we are actively using feedback from volunteers and readers to create new banners to test all the time. It’s an iterative process and we do not yet have all the banners that will run throughout the campaign to share. In the past we shared the example banners, as we did now. I will try to share more banners as we test them throughout the next weeks on the Village Pump and the fundraising meta talk page. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seddon, I've tweaked your tweak to the RfC text. The WMF are perfectly able to share all banners, they just choose not to. Also, anyone who receives payment from the WMF, such as employees, contractors, and grant recipients, has a COI here and really shouldn't be !voting or changing the RfC text or otherwise taking up volunteer time about this issue since the fundraising pays them. Levivich (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the main point I was looking to clarify here was that banners that would get tested in a months time don't yet exist. Seddon talk 14:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By the WMF's choice. The "iterative process" mentioned above is a choice made by the WMF; they could submit each and every banner for community approval before running them, but they choose not to because they don't want to be slowed down. You had changed the RFC to "not able to provide", which isn't true: they are able. I changed it to "not provided". Levivich (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was per, where JBrungs said they would provide a list of the banners they planned to run. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 I would also like to note that one of the things you can redeem via Microsoft Rewards is a donation to the WMF. I don't exactly remember how much is the minimum (since I'm sure you can adjust it) however this may indicate that the WMF has some sort of deal with external companies. I am not accusing the WMF of not truly being a non-profit and getting money from external companies (since the WMF may not even be aware of this Microsoft Rewards thing and Microsoft simply decided that a donation to the WMF should be one of the rewards), however I would like the WMF to clarify whether or not they took any part in the decision to make this one of the rewards you can redeem. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging you 2 so I can get an answer. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I'm watching this discussion (but also note that I'm not on the board quite yet, so can't do too much more than watch!). There is a lot of bad faith being assumed here, sadly - please remember to also AGF towards the WMF, and keep comments as constructive as possible, particularly on what could be done better with the banners (and isn't just nitpicking). Also to say that I've just nominated the redirect WP:CANCER for deletion (and suggested the destination page gets renamed), since it's quite offensive to anyone that's lost someone to cancer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I bullet-voted you onto the Board. Why do I now find you bending the knee? If you're going to encourage WMF bad acts instead of seeking reform, you can expect to be opposed when next up for election. While we're on the subject, your mention of your WP:CANCER RfD (with your opinions) might violate WP:CANVASS. Surely you know better. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you got that impression? I mentioned the redirect discussion for transparency, I don't expect mentioning it here would help much with the discussion. AGF is fundamental - particularly here in this controversial topic, let's focus on how to improve things in the future rather than ranting? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you are not on the board yet, but do you have any substantive personal opinion on the fundraising banners? I ask because during the election campaign you strongly supported the statement that "WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever." Many of the people above (and in the prior RfC on the fundraising emails) are saying the same thing. Do you still agree with them? I can understand that the prospect of joining a board where you are likely to be outnumbered may be daunting, but there is more at stake here than personal comfort, and fitting in. Andreas JN 466 09:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen worse. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we all have. Does that mean you endorse the banners as they are? --Andreas  JN 466 08:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Propose replacing with "We're Hiring Community Tech Developers!" banners: Per meta:Special:Permalink/24052090, which has been replaced with the current version of Community Wishlist Survey/Updates/2023 Changes Update. RAN1 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Did you mean to post this here? The RfC's survey section is above.) So the Community Wishlist Survey was going to be cancelled in 2024? Interesting. Did you know about this, Kudpung? Andreas JN 466 08:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is in the scope of the survey. RAN1 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi yes, I knew about it. See   the thread about it and my reaction to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A biblical proverb teaches that even a fool can be counted as wise in silence; some, in this discussion, have spoken and shown themselves inept. Others, meanwhile, have articulated sound reason and congruent rationale masterfully, yet they have failed, apparently, to consider how bloated their implyed banner would be once it displayed all of the fact-checked truths their intellect required. The banner designed to assauge all of the concerns raised would (of necessity) be larger than any of the Wikipedia articles where it, otherwise, could be displayed. In my opinion, the RfC itself is flawed in that a "best result" is not even possible between now and December (unless we change our target to December 2023, a change I'd like to see).--John Cline (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @John Cline I agee we won't meet the December deadline, but the discussion is beneficial as we need to solve the issue I don't think editors aren't being inept; it's our RfC process which combines option creation with consensus As a contrast, the Internet RfC process (summarised here and on wiki here, (mostly :-)) specifies a problem in a working group and creates some options, interatively consults the community to develop those options and discuss their  pros and cons, then they seek consensus. If there are concerns, then back to consultation. Overall, this is in line with our strength of consensus building to do with FAs . @User:Wugapodes's summary of the recent successul sporting RfC made a similar point
 * ""... the community considered 13 proposals for fixing perceived flaws in NSPORTS. A fundamental problem was that, by the time these proposals were made, most editors had lost interest. For example, the main proposal had over 100 editors weigh-in, but of the 13 other proposals, only two got over 65 participants, and most struggled to get even half the participation of the main proposal. While proposals with 50 participants could achieve consensus, editors tended to be evenly split on most questions.""

Comment by Megan Hernandez, Wikimedia Foundation

 * Comment: The topic of “independence” has come up so I wanted to share some background on this concept. In 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees defined the guiding principles that drives the Foundation’s fundraising strategy to this day. As stated in the Board approved guiding principles:
 * Part of the job of the Wikimedia Foundation is to ensure that the freedom and independence of the projects is never compromised. To that end, and also because it is extremely effective, we have deliberately chosen a revenue strategy in which a large majority of the funding for the Wikimedia Foundation comes from a large number of small donors in multiple countries around the world. This model limits risk, preserves independence by reducing the ability of any one organization or individual to influence our decisions, and aligns our fundraising practices with our mission by encouraging us to pay attention to the projects’ readers.
 * We go into this more in our latest Fundraising Report published today that provides more background on banner messaging as well as other critical pieces of communication with donors. We’re gathering valuable input on banner messaging on meta and welcome your ideas to try this year. Thank you for the care you put into this work. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * MeganHernandez (WMF), that's fine, just don't do your fundraising HERE. You are raising money for WMF, we are Wikipedia; in case you haven't noticed, those are two different things. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising or fundraising for any organisation. Use your money to fundraise elsewhere. SilkTork (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The main issue with that would be: where else would they advertise the fundraising campaign? Sure they could advertise it on meta, however most readers are here, reading Wikipedia. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Same places as other non-profits advertise. I think all of us have charities that we donate to on a regular basis - they made themselves known to us without using Wikipedia by advertising in the usual places. SilkTork (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't donate to any charities. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You donate your labour here. Andreas JN 466 17:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You might donate your "labour" here, but I donate my labor. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Andreas JN 466 20:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The best possible way to keep our integrity is to give us money. Loads of money. Give it now. We are unbiased. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, Wikimedia Foundation
The data in this table looks very different than anything I have ever seen. Do you mind including the source? I can direct you to a third-party source that reviews our financial information, Charity Navigator. They publish a three-year average of WMF's financials in three categories: Fundraising (which includes payment processing fees, fundraising staff, our fundraising technical infrastructure, events, mailings, etc.) is 11.5 percent of our expenses. Administration (Finance, legal, HR, governance, etc.) is 13.8 percent of our expenses. Programmatic work (technology, product, grants to affiliates, etc. is 74.5 percent of our expenses. This ratio of programmatic expenses to administration and fundraising expenses is considered good enough for us to receive Charity Navigator's highest rating. Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Wikimedia Foundation takes a lot of steps to educate our donors. The banner is a very limited communication space and is not the only time our donors hear from us. First, every banner links to a detailed FAQ where we explain in more detail many of the points raised in this discussion.  In addition, the WMF produces an annual report each year that is mailed to all major donors and available electronically for all others.  We also publish an annual fundraising report and our annual plan, which is pretty rare in the nonprofit sector. We make our 990s and annual audits public.  Further, donors can sign up to receive a quarterly newsletter from us that updates them on the foundation’s work and they can also subscribe to Diff. Lastly, we spend a lot of time talking with our donors directly – both in-person and virtually.  For example, we have held two events in the last two weeks where senior staff and board members made presentations and directly answered questions from donors. We want our donors to have a deep understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation’s work, which is much more complex than we can explain in any detail in a few sentences in a banner.  Thankfully, that is not our only chance to educate our donors about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not what we are concerned about. What we are concerned about is distorted truth and unforgiving begging. Plenty of readers and editors have complained about the issue. We had had enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Every banner links to a detailed FAQ" – This would be good if detailed information on how and why to donate was the only thing accessible through the banner, but much more prominent than those links is an embedded donation dialogue in the desktop large banner, which allows people to donate without informing themselves. Readers looking to inform themselves before donating might not realise they can, because the FAQ link is relegated to a minuscule greyed-out font at the bottom of the banner, in contrast to the flashy design above it. small jars 08:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, we have held two events in the last two weeks where senior staff and board members made presentations and directly answered questions from donors. Are these presentations and QA sessions open to all donors, or only major donors? BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all fine Lgruwell-WMF, and you can do as much educating of your donors as you like, but not here on Wikipedia, as that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia - it is not a platform for free advertising. Please use your money to educate your donors through the same means as every other non-profit organisation does. SilkTork (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lgruwell-WMF Can you confim the following split is approximately correct for a $10 donation (including 0.35 processing fee) via endowment and direct to WP?
 * It asumes
 * wikidata/abstract functions are paid pre-transfer of deWP donations,
 * that office leases are not linked to anyone related to WMF,
 * that brand and communications benefits WMF rather than WP, and does not increase editor retention
 * that Legal works mostly are not related to en or any other WP editors (They specify there is a conflcit of interest if they help editors and average 1 refusal a week for editor information. There are no figures available on mental health support of WP editors
 * that Inuka and selling of data to Google etc are cost neutral,
 * that fundraising and bequests will be self supporting including bonues, or will eventually be paid for by the WMF endowment on receipt of funds
 * that Vector 2022, Mobile etc are paid for by tied donations.
 * The breakdown uses publically available information from WMF or like organisations, and activity based costing, Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate if someone could fix the table- it works on my talk :-(. Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, please check it looks right. --Andreas JN 466 10:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JN466 Awesome! Tables drive me nuts . Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Rhododendrites
PAGE ]]) 01:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These discussions are so difficult. There are some interrelated elements that it must be hard for WMF staff to separate: objections to manipulative language, objections to misleading language, objections to banners being displayed at all, objections to the size of the WMF budget, objections to how the WMF spends its money [or doesn't], and in some extreme cases objections to the existence of the WMF at all. I suspect there would be fewer objections to manipulative language if it really were the case that we might not be able to keep the servers running next month, or if the community approved of absolutely all of the Foundation's budget items. The number of people complaining about the budget, and the banners/messaging related to it, does seem to be growing. I don't know at what point some people will be angry enough to go on strike vs. just making things miserable for the fundraising team, or if enough people would go on strike for day-to-day activities to be radically upended, but it might get there. I'd be curious what sort of banner message would get consensus among the folks who participate in these discussions (ideally without snarky sabotage). Like, what's the most effective fundraising message (i.e. most likely to bring in money) that would flip half of the opposes? In any event, the foundation needs to give the community more control over some piece of the pie -- something other than grants (which shift the burden of labor/management away from the WMF, when it has staff, expertise, and resources to carry out tasks the community needs/wants). One "easy" thing to get started would be to allocate 5% of the WMF's budget to something like the "community tech wishlist" that allows for more and larger projects. In the end, the more disconnected the people in these threads feel from where the money goes, the more discontent there will be, and the harder it will be for the WMF to do anything on-wiki. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You make a very important point in your last paragraph above. We could argue over the precise percentage, but the principle is important.
 * I hope someone is listening. Andreas JN 466 15:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope someone is listening: If you mean us, we all are - very intently. If you mean the WMF, well it would appear that they only scan the comments and very superficially. This goes not only for and the rest of the 26 employees of the fundraising team, but also for all the staff in Product and Engineering. We have forced the WMF into according us a video conference with them, but the very main objective of the exercise has been met with basically a 'not enough money'. The question therefore remains: What does the WMF actually do with it's glut of funds from the donations that the volunteers' work brings in? They might be giving it away to other charities or hiring their friends as consultants. These are the details that are not revealed in their so-called transparency.
 * So back on topic: Thus the wording of the banners is extremely misleading and is certainly very wrong to confuse the public between Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The former is a community of volunteers who get no thanks for their work; the latter is a money-making machine pure and simple. A $17m budget for fundraising would out at about $600K for each of the staff, so where does the rest go? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that donation processing expenses are included in the fundraising budget, but that still leaves $11m, or about $420k for each of the staff, so the question of where the rest goes remains. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The processing fees of 4.17% for PayPal and credit/debit cards are about right. So yes, where does the rest go? I realise that WMF staff receive extraordinary geneorous remuneration packages and expenses, and in the interests of true transparency perhaps
 * can tell us how much they earn and where the rest goes. A rhetorical question of course because they won't anyway. They certainly don't appear to be concerned that the donations they beg for with their crocodile tears of starvation are driven mainly by the work of the volunteers at en.Wikipedia who don't even get any thanks. let alone the needed technical support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully ask you focus on the institution not the people. This specific comment crosses a line for what I consider acceptable for this discussion. Seddon talk 04:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't cross a line at all. It is neither a personal attack nor uncivil. It is simply an expression orfopinion or a perception of the motivations of the team that writes these banners and as such it's a clear issue concerning the fundraising team who are listed a the employees of the institution, the WMF, the focus of this entire discussion. If they are not the authors of these misleading banners, I apologise, but then please tell us who is, or what external agency is contracted, and where the money goes. That's all I'm asking. People like us work for many hours for free maintaining this encyclopedia because we believe in what we're doing and many of us on this thread feel we have a right to know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I recognise that you might not consider it to have been personal attack, but I did. It crossed a line for me and I genuinely don't think directing that in the way you did is the best way of moving this RfC forward, even if our opinions differ on this matter. This applies especially towards JBrungs, RAdimer and KStineRowe. They aren't executives or directors and these challenges have histories that go back before any of them even worked at the WMF. They are good people, trying to help, doing their jobs to the best of their abilities.
 * If we all want to get through this with a good outcome, I think it's vital that we focus our critiques and energies on the organisation and its practices, not taking out frustrations on people.
 * Regarding the precise question what I noted when looking on meta was that the staff count based on Fundraising and Fundraising tech is more than the 25 you noted (not sure what that number is based on exactly). Once you factor in the usual 25-50% direct staff overhead costs (pension, healthcare, employment taxes) + time from legal. That back of a napkin calculation already accounts for a massive chunk of what you are referring to. Seddon talk 05:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, there are currently over 50 people working in m:Fundraising and mw:Fundraising tech, going by the people listed on those pages. Overall headcount is now around 700 (the WMF's Staff and contractors page still says "over 550" and is badly in need of an update). Note that this includes several hundred contractors (the ones shown on the Staff and contractors page are marked as such); contractors' pay is not included in the $88 million Salaries and wages total, according to the financials FAQ on Meta. Andreas JN 466 11:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On that final point, I think you've misread the FAQ : Staff outside the US employed via an Employer of Record are are a class of contractor whose pay is (I am not an accountant) reported on the Form 990 under salaries and wages. Seddon talk 21:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my understanding too – if they are employed by the WMF or an Employer of Record. But the people marked as "(Contractor)" on the Staff and contractors page aren't, right? Otherwise they (the US-based ones among them, that is) would be included in the Form 990 Part I line 5 summary, as explained in the Form 990 FAQ (note the following FAQ section as well; it explains what is and isn't included in the “Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits” (now at $88 million) and explicitly says it "does not include fees paid to contractors, vendors, or consultants"). Hence also the Line 5 number of employees is always lower by several hundred than the total on the Staff and contractors page (e.g. 320 for the 2020-2021 form). To be fair, I have asked WMF staff for confirmation on this point several times on Meta (most recently here), and have never heard back—so if you can nail it down one way or the other, I will be very grateful. Cheers, Andreas JN 466 22:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, note that there is a breakdown of Fundraising costs here. $7.2 million salaries and wages, $6.2 million processing, $1.8 million professional services (that might be the contractors) plus a couple of smaller amounts. Andreas JN 466 22:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not an accountant, but, my understanding is that US Form 990's uses the term "salaries and wages" very deliberately. The number on Part V line 2a [page 5], 320, I believe specifically refers to the number of employees that are taxable within the United States. I for example am not taxable in the United States because I live and work within the UK and therefore would not be included in that number. To use myself as an example further, whilst I am not employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, I am a salaried permanent full time member of staff. I have an employer of record in the UK and pay standard PAYE tax within the United Kingdom. I am a contractor to the Wikimedia Foundation on that basis. I do receive a salary but via my employer of record and not the WMF. Since it is taxable in the UK but not in the US, I think the result is that it is not "a wage" in the eyes of the IRS but it is a salary. So that would mean I don't get counted in the US taxable employee count but I do get counted in totals for Salaries AND Wages. Now we also have independent contractors who are not salaried, and are not employed via either the WMF or an employer of record (these are generally temporary staff). They would not be included in the US employer number and also would not be included in salaries and wages. Now US tax and accounting requirements are notoriously complex and I could be entirely wrong. Seddon talk 23:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably worth noting that non-US "salaries" might bundle things like employer national insurance contributions, pension and fees whereas and whereas US "wages" wouldn't. Seddon talk 23:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the "salaries and wages" rubric does include "salary, benefits, retirement, wellness, and payroll taxes". The exact breakdown is on page 10 of the Form 990, lines 5–10. Andreas JN 466 00:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it's interesting to know that you are listed as a contractor on the S&C page but are employed via an employer of record. That makes this section somewhat contradictory, as "staff members in the US and outside of the US employed by Wikimedia Foundation or its Employer of Record" are included, but "contractors" are excluded. But there can be no such ambiguity with the hundreds of US people working for the WMF as contractors, can there? Their pay must surely be under "Professional service expenses". At any rate, the maximum possible number of non-US people like you would have been 54 per the 2020-2021 Form 990, because that is the total "Number of employees, agents, and independent contractors" in non-US regions. Anyway, any help welcome! Andreas JN 466 23:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah regrettably you've stumbled into another complexity of the Form 990. 54 isn't the maximum since Seddon talk 02:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But that means they wouldn't be in the Salary costs total in Part I anyway ...? Let's continue on your talk page or mine; it is going off topic, as Kudpung says. (Feel free to hat.) Andreas JN 466 08:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In case it helps, there are two kinds of "contractors". One kind are people who would probably be employees if it weren't for various laws (US and otherwise) that make it a complicated, expensive, and time-consuming process to establish and maintain a hiring entity, for each individual country where someone works from, so having an "employer of record" company handle all that turns out to be more efficient. That's what Seddon described just above, and it probably applies to most of the other people described as "contractor" on WMF staff pages. The other are contracts with actual software development contracting companies for work on specific projects, e.g. because of bad managers following a fad that it would be cheaper to do that than have staff developers do stuff and coincidentally finding a nearby contracting company to hire. Anomie⚔ 23:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "A fad" :-D Levivich (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I try to deliberately refer to the second type as "vendor" to reduce some of this confusion. There is a third type which is individuals on temporary short-term contracts that are not employment contracts. Seddon talk 02:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you are all trying to do here, especially, but it's all getting widely off-topic. Without any intention whatsoever of insulting any individuals - which I didn't but I still believe the the staff shouldn't even be posting in this RfC - I was trying to establish who the group of individuals is who are commissioned with the actual drafting of these excruciatingly inappropriate banner texts, replete with their poor use of the English language, and to find out fairly accurately 1. what the fundraising budget is used for and where the still obvious surplus goes, and 2. why the community is desperately begging for software maintenance while there is such a glut of money which the Foundation refuses to spend on essentials.
 * You said it yourself : I think it's vital that we focus our critiques and energies on the organisation and its practices. These question have been side stepped, and I still strongly condemn both the tone of these banners and their use on this Wikipedia. Let's get on with it and do what has to be done: either the WMF withdraws them, or have them locally banned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the information Kudpung is interested in isn't the amount individual members of the fundraising team earn, but details on where the $17 million goes. How much goes towards salaries, how much goes towards donation processing expenses, and where the rest goes. Can you provide that information, and if not can you pass the request on to someone who can? BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See above for what I worked out on wiki. There is probably also some infrastructure costs in there as well and some contracting costs but given they don't feature on the form 990 things start getting pretty granular. Seddon talk 05:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the estimate, but I believe an official breakdown, including the more granular aspects, would be more useful. If you can't provide that, can you forward the request to someone who can? As a response to the broader request for transparency, such a breakdown in all areas of the foundation would also be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for a request this detailed would be to send it to answers@undefinedwikimedia.org. Seddon talk 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One "easy" thing to get started would be to allocate 5% of the WMF's budget to something like the "community tech wishlist". Yes. Something like this is needed (exact percentage can be worked out later). Community tech/the Wishlist is the volunteer's main way of requesting software, and it seems like this is understaffed. We are a rich organization, but as volunteers, sometimes it doesn't feel like that wealth is shared with us in tangible ways, e.g. fulfilling our software requests in a timely manner. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With the amount of money they're talking about raising, you'd think they could do better than "10 requests from the community every two years". --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK

Comment by Jaime Villagomez, Wikimedia Foundation

 * Comment: Making Wikipedia truly accessible to everyone requires significant, ongoing investment. It requires a substantial technology investment - above and beyond data centers and caching centers, software and infrastructure as well as the engineering staff to support one of the top ten websites in the world. It includes legal support to defend our projects from threats of censorship and support our volunteer communities. It includes supporting the growth of volunteer editor communities around the world - including through our grantmaking practices. This is why we fundraise. And we have so much more to do, if we are to achieve the vision of our movement and be representative of the sum of all knowledge - across languages and regions.


 * In FY2022-23, our programmatic work will be allocated across a variety of work that supports our communities and websites. We expect roughly the breakdown to be the same as it was in FY2021-22:
 * 43 percent - direct support to websites (engineering improvements, design, legal support)
 * 33 percent - support to the volunteer community through grants, programs, training, tools, advocacy, and other support
 * 24 percent - other (14 percent on administration and governance, 10 percent on fundraising)


 * As set by our Board of Trustees and outlined in our annual plan, we operate on an annual budget of USD 175 million. In the past fiscal years, as the Foundation has grown we have invested in key areas, including single points of failure in our tech infrastructure, movement-supporting infrastructure including translation, an expanded Global Advocacy team to protect against regulatory threats to free knowledge and censorship, to name a few. In the current and upcoming fiscal years, we do not expect the same budget growth from recent years to continue, as we shared in our annual plan. The increased revenue goal for FY 2022-2023 compared to the previous year is primarily due to an increase in costs due to inflation and a 28% increase ($5M) in the grants budget and less by the growth in the number of employees, which is stabilizing this year.


 * In line with non-profit best practices, we started this fiscal year with roughly 16 months of operating expenses in our reserves. These are not funds that we use on a day-to-day basis. The reserve can only be accessed in exceptional circumstances, such as an economic crisis and help fulfill the Foundation’s responsibility to ensure the sustainability of Wikimedia projects, as public resources, into the future. This has become especially relevant given the global pandemic and economic turbulence. We keep a target of 12-18 months of operating expenses in our reserve as outlined in a resolution passed by the Board of Trustees in June 2022.


 * Finally, regarding the question about grants - in the past fiscal year, we increased our overall grantmaking to the movement. In terms of reporting of grant totals, the difference from grant reports on Meta and those shared with the IRS is due to a few things. Firstly, our grants report focuses on our grantmaking programs listed here, while the 990 includes some additional activities that meet the definition of grantmaking. Secondly, there are some instances where the fiscal year period where grants are reported is different in the 990 and the grant report.  This is the case for some instances where grants cover multiple fiscal years.  Lastly, the 990 geographic classifications are different from the Foundation’s grantmaking regions. This is because some of the regional classifications in the 990 aren’t representative of our movement.JVillagomez (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "33 percent - support to the volunteer community through grants, programs, training, tools, advocacy, and other support" would be about $50 million. This is about five times the Awards and grants total once you account for the five million going to Tides. What exactly do you include in those 33%? Mathematically, it must include a significant part of the salary bill.
 * The Grantmaking figures for South Asia and other regions are far smaller on the Form 990, are they not? See m:Talk:Grantmaking/Reports/2020-2021.
 * Where is the public accounting for the $4.223 million Tides Advocacy were given in 2019/2020 together with the $4.5 million they were given for the Knowledge Equity Fund?
 * supporting the growth of volunteer editor communities around the world - including through our grantmaking practices: Does this mean paying consultants and organisers so they can then try to get people in poor countries to edit for free?
 * What is the reason for this year's negative investment income (a $12 million loss)?
 * Going from a target of $108 million to a target of $175 million in two years has little to do with inflation (currently below 8%) or the ability to increase grant expenses, given that the Foundation had a $60 million surplus over the course of those two years ($70 million if you include the fact that its "expenses" included $10 million it paid to Tides for its own endowment). It's about growth – "the fundraising team will be increasing targets in each of their major streams" – while the fundraising banners speak of "protecting" and "sustaining". It's appalling.
 * Andreas JN 466 00:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's talk a bit for your numbers here. Let's not talk about "support for the volunteers" for a moment, those are really problematic but let's skip that for a moment. Let's talk about 24 percent that you "need" for administration and fundraising. Let's compare it to charities that I frequently donated to. Goodwill is at 13 percent. St Jude is at 18 percent. Samaritan's Purse is at 23 percent. Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS) are at 10 percent. The only number that are close to Wikipedia are Samaritan's Purse, all other charities are performing at a far better efficiency than WMF. I didn't expect a religious charity to be performing better than WMF, but here we are - WMF performed worse than Samaritan's Purse. With huge reach of Wikipedia, surely you should have performed better than all of these organizations? All of these organizations are sending out mails every month asking for donation, they open up buildings for operation, but still WMF is LESS EFFICIENT than all of them. I have received donation request from St. Jude and Samaritan's Purse and similar organizations, all with clear humanity issues, but the language of their donation request is far less "whiny" than WMF.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   17:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an accountant, nor am I a software engineer, but putting boxes asking for donations on Wikipedia doesn't seem exactly like seventeen and a half million dollars of expenses. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can the WMF issue a more-detailed breakdown of those figures in its budget, like using the same line item descriptions as are used on its Annual Financial Statements and/or Form 990, so the public could see a real budget-v-actual with the three classes (direct, community, admin)? 43% of $175M is $75 million. How many full-time engineers does that pay for? 33% is $57M. How much of that actually gets given away in grants, and what is the rest used for? And 10%--$17.5 million--on fundraising, how is that spent? Are we airing a Superbowl commercial? These are very broad categories, and I have a hard time matching the Annual Plan categories with the Financial Statement and Form 990 line items. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Making Wikipedia truly accessible to everyone requires significant, ongoing investment" – This is just wrong. Like almost everything else on this website, it requires volunteer effort, not money, doing tasks like adding language metadata, recording spoken Wikipedia, and refactoring templates for mobile responsivity, to make Wikipedia truly accessible. The current software itself has a high standard of accessibility, and the money the WMF spends on changing it in projects like "Vector 2022" will do little but cause layout issues that the same volunteers will waste their time correcting. –small jars 16:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Making Wikipedia truly accessible to everyone requires significant, ongoing investment" – This is just wrong. Like almost everything else on this website, it requires volunteer effort, not money, doing tasks like adding language metadata, recording spoken Wikipedia, and refactoring templates for mobile responsivity, to make Wikipedia truly accessible. The current software itself has a high standard of accessibility, and the money the WMF spends on changing it in projects like "Vector 2022" will do little but cause layout issues that the same volunteers will waste their time correcting. –small jars 16:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Selena Deckelmann, Wikimedia Foundation

 * Comment: Hi everyone! I’m Selena Deckelmann, the WMF’s new Chief Product and Technology Officer. I hope I can add some detail and color to this important conversation. I joined the Foundation about four months ago, and I’ve spent that time learning about the sheer scale and complexity of the technical infrastructure that powers our work. (Krinkle shared this diagram with me recently and it’s a fascinating view of just one large part of what it takes to support 950 separate wiki instances and a website that is among the top 10 in the world.) I’ve read some of the comments here comparing our costs now to ten or fifteen years ago. These estimates are outdated, and do not account for the growth of content and traffic our sites support today, and the increasing challenges of a more complex, dangerous and sophisticated internet. Back then, we did not have a sustainable model for the engineers who keep the site reliable, we didn’t have backups, and we didn’t have a second data center.


 * Compared to that snapshot from ten or fifteen years ago, the Foundation’s scale has increased to support the need - for our readers as well as for our contributors, for all of you. We now have two main data centers, four caching data centers in Amsterdam, Marseille, Singapore and San Francisco, and 32 internet peering connections. These systems ensure that wherever a person is in the world, Wikipedia and related projects are able to be accessed, quickly and reliably.


 * We maintain the software and infrastructure for all of these wikis and over 2600 community-contributed tools. We have more than 40 product and tech teams managing more than 500 software extensions, products, features and libraries that each require specialized skillsets (1+2), more than 3.2 million lines of code as of September 2022, 900+ customized instances of MediaWiki that need a ton of code-testing for every change (1), 50,000+ open phab tasks (1), and 50+ wishlists (1). We also maintain substantial data infrastructure that enables volunteers to gain direct access to wiki content and to analytical information about the wikis, and the Toolforge platform for volunteers to host tools which assist their work. The projects are now more reliable and faster than they’ve ever been; even during the record-breaking page visits we saw after the death of the Queen of England, Wikipedia never went down, when a fraction of that amount of views would have taken the site offline before.


 * This is an enormous volume of work, yet our overall efforts are still quite lean compared to the scale of needs on our sites. For example, before we added our latest Marseilles data center, staff internally used to worry that our primary European data site in Amsterdam was "too big to fail". It’s safe to say that maintaining Wikipedia, and supporting it as it grows with infrastructure and software improvements, is an enormous effort. This effort increases in scale and complexity each year, even as we seek to reduce the speed of our overall Foundation growth and better address issues of technical debt raised here and in other forums by volunteers.


 * I want to acknowledge the concerns I see on this page and in many other forums about the responsiveness to the specific technical needs of volunteers. While we have places like the community wishlist to understand and respond to community needs, those should not be the only places where we’re able to hear from you and work together on what you need. As part of my listening tour as I’ve joined, I’m speaking with both editors and technical volunteers to understand how we can engage better and work together on supporting the projects. I invited volunteers to a recent product and tech department meeting in Berlin, and I attended a recent board Community Affairs Committee meeting in which we talked about support for Commons and for New Page Patrol. And I participated in a subsequent roundtable meeting to discuss page patrolling issues across the wikis, from which further conversations, code review, and technical investigations have all begun.


 * One of the things I’ve said to Maryana recently is that planning out the future of work on Wikipedia and our many projects requires significant historical context, which is why I decided to spend several months on a listening tour before deciding to make significant changes to the work of my departments. In addition, the software that helps sustain the movement, and the internet itself, have changed significantly and grown increasingly complex over the last 20 years. The ever increasing complexity of our work isn’t something the staff speak about in detail, and I wonder if perhaps we should spend some time on that in the future. There’s a thread about the current state of Twitter in relation to their former staff and some of the kinds of issues site reliability engineers face at internet service companies. This is a worthwhile read and incomplete view of the kinds of issues some WMF teams face daily, which addressing requires many experienced people and their good judgment to resolve.


 * To achieve what we set out to do, Foundation and volunteers together – to collect and make available to the whole world the sum of all human knowledge in perpetuity – it’s just an incredibly large and nearly impossible challenge. I feel so excited that I get to focus on this problem with you all, and it will take some time to understand the complexity, the current reality and set out a strategic path for allocating resources across the product and tech departments at WMF. I continue to meet with people on my listening tour, and I invite anyone here to reach out to my talk page to share your vision about our future together. I don’t have specific answers yet, but I am making a commitment to listen and find ways we can more frequently and productively work together. SDeckelmann-WMF (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @SDeckelmann-WMF thank you for this thoughtful reply and the obvious effort you're putting in here. I appreciate the difficulty of your work as a professional software engineer myself. Best of luck 🙇‍♂️ Nicereddy (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I agree about the importance of the public domain as a concept in modern life. Thanks for your contributions and attention to the UI/UX of Wikipedia. SDeckelmann-WMF (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi SDeckelmann-WMF, thank you for the extended reply. If I understand the structure of the WMF correctly I think the area under your control is the one we are least dissatisfied with; we appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia online and running reliably, despite a sometimes challenging environment, and I don’t believe anyone is criticising the money spent on that, although the lack of transparency may result in us misestimating how much is spent there.
 * I believe the biggest issue we have with the work of your teams, and the volunteers who work more closely with them will correct me if I am wrong, is instead the new products develop; you often decide what we need, rather than giving us the chance to tell you what we need. What we are asking for here is for you to change that; to commit to not developing major new products without talking to the people you are developing those products for, and to commit to listening to us when we tell you we need something.
 * However, what I believe we want most from the WMF is to commit to respect the consensus here. Once you have done that, we can start talking about what would be required to repair the relationship between enwiki and the WMF. If you are not authorised to make that commitment can you contact those who are? BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @BilledMammal! Thanks for your response and expression of appreciation. Some other folks will be responding to your questions in the last paragraph, so I'm going to leave that to them.
 * I am curious about the new products we've developed that come to mind that you're concerned about, and also interested in what comes to mind as an area where we aren't listening. These are examples that I'm sure I can learn something from. SDeckelmann-WMF (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vector 2022 would be the most significant recent product that I am aware of where the community should have been consulted earlier.
 * For areas where I don't feel you are properly listening and responding to our issues, NPP would be the most significant recent issue. With NPP, the community has come to you and said that we need this software to be upgraded to do the on-wiki equivalent of keeping the lights on, and your response for such a major issue has been inadequate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you actually read the discussion above (which in itself says a lot!) – because I cannot find a single comment in the Survey section that references what costs were like 10 or 15 years ago. Your post reminds me of Boris Johnson, who'd always try to overwhelm discussions by spouting figures of "million of this ... millions of that ... new hospitals ... more nurses ... more police on the streets" whenever he was in hot water.
 * It is very simple:
 * The WMF reported a $60 million surplus over the past two years (that surplus is bigger than the amount this banner campaign is designed to bring in).
 * The WMF is $50 million ahead of schedule with its m:Endowment.
 * It's planning to increase expenditure from $112 million in the year ending June 2021 to $175 million in the present year (when I mentioned this to a journalist yesterday, they said it was "bonkers"), but is using fundraising messages suggesting Wikipedia's independence or existence is under threat – at a time when many people's financial existence is genuinely under threat.
 * So far the WMF has rolled out one executive after the other on this page, each paltering and failing to actually engage – or answer queries of course. I see little sign of progress. Andreas JN 466 09:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've been an editor on Wikipedia for around 9 years now and I think I'm quite typical of the volunteers in this discussion, so I'm a bit confused by your comments. If you've been working at the WMF for less than six months and I've been volunteering for nearly 10 years, why do you think you need to "add some detail and color" rather than listen to what I am saying?As a community, we are aware of what's changed in the last 10 to 15 years, because we've been here. We are aware of what the tech infrastructure is like from both a reader and an editor perspective, because we are both of those groups. Many of us also have technical backgrounds, work as programmers or have lots of experience with how the internet works. It is not news to me that we need lots of technical staff, lots of money for servers and that individual employees at the WMF do an incredible job in ensuring access to Wikipedia is available as widely as possible (given government censorship).Talking about support for Commons and NPP is of no use to us. Providing support for Commons and NPP is of use to us, and I trust in their reports back to the community that there is no help being planned for NPP.Instead of patronising us, why not read just some of our comments in detail and leave a reply that shows that you have understood some of our concerns? — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I can say is that I'm sure she's going to do what she can for NPP, Commons, and software requests from the communities. It won't happen overnight though and after waiting a decade, we're getting impatient. She hasn't, and never will have the institutional memory of those of us who have been around since the days when the WMF had 7 employees and and having a one-on-one Skype call with the WMF vice president was a normal thing to do and get things done. I'm  not defending  her because I've spoken  with her, but she doesn' t have her hands on the purse strings - yet - at least until she discovers the full power of her position.
 * My hope is that she will steer the devs away from their traditional thinking that they know best and what  they  believe the community 'might' want, and wasting millions of dollars developing it, and instead listen to the editors and understand what is needed. That would be the sensible way to spend the glut of funds that is currently used for everything else in preference to essential editor engineering and newbie onboarding, and forcing our volunteer editors to write patches only to have them rejected by the overlords at Phab.
 * There would then be the basis for some honesty in the texts of the fundraising banners - which incidentally seem to have missed the copy editing stage before they were released. Let's hope she can effect that turnaround; it will be a challenge because she does first need to find her way around the madhouse she has joined and never will be able to micromanage, and for the moment all she can do is talk about it.
 * In the meantime I must reaffirm my oppose vote in this RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung I agree with you :-) You know that I have my concerns with NPP because I believe that we should be updating the new article creation process, but WP really needs both and a community set IT long term strategy includng new WP features, rather than a community wishlist. The fundamental issues for both approaches, is that it is not in WMF's core interests of raising funds to fix WP issues unless required through tied fundrasing donations. WP is driven by metrics; new editors (so ease of micro-edits), media mentions (with editor bias as the most common), new articles (so NPP not so good, but creation of ghost town Wikis excellent), increasing donations (so editor and reader tracking, personalised banners for large donors, large IT budget on fundrasing, analytics, and donations, ), and NOT improving WP as a shambolic interface with lots of templates asking for help increase donations. Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the "enormous growth of content and traffic our sites support today", it should be noted that page views for English Wikipedia have been |bar|all|~total|daily pretty stable for the past six years. The same goes for |bar|all|~total|daily page views of all wikis taken together.
 * Click the links. Select "All time" instead of "Last Two Years" on the left to see data going back to 2016. For even older data, select "Legacy page views". According to those graphs, page views for "All wikis" have risen very little:
 * Monthly page views for "All wikis" were 24,242,133,946 in October 2013.
 * Monthly page views for "All wikis" were 24,460,156,652 in October 2022.
 * This sort of thing happens time and again with assertions made by our highly paid WMF executives. They fall apart once you actually look into them. Andreas JN 466 13:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (COI disclosure: I work for the foundation but this is in my volunteer capacity). Numbers don't tell a full story, we had way more outages in 2013 (Michael Jackson effect for example), we had way less features that now we have such as notifications, content translation, discussion tools, visual editor (it was in its infancy back then), dedicated mobile support, wikidata (in its infancy), ores, lua for templates, etc. We also had much smaller size which meant smaller databases, simpler caching, and so on. I'm not debating the rest of issues and problems. Just commenting on the numbers of views. Ladsgroupoverleg 14:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple more things I remembered, the latency was quite higher, anyone visiting from east of Asia was getting the pages from SF datacenter, we had only one person for security, the attacks and threat models were completely different (we now have more sophisticated attacks), I knew several people who were burned out because of the sheer size of the work per person, ... Ladsgroupoverleg 14:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This may well be so, but the statement was that there has been an "enormous growth" in traffic. This is not borne out by the linked data, neither for en:WP nor for all wikis. Andreas JN 466 14:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are different ways to look at it, we never had peak of 400,000 requests per second, which happened during Queen's death. And noting that in early 2020 we had a massive surge of visits, an increase of 30% due to the pandemic, classes being done from home, etc.
 * Also your numbers include only English Wikipedia. That also doesn't include the full picture. The growth is much more pronounced if you count all wikis which means we are serving to more under-served languages. Ladsgroupoverleg 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I explicitly linked to the All wikis data above. The words "All wikis" occurred five (5) times in my posts above. How on earth did you manage to miss them all? As for that spike in early 2020, according to stats.wikimedia.org total page views for all wikis peaked at 25,754,868,143 in April 2020. That's a mere 6% higher than the figure stats.wikimedia.org shows for the peak in October 2013. Is it really so hard to do without hyperbole and just stick to the data? Andreas JN 466 15:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * you can't compare October with April. Wikipedia views have annual patterns, e.g. in summer there is no school, there is a difference in times of exams, etc. For comparison in October 2016 we had 20M views, October 2022, it's 24M which is 20% increase just in six years. Ladsgroupoverleg 15:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The server doesn't care whether people read Wikipedia in April or October, and the WMF had peaks in excess of 24B page views as far back as 2013. If you look at the data, it's essentially been stable. Page views for all wikis were –
 * 24.5B in October 2022,
 * 21.8B in October 2021,
 * 22.1B in October 2020,
 * 21.4B in October 2019,
 * 20.2B in October 2018,
 * 19.9B in October 2017,
 * 20.4B in October 2016.
 * Page views in June 2020 were higher than they were in June 2022 ... I would not call that "enormous growth." What has grown "enormously" is WMF assets: from $91 million in June 2016 to well over $350 million (including the Endowment) in June 2022. Andreas JN 466 15:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we have other metrics to look at, like bandwidth used and bandwith costs over time? i don't think page views as a metric tells everything when we are talking about dollars and cents. – robertsky (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are the Internet hosting costs, consistently reported to be around $2.5 million p.a.: Andreas  JN 466 13:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be expected that traffic would be higher in the middle of the pandemic, when most people were still in lockdown, as compared to a regular summer month where more people (in the northern hemisphere at least) are outside rather than on Wikipedia. MyNameIsVladInternet-group-chat.svg / Edit-select-all.svg 19:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @SDeckelmann-WMF Thank-you for your discussion of why fundraising is needed because of the complexity of WMF, and for community wish-lists etc?
 * What are your plans to reduce the complexity, and cost  of WMF IT?
 * Will there be One IT department, rather than many controlled by different directors?
 * With community wish-lists, for enWP could you provide the FTE by IT staff by year? With the fundraising quoted percentages, could you provide a detailed breakdown of the calculation showing the FTE by person for enWP, what are they work in, and whether they are paid for by funds or grants?
 * Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply and that you are working toward a worthy goal aligned with the community here. I do think most of the worry is not that we shouldn't support necessary maintenance, security, fixes, development etc. but rather that not enough of it is being done, in general (wrt various community needs) and with regard to the money that comes in, relative to various other causes, like re-donating the money elsewhere and sky-high packages for executives. I am not sure that these are separable issues with the current state of the WMF, especially the apparently decreasing transparency. CharredShorthand (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Planned low level weekend test
From 18 November to 20 November, the WMF is planning to run a low level banner test as the final test before the campaign is scheduled to be launched on 29 November. Based on the overwhelming response in opposition here I've asked them to cancel that planned test. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * JBrungs has that they plan to continue with the low level weekend test. Their comment also implies that they continue to prepare for the December campaign, despite the clear consensus here.
 * We need to decide whether in line with the proposed method of enforcing the consensus we use Common.css to block the test this weekend, or if we wait and see if they attempt to run the campaign before taking action. BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest posting at WP:AN to get more input. Andreas JN 466 21:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the WMF schedules the banners (see here and here) that may be needed, but I hope they will chose to accept the consensus of the community. BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're getting way ahead of yourself declaring a consensus for a sitewide ban on fundraising tests. The discussion has only been running for three days and has had ~50 comments (out of 40,000+ active editors on enwiki mind you). By comparison, the WMF has been testing banners on and off for over a decade, so it's not exactly an emergency that they're going to run another short test for a few days. There's no community precedent that WMF has to stop and gain consensus prior to running banners either. This is just like when you rushed to edit WP:BOT based on your hasty misinterpretation of the RFC, and that one was actually closed by uninvolved editors, unlike this. Asking people to take the nuclear option and edit Common.css when the discussion is ongoing is pretty pointy. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk  03:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I recognize that you support running these banners, but there is a clear snow consensus that they should not be run, and to run the test would be disruptive WP:IDHT behaviour. (WP:POINT, however, does not apply to any editor involved, as it only applies to an editor making edits with which they do not actually agree) BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , you are fully aware that of the 40,000+ active editors on enwiki only a couple of hundred (444 at the last count) are aware of what goes on in the back office, and even fewer know what goes on behind closed doors at the Foundation. The nuclear option might well be the result the WMF gets this time. And I would support it. The loss of a year's worth of donations from en.Wiki readers is maintainable and would bring the WMF to its senses. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it or not, the RFC hasn't closed. Demanding enforcement of a decision that hasn't been made yet is putting the cart before the horse. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk  04:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Demanding that an editor stop engaging in certain actions while those actions are under discussion and the discussion is clearly trending towards finding those actions inappropriate is normal practice.
 * However, no editor is demanding enforcement here. I asked a question, whether we should block the tests if the WMF attempts to go ahead with them, or if we should wait and see if the WMF attempts to run the campaign before taking action. I assume you prefer the latter? BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic . I wasn't discussing the duration of this RfC or when it should be closed. or even remotely hinting on 'demanding an enforcement' of anything. I'm just putting the writing in the wall like I did many years ago about the IEP. The WMF wouldn't listen,  the damage cost a couple of $M in wasted money, and I organised a team of volunteers to clean up the Foundation's mess for free. That's the level of confidence today's community has in the WMF who is driving it's own wedge even further into the rift. This is already a substantial RfC and the Foundation needs to take note. It's not a straw poll, the head count doesn't matter, they need to listen to the reasoning of the arguments and have some respect for the unpaid volunteers whose work brings in the money. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * a brief aside for the uninformed – what was the IEP? I've never come across this term on Wikipedia before in connection to the WMF's actions.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 21:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on Kudpung's comments elsewhere I believe they are referring to the India Education Program. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fundraising team has been listening to the comments here this week. We’re excited to try ideas that have been suggested by volunteers for the weekend test. We’re preparing messages that feature a phrase that y’all have suggested we highlight, advance the cause of free knowledge in the world. We are also highlighting sister projects and the Foundation, and piloting some changes to the Only 2% give message. We welcome more ideas for messages to test here. - SPatton_(WMF) SPatton (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated the list of recent banners to include the ones from this weekends test. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear you are listening to us enough, both in terms of the content of the test and the test itself, which by running despite the emerging consensus suggests you are dismissive of the communities feelings.
 * For the content of the test, you continue to test banners that don't address the concerns; it appears the only concern you have consistently addressed is conflating the WMF with Wikipedia, but even there you have only addressed it in about half of the banners. In addition, the biggest issue with the banners, that they suggest Wikipedia is under threat, continues. BilledMammal (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:SPatton (WMF): This is not good enough. Please stop asking people to "support Wikipedia's independence" or "sustain Wikipedia". You know the performance of those banner wordings already; there is no need to run another A/B test with them. You are in WP:IDHT territory here.
 * Talk about the Wikimedia Foundation, what it is, what it does, and what it wants. And please do it without paltering. Andreas JN 466 21:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For some of the banners it's too late. They ran between 2022-11-18 21:00 (UTC) and 2022-11-21 21:00 (UTC) on enwiki for readers from Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States and they are full of errors (I'd provide a list but I don't see why I should do the WMF's work for free again). Why should the volunteers have to suggested ideas? Isn't that what the volunteer driven donations are paying $17M for? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Deciding whether to obstruct &rarr; specific conditions to continue
I'd like to suggest reframing this discussion. The decision to halt WMF fundraising is a drastic step, but there's clearly growing support for it. Regardless of whether this represents a minority in the grand scheme of the English Wikipedia community, there don't appear to be many willing to jump in the line of fire in defending the fundraising, so canceling the banners (or a very ugly conflict) is a real possibility. I still say the main reason we're here is because of widespread hurt and resentment towards how the foundation has been run (and specifically how money is spent). There will be a few people who say "no banners no matter what" or "burn it to the ground", but that is an extreme position. For most of us, I suspect it's entirely possible the WMF could change how it does things enough that fundraising would return to being an infrequent annoyance (like all fundraising) rather than a reminder of the distance between the volunteers and the foundation.

Throughout this discussion, some people are offering concrete suggestions, but the suggestions vary by person, and are all undercut by the number of people who'd sooner write "WMF sucks, don't donate" than have any fundraising. That's in part because of how this RfC is framed: it's only about a yes/no to fundraising banners, without any attempt to turn it into something that actually benefits the community (except insofar as not running banners benefits the community). Meanwhile, we're coming up on the time when the banners run, and a sizable staff has to scramble to figure out how to interpret the opinions and emotions expressed here in a short window of time (it would be entirely valid to point out that people have been raising these issues for some time, however, so they should've been able to see this coming).

'''We've made it clear there's a lot of hurt here, and that there are a lot of people willing to take drastic measures because of it. Rather than just decide to obstruct fundraising, however, let's shift conversation to conditions to continue.'''

I still believe that most of the people who are upset about the banners wouldn't be so upset if they didn't have such a problem with how the foundation allocates its money. That makes me wonder what sort of change in the WMF budget would be enough. Above I made one suggestion. What if the WMF guaranteed that 5% of its annual budget for the next five years would be dedicated to community-selected projects (call it an expansions of the community tech wishlist or something else, but it would be entirely for tasks selected by the community and carried out by WMF staff, without the need for a grants process and without the need for volunteers to do the labor of management, hiring, etc.)? Think of all that could do for us (not to mention readers). Of course, they can't implement that in a matter of a couple weeks, but it's not impossible for them (the board, I suppose) to make that decision. If bureaucracy moves too slowly, we could also say "this is the last time you get to run fundraising until you do this" (which gives them more time to figure things out without jacking things up in the short-term). Thoughts? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure entirely how I feel about it, but I'll say this: no banners is a perfectly reasonable position. As in: don't run these banners, don't run any banners this year, don't run any banners until further notice... all are reasonable positions. Even if WMF fundraising were necessary (and I'm not sure about that, I'd rather see them divest themselves of their toxic corporate investments, like millions on mortgage-backed securities, before they ask for donations again), they don't necessarily need to fundraiser on-wiki, or on en-wiki. If the community decided to just ban banners until the WMF gets its spending act together, I'd be fine with that. BTW this whole "guarantee 5%" idea is a dead end. They already say they spend 40% on direct support but without meaningful reporting we know it's not true. Also, the budget is set by people we elect (trustees) and always has been. This isn't really about a miscommunication, or about the community having no power. It's more like: the people we elect to trustees historically have simply not provided financial oversight of the kind the community wants. Maybe these new trustees will do something different. Meh, I'm fine with shutting off fundraising banners on enwiki until they do. Instead of us providing a roadmap, let them make a request to turn banners back on, and we can evaluate what's changed at that time. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Part of my issue is that the banners are extremely misleading. And also the WMF has a crap ton of money already (more than they need) so why would they want more except to get rich? And also even if the WMF guaranteed 5% of the annual budget to community-selected projects there's nothing to enforce that. So it could be proposed, they approve it and then they never do it or just "forget" and continue with what they're doing. And there's also a lack of transparency between the WMF and the community. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If every cent of the money went to improving the projects in visible ways and all of their outreach initiatives around the world were extremely successful, bringing in tons of new editors and appreciation for what we do, I don't think anyone would be talking about having too much money. As for they approve it and then they never do it - the point here is that there are people on-wiki willing to put a stop to on-wiki fundraising efforts. They could theoretically also implement something like superprotection to force the banners through, too, but why would you get into such a massive, damaging conflict with the volunteers when you can allocate a piece of the budget to something they want instead? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From my experience the people from the WMF who communicate here on-wiki have a lot of respect for the volunteers. However there are some in the WMF that don't seem to care about the volunteers and do what they think is right. For example they created Vector 2022 when no one deemed the current vector bad. And recently they changed the buttons for Wikilove and adding a page to your watchlist from pink and blue respectively, to monotone black and white without even thinking to ask if we would want that. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's unrealistic to have them consult the community for every minor design change (like color changes for certain buttons). It'd essentially grind all development of MediaWiki software a halt, and they'd end up in even more of a bureaucratic hell then they already are. Nicereddy (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a stretch to say that "nobody deemed Vector 2010 bad" - plenty of people have switched to/stuck with Vector 2022, and (at least in my opinion) 2010 is rather outdated.  Rema goxer  (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5% seems far too small - 95% of the budget is out of community control. Moving to some sort of model where all of the money (save for credit card processing fees) is kept in escrow for ENWP to disburse to the Wikimedia Foundation and other organizations as it sees fit would work, and would provide oversight as to how the funds are spent - making the banner ads more accurate. There used to be a Funds Dissemination Committee that provided a check on spending, and now that's gone. TomDotGov (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading of the above Opposes is that the prime objection is to the banners' content (because they confound Wikimedia and Wikipedia, imply a financial emergency for Wikipedia when there isn't one, are seen as manipulative, dishonest, unethical, lying to readers etc.). I don't see people saying, "Yes, your banners are manipulative and dishonest, but if you give us a bigger share of the loot, we'll shut up about it."
 * Also agree with Levivich above. According to the 2021-2022 fundraising report, total income from banners amounted to $58 million, which was about a third of the $165 million total. Let us remember: the WMF had a $60 million surplus in the last two years, and has already brought in millions from banners run in other countries and language versions. No banners on English Wikipedia this year is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Andreas JN 466 17:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd second this. If the big problem highlighted in mostly every Oppose response is "the wording of these banners is slippery and unethical", I don't think it's reasonable for us to turn around and say "we just want more of the money, please", because that's also unethical – and I'd also hope that most people would see that as something that would give the WMF an out on this issue, and would itself be us repeating the problem, continuing what other editors have stated is a years-long issue and contributing to what seems like a pretty toxic cycle.
 * The fact we're starting from a standpoint where the WMF's finances, allocations and fundraising efforts are becoming increasingly opaque over time means that there is, increasingly, becoming less and less to put our faith in. The WMF staff here seem pulled between responses that acquiesce to the will of the community and what I can only describe as corporate firefighting. I don't think that's something we should be putting faith in. I don't think it's bold, I don't think it's reasonable, and I don't think putting faith in something that could simply be rescinded later is worthwhile.
 * I've seen mentions of WP:AGF used in response to editors who have posed genuine, important questions that are not comfortable for the WMF, and I've seen a mention of WP:CANCER be met with raising it at redirects for discussion, in the middle of this RfC – ostensibly because "it may be offensive to those who have lost a loved one to cancer"; it smells like a bad faith effort to avoid association with being described as "cancerous" to me. (No questions were asked about whether the editor who mentioned WP:CANCER had lost a loved one to cancer; on the redirect for discussion, this also wasn't asked of the original author of the essay themselves.)
 * I appreciate that there will be some WMF staff who may be, or feel, hamstrung against speaking out as much as they would like to, and who may feel forced to offer only what they also feel is frustratingly limited progress forwards on this issue; I don't know what their working environment may be like. Likewise, I appreciate that there will be some WMF staff that won't feel this way.
 * However, this is community; not to put too fine a point on things, but at the end of the day, I have contributed several hundred hours of editing to Wikipedia for free, and what I have received in return is  several hundred hours of editing, contributed for free, from . I have spent time I could have spent working on this website. I have spent time writing about my subject matter in detail, and have purposefully bought resources I can use as references, in order to proudly contribute to this project. The WMF pays to keep the lights on, and it does pay for some projects, but it also won't lay out specifically what gets allocated to which projects, so how are we to know the specifics of how effective it is?
 * The entire reason we have a community consent process is that this website is run off the labour of our edits, and that we otherwise would have no controlling stake – no shares, no job position, no annual bonuses, no benefits and no pay. However, reliable editing and reliable editors is something that this website to run, as without it, we're looking at a return to Wikipedia of the late 2000s, when I was repeatedly told in school that it was a wholly unreliable resource, and not to be trusted at all. I don't want to see that. None of us want to see that. But I don't want to see the WMF attempt to fundraise in one hand and promise it'll do what we ask of it in the other; I don't want to be "kept happy enough" that they don't have to really sober up to these fundraising efforts. As Wikipedia grows better, do we allow the WMF to backslide as a charitable organisation, and become worse?
 * Stopping banners for a year, and promising that they will not be allowed to return unless the community finds them agreeable in consensus, is entirely reasonable. Wikipedia relies on you and I to run; and the WMF relies on you and I for its continued existence, fundraising, and profit. If it cannot show that it can use our labour in good faith, then it should not be allowed to use it for its own ends at all – not this year, and not the next.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 21:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * My position is that everything that appears on a rendered page in the mainspace should comply with core content policies. The banners have to be verifiable and neutral, and they mustn't deceive by omission.  No paltering.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading the opposes, I believe the common thread is the lack of engagement with us from the WMF. We are a key stakeholder in this broader project and I believe the community is asking that the WMF respects this.
 * The exact form that the community expects this to take isn't currently defined; there are a number areas that the community wants to see change in, including giving us more influence over banners, fundraising decisions, and resource allocations, as well as the WMF providing more transparency about its operations, including in its relationship with tides. I believe what the WMF should commit to doing now is delaying the fundraising campaign to give them time to negotiate with us; I believe we will be able to come to a mutually acceptable compromise that will allow the campaign to take place this year while addressing the broad array of issues that currently exist in our relationship. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to compromise on my actual, reasonable position: no fundraising banners should be run, indefinitely (to be revisited if the WMF ever does allocate its funds sensibly and faces a shortage).If the WMF guaranteed a substantial change like the 5% budget initiative, I would be delighted with that outcome—which we could then give them space to implement, then scrutinise and revisit. A guarantee needs to be using wording agreed with us.I am not happy to compromise on what would already be a comprise until we reach the position where we're telling the WMF, "yes, you never acknowledged the substance of what people oppose around the banners, but we're giving you another year to actually listen or... well, probably nothing will happen next year either".To get a substantial change like the one you are proposing, we need to threaten to pull the banners unless they agree. Or use our leverage in some other way (like an articles blackout or complaints to the media). Without being willing to recognise and exercise our power, the WMF will continue failing to recognise our authority. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Setting aside any question of whether an en.wp RFC has sufficient authority to prevent the WMF undertaking fundraising, I don't believe this RFC is set up to create a consensus to actually do so. The suggestion that anyone on en.wp might take active steps to frustrate the WMF's technical implementation of fundraising is buried right at the bottom of the 'information' section; whereas for that to be actionable, it'd have to be really clear what is meant to happen with it. Saying "I disagree with the wording of the WMF's banners" is really quite a different thing to saying "Someone should disable the WMF's banners and prevent them from happening." The Land (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So dropping a comment since this is going all over. I don't mind WMF putting a banner up, however I do think it should be clear that the banner content is from the "Wikimedia Foundation", saying it is from "Wikipedia" (one of many many projects is a bit reaching). It should perhaps also make it clear that WMF is the owner of the servers that host Wikipedia - so a casual reader will know the source of the ask (and the destination of the donation). — xaosflux  Talk 00:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from the WMF (2022 fundraising banners)
Dear all,

I would like to give you some more background and information on the fundraising banners. I have shared the latest banners that we are using for the banner pre-tests leading up to the English campaign to non-logged-in users. As our campaigns are built on continuous iteration and improvement, the team will continue to incorporate your feedback and ideas into our testing in the next few weeks, as well as daily iteration throughout the campaign.

Example Messaging (2022 fundraising banners)
Over the last year, some editors have provided feedback on messaging they would like to see changed in banners. Some of those changes we have already made and are listed below. The team combines feedback from editors, along with feedback from readers and donors, to shape our campaigns.

Example current message (this is our Desktop Large message which is shown once to non-logged in users, then smaller banners afterwards):

To all our readers in the U.S.,

Please don’t scroll past this. This Monday, for the 1st time recently, we interrupt your reading to humbly ask you to support Wikipedia’s independence. Only 2% of our readers give. Many think they’ll give later, but then forget. If you donate just $2.75, or whatever you can this Monday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years. We don't run ads, and we never have. We rely on our readers for support. We serve millions of people, but we run on a fraction of what other top sites spend. Wikipedia is special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to learn. We ask you, humbly: please don’t scroll away. If Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to donate. Show the world that access to neutral information matters to you. Thank you.

Example current message (this is our Mobile Large message which is shown once to non-logged in users, then smaller banners afterwards):

To all our readers,

Please don’t scroll past this. This Monday, for the 1st time recently, we interrupt your reading to humbly ask you to support Wikipedia’s independence. Only 2% of our readers give. Many think they’ll give later, but then forget. If you donate just $2.75, or whatever you can this Monday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years. The price of a cup of coffee is all we need.

We don't run ads, and we never have. We rely on our readers for support. We serve millions of people, but we run on a fraction of what other top sites spend.

Wikipedia is special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to learn. Wikipedia is maintained by a nonprofit, and the 58 million articles that compose it are free. Without reader contributions, we couldn’t run Wikipedia the way we do.

We want to make sure everyone on the planet has equal access to knowledge. We still have work to do.

If Wikipedia provided you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, please take a minute to secure its future by making a donation. Thank you.

You can compare this most recent banner to the banner that was used in December 2021.

Here are examples of messages the team is currently working on. We would appreciate feedback on our meta page around these ideas and welcome more ideas we can try in the upcoming campaign:


 * While so much of what you find online these days is questionable, we strive to provide you with a reliable, unbiased source of quality information when you need it.
 * Only 2% of readers give so we can bring more of the world’s knowledge to Wikipedia, protect against disinformation, and keep the site running smoothly.
 * We’re here to make sure you have access to unbiased, quality information when you need it. We have a long way to go to provide readers with all the world’s knowledge. We’re not there yet.
 * We are passionate about our model because at its core, Wikipedia belongs to you. We want everyone to have equal access to knowledge.
 * Access to knowledge around the world is under constant attack. As a nonprofit, we work to give access to knowledge to everyone, for free, forever. We still have work to do.
 * Wikipedia is different. No advertising, no subscription fees, no paywalls. Those don’t belong here. Wikipedia is a place to learn, free from bias or agenda.
 * No one person controls Wikipedia. We’re not influenced by advertisers or corporate interests. It belongs to you, the readers and editors. Wikipedia rests in your hands and we wouldn’t have it any other way.
 * Wikipedia is a place to learn, free of corporate or political interests
 * One donation may seem small, but when millions of readers each give, we can do great things.

Changes already made in response to feedback in the past year (2022 fundraising banners)
In the past year, the fundraising team has made the following changes to campaigns in direct response to volunteer feedback. We are grateful for the input and partnership with volunteers in improving campaigns for readers.


 * The banner message no longer includes the number of reminder banner messages shown to readers. For example, "For the 2nd/3rd/4th time recently, we interrupt your reading to humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia’s independence." The message only references the first time we ask for a donation.
 * The message more prominently highlights Wikipedia as a place of learning and knowledge.
 * The line “98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way”  has been removed
 * The word “reliable” has been removed from the message.
 * The mobile message more prominently highlights our vision: “We are passionate about our model because at its core, Wikipedia belongs to you. We want to make sure everyone on the planet has equal access to knowledge.”
 * “Wikipedia is a place to learn, not a place for advertising.” has been changed to “We don't run ads, and we never have.”
 * More information about what donations support has been added to the small reminder banners on mobile:
 * “Here’s what your donation enables:
 * Improvements on Wikipedia and our other online free knowledge projects
 * Support for the volunteers who share their knowledge with you everyday
 * Resources to help the Wikimedia Foundation advance the cause of free knowledge in the world.”
 * An ‘I already donated’ feature has been added in all our fundraising banners and the thank you confirmation page to help donors dismiss banners across all their devices.
 * The Foundation discontinued the direct acceptance of cryptocurrency as a means of donating. We began our direct acceptance of cryptocurrency in 2014 based on requests from our volunteers and donor communities. We made the decision to discontinue this practice based on feedback from those same communities.

In the creative process, the team uses feedback from readers, donors, and volunteers to generate new messages that will resonate with our audiences. We are always looking for new language suggestions to reach our readers to help them learn more about Wikipedia while we ask for their support. For example, the Dutch community recently wrote a fully original banner that the team tested during the Dutch campaign in September. We ran the banners for 4 days towards the end of the campaign, and the overall result of the new banner was a 65% decrease in donations. While this exact message won't reach the revenue target for the year, there are interesting concepts to further develop. We followed up on this test with a productive conversation with the community after the campaign, and we are planning to work together on incorporating more of the ideas from that session into future banners for the Netherlands.

Providing feedback (2022 fundraising banners)
As the team is actively preparing the upcoming End of Year campaign and developing new messaging, we would greatly appreciate constructive feedback and ideas for ways we can reach our donors while raising the revenue target this year. If you have messaging ideas you would like to see tested, please share them with Julia or leave a message here or on our meta talk page. We will be here, reading and listening to the discussion. The work of the global community of editors makes Wikipedia a useful resource for readers. We thank you for your work and welcome your input on the fundraising campaign.

Thank you.

Posting on behalf of JBrungs, RAdimer-WMF (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

so, with all that extra money coming in, why were the WMF planning on reducing the Community Wishlist Survey from once every year to once every two years, instead of increasing the size of the team working on these long-neglected wishes? Why should we take any statement above (or in the banners) about supporting Wikipedia and its volunteers serious when in reality community wishes are neglected and underfunded, volunteer created improvements and patches are being stalled, and critical voices at technical places (like Phabricator) are being brutally silenced? Fram (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Fram, I can answer one of your questions about the Wishlist Survey. The idea of changing the cadence of the Survey came from requests that the team has received over the years from volunteers, who ask why they need to take the time to re-propose and re-vote on wishes that they already voted for in the previous year. The question has usually been framed as, "Why do we need to vote again? Just keep working on the wishes from the last survey." So the team's suggestion was to run the survey as usual in Jan 2023, and then use those results to plan the team's work for 2023 and 2024.
 * That being said: I've seen here and in other discussions that people are interpreting the bi-annual idea as reducing the team's commitment and connection to the community, which was never intended. We're hearing from you that Community Tech is important, and that people value the annual cadence of the Wishlist Survey as a connection point between WMF's Product department and the active contributors who take part in the survey. We're going to talk and think some more about the annual/bi-annual question before we make a final decision about that. Either way, the team is gratified to know that people appreciate our work, and our commitment to working on projects that are important to the community is unchanged. Let me know if you have any questions. — DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see many comments that people appreciate your work. Perhaps they are the people whose prayers were answered at the Wish list - I must say, your effeorts for NPP wee very much appreciated a couple of years ago.


 * What gives me pause however, Danny, is that you sat in on the conference two weeks ago and although Selena told me she would be looking into the possibility of increasing the engineer workforce (and I have a privae email from her yesterday to this effect), you are now reducing your capacity, and after telling NPP that they should queue at the Wishlist again although in the same message you said the department lacks funds. Was my attending that meeting in the middle of the night for free another waste of my time?  This is a real enigma considering this thread is all about the glut of cash in the WMF coffers, and that the community no longer knows who to believe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The way they treated NPP that they should "get to the back of the queue (that hardly move, by the way!) and queue again" is so out of touch. They kept harping about needing money to "give resources to editors" but they are unable to fix important things that are clearly needed by the editors.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @DannyH (WMF) I have two questions. Could you link to example discussions where the community gave you the feedback of ? What other ideas besides moving to an every other year format did the Community Wishlist team consider? The goal of "we would like to spend more time working on projects and less administering the wishlist process" feels reasonable to me but gosh does that announcement and frankly your response here feel tone deaf to me which is not something I associate with your work. feels like something you say internally so that the people on the team aren't upset by the negative reaction to this announcement. I think several Wikipedians have failed at basic decency towards WMF staff in this discussion and so I understand your choice to jump into this discussion and how that speaks well of you as a colleague. But as a manager whose responsibilities are to work with the community, I hope you can see the community's desire to increase the budget of this area - which is congruent with the way funds have been raised in the past - not to make a more efficient use of the moneys and would communicate with us accordingly. Best. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * at the end of the day, the Community Tech ignores the difference between requests for convenience tools and gadgets, and seriously required maintenace and features for existing, important software. I think several Wikipedians have failed at basic decency towards WMF staff in this discussion - I'm not one of those people who look under every rock to see if there is an excuse for claiming PA, but I can take the hint while AGF is not a suicide pact; to be quite blunt however, it's no more than how a manager in a company would address the staff if they were not quite doing the right thing for the major stakeholders], and we volunteers - major stakeholders - have no other way of hauling the staff into the office and give them a dressing down. What happens in reality however, is that those of the staff who happen to be admins (and possibly other admins) threaten the volunteers with sanctions for speaking up–the volunteers have no trade union or employment laws on their side.


 * One could argue that a company relies on its workforce but at least the workers get paid and being scolded comes with the privilege of employment. Let's not forget that our volunteer work - most of it from en.Wiki - is what drives the donations that pay the salaries, but there are horses for courses - a good codewriter is not necessarily an expert production manger or funds distributor or UX expert, and vice versa, but it does appear to me that the WMF staff try to do a bit of everything. We are the bosses however, the WMF works for us, and we should be calling the shots. Unfortunately the WMF regards the thousands of volunteers as galley slaves as best, as was demonstrated in the IEP 11 years ago, and expendable cannon fodder at worst as was demonstrated at.


 * There are users among the volunteers who are every bit as qualified as the paid staff, if not more so; it's time the WMF got off its high horse and showed some respect for the communities and listened to them. Comments such as "Either way, the team is gratified to know that people appreciate our work, and our commitment to working on projects that are important to the community is unchanged" are purely patronising, just like the way the BoT talks to us as if we were naughty children asking for too much candy (video evidence exists). It's all enough to make the most dedicated volunteers give up, and what with local governance quirks on top of it, some do.


 * Sadly, bold comments such as in WMF vs Community discussions are the only way to keejerk some reaction, and when that doesn't work the community will threaten industrial action as it is over these fundraising template texts replete with their nonsense claims and poor English, and as we did with ACTRIAL when Danny actually understood, found funds to carry out a scientific approach to it, and accepted the results which actually proved how completely wrong the former member of senior staff  had been for years, and on that I remain eternally grateful to  him for doing so. It was one of the major milestones in WP history that threw out some antiquated 'perceived' founding principles and moved NPP forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Danny is really good at his job and ACTRIAL is one of several examples why. This is why the comment that we've both quoted so stood out to me as an exception to the positive body of work. However, as a manager of people who has had to dress down people below me, and as someone senior enough that I sometimes have to correct people who don't technically report to me when something comes up that falls in my area of responsibility, I think the rhetoric here goes far beyond what you're suggesting. I am personally sad that the community is having to resort to these measures, and I have a lot of sympathy for thinking that at least these banners remove some of the egregious stuff from the past, but I am even more sad that absent these kinds of large scale protests it's incredibly challenging for the WMF to break its inertia and listen to simple ideas like "Community Tech needs to be better resourced". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There may have been instances when he was really good at his job. During the Flow debacle, he was terrible, a pure WMF shill spouting nonsense and obfuscation again, and again, and again. An utter waste of time. Perhaps things have improved since. Fram (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the reply tool - the very tool I'm using to reply to this message and based on the edit summary the tool you used Fram - is a quite succesful product and one that Danny had a lot to do with having learned from the mistake that is Flow. I am similarly hopeful he'll course correct from the misstep above. That said even if he doesn't I would still like answers to the two questions I earnestly asked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I didn´t use the reply tool, just manually typed "reply". But like I said, things may have improved since my very bad experiences. Fram (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Response from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Hello all. Please find below an official response from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This movement is built on back-and-forth debate, even when people have strong views and deeply disagree. The Wikimedia Foundation Board acknowledges and respects the mechanisms built by Wikipedia communities to raise issues of concern through the use of RfCs. That said, we are clear that an RfC on English Wikipedia is not the best way to determine the use of global resources that support many other communities who are not present in this RfC discussion, but who would be impacted by it. A forthcoming movement charter may help, but is unlikely to solve the issues being raised right now. The Wikimedia Foundation Board has been closely watching this RfC since it began last week. Some very reasonable requests to have input into wording of the banners have been raised on this page, along with other overall concerns and questions about fundraising and spending. These are not taken by us lightly, and we have asked Foundation leadership to help us address them while working with the communities over the course of the next year. I would like to share some thoughts as Board Chair, and I have asked a few other Trustees to add their input here as well. This RfC was started to discuss banners running on English Wikipedia. However, the revenue we raise from this fundraising campaign supports and community needs around the world. Banners on English Wikipedia provide Wikimedia with our largest revenue source. They are one of the reasons we have been able to maintain an ad-free platform, and support work in other regions of the world. They are also consistent with our mission, allowing users to choose to give or not, and protecting our independence. It is therefore clear to the Board that banners need to continue as part of our global revenue strategy. While this RfC started about banner messaging, the issues raised here cover a much wider scope. I have read the numerous questions about how we allocate our budget to support the mission, the calls for clarity about how we support volunteer needs, feelings of distrust and disconnect, and the desire for more input and collaboration on the work and priorities of the Foundation. As Board Chair and as a longtime Wikimedian, I am sorry that we have gotten to this point. This is a clear signal that we must work even more closely with the communities, including English Wikipedia editors, to identify more productive ways for us to rebuild trust. In the immediate short term, this includes engaging with the communities on the messaging used in fundraising banners on the projects they contribute to. Of course, there would be reasonable limits on how the input would be implemented. Thank you to those who have already offered constructive suggestions for testing alternative messages for the fundraising team to test and implement over the past weekend. It is also important to be realistic about what kinds of activities would be at risk if the movement were to stop raising funds from the English banner campaign, ranging from resources to improve our product and technology infrastructure, to grants supporting many other regions of the world, to legal support for community members in need (as a Ukrainian Wikipedian I can tell you that things like this sometimes literally mean a life-or-death situation), for trust and safety, as well as for translations and live interpretation for global communities – to name a few. A funding decrease of this size would impact not just English Wikipedia, but how the Foundation supports many other projects in our global movement. The Board of Trustees, with the majority of its members selected by Wikimedia communities, is ultimately responsible for the Foundation's budget, its reserves, and how the money is raised. While we can agree that some of the issues raised in this RfC may be valid (and the associated frustration real and understandable), an RfC on a single wiki, is not the way to decide the financial fate of all Wikimedia sites and the movement. To sum it up:
 * The Board recognises some of the underlying issues raised here, even though the RfC started from messaging on the banners, it touched on other issues that require new approaches.
 * The Board does not believe that this RfC mechanism has a mandate to influence fundraising that impacts our ability to maintain a global movement, and a scope of projects that goes beyond English Wikipedia.
 * The Board has asked Foundation leadership to help us address some of the issues being raised: some of them in the short term (like messaging on the banners and emails sent to donors), some – in the longer term, like working with the communities closer on how they can influence our messaging, product and technology work, and rebuilding trust.

--NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees


 * Literally nobody here has threatened the scope of projects beyond English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is merely exercising its authority over banners that appear on English Wikipedia. If that is a problem, perhaps the objections to the banners shouldn't have been ignored for years while the board runs roughshod over the community.
 * The community is making it increasingly clear that the time for corporate-speak and jawboning is running short. The board has had a *lot* of time to engage in productive discussions, in myriad topics, but has only shown the least bit of engagement when the community has to go into full emergency mode. The board is reaping what it has sowed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * To inform discussion, it is worth pointing out here that –
 * The WMF's net assets increased by about $60 million over the past two years: . In other words, the WMF took in $60 million more than it spent, taking its net assets to $239 million. In addition, it also grew its $100 million m:Endowment at the Tides Foundation by something like another $20 million (please provide a precise figure if mine is wrong).
 * In the financial year just ended, on-wiki banner campaigns brought in $58 million. I believe that is the total for all wiki campaigns combined, including the campaigns run on the English and other Wikipedias this spring in India, South Africa, Latin America and many European countries, as advised from time to time on m:Fundraising.
 * Donations-total-sources.png
 * As for WMF spending, "Salaries and wages" accounted for $88 million of its expenses, "Professional service expenses" for $17 million, and "Awards and grants" for $15 million. --Andreas  JN 466 18:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * An impressive first post. Not a good one, but still impressive how it translates the Wmf panic into threats, half truths, and pathetic appeals. Starting off with how these banners keep Wikipedia ad free shows that you have not learned anything from this discussion at all. It usxalso the umpteenth bit of evidence of how the board always sides with the money and not with the people bringing in the money (no, not the overpaid fundraising department, but the enwiki volunteers). The complaints which have led to this Rfc have been aired for years, each time with more desperation and exasperation. The WMF has largely ignored them and has shown their disdain for them even during this Rfc, with on the one hand running further campaigns while it wad ongoing, and on the other hand claiming that they just can not provide us with the upcoming banners even now. Only now, when the reality dawns that enwiki will actually, really, disable the banners this year with or without the cooperation of the WMF, do we get an influx of the board flexing their imaginary muscles. So what will you do? Superprotect 2.0? Deadminning every admin who enforces this Rfc? Ban some people with some farfetched UCOC interpretation? What you are doing here is way too late and not helpful at all. Either accept the Rfc result and work with us to get something acceptable for in 12 months, or try to force us to run the banners and get no fundraising anyway (as we will find a way to  suppress them anyway) with a major rupture between enwiki on one side and WMF + Board on the other, with longlasting negative effects. Fram (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a good reply at all. First of all, if the en.wiki didn't "threaten" to block the banners using CSS, there wouldn't be any response, at all. If "the Foundation" or "the Board" truly sees what is going on, the majority of the issue aired should have been fixed years ago, and there wouldn't be any problems today. But WMF didn't care at all. You are correct to recognize that the banners are not the only problem - and your tone in the comment reflect that kind of problem. WMF treated editors as Karens, instead of treating the editors as their partners. The fact that is the most tone deaf statement, as this RFC is the only way to air grievances in en.wiki. And from the summary, there is no clear plan of action, no clear plan for outreach to the editors. "Foundation leadership" is not the one that is powering this ship, it is bunch of unpaid editors. To sum it up, I see that the WMF leadership didn't respect the editors enough, as they respect money more.   &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   20:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above editors that this reply is not going to help remedy the current situation.
 * I also believe that it is, at least in part, misleading. You say list a number of activities that would be at risk if the campaign does not go ahead, but these activities were successfully pursued in the 2020-2021 financial year when total expenses were $112,000,000. In the last financial year, you raised $165,000,000, of which $58,000,000 were from banners. Assuming (and we should not need to assume - again, the WMF is less than transparent here and I believe the broader community would appreciate the WMF publishing community by community, month by month, breakdowns of banner fundraising revenue) that less than 93% of funds were raised from campaigns on enwiki from December onwards then the WMF is more than capable of continuing all activities without dipping into reserves.
 * This is also related to Laurentius' comment below. There, they say that Reserves are not excess cash: they are money set aside to ensure that we can sustain our mission even in times of difficulty - either to weather the storm (in case of short-term problems) or to allow for some space to make more drastic changes (in case of long-term problems). I would argue that times of difficulty include neglecting your largest stakeholder to the point that they are forced to take drastic action.
 * Further, they say the Foundation has a formal policy to keep 12-18 months of revenue in reserve, and Laurentius says that if reserves were to approach 12 months action would need to be taken to increase them. This is slightly inaccurate; the actual policy is to keep 12-18 months of expenses in reserve, and that means either action could be taken to increase reserves, or decrease expenses.
 * With that said, I don't believe the community wants you to need to dip into reserves; I believe it wants to work with you on this. If you can agree to delay the campaign and to negotiate with us in good faith I believe we can come to a mutually acceptable compromise and start the campaign with only a few weeks delay. The alternative is as Fram laid out - attempt to force the banners through, and find yourself playing Whac-A-Mole as the community develops one solution after another to block your efforts, building resentment and widening the divide the longer you persist. BilledMammal (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal: I agree with everything you've written here, but just a note about the importance of end-of-year fundraising:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the US, nonprofits make most of their money at the end of the year; the stats are something like 30-50% of annual revenue raised in December, and 10% in the last three days of December. This is because people will know at the end of the year how much they need to donate for maximum tax benefit; also because Christmas and the season of giving, etc. So delaying this for a few weeks -- if it means delaying past December -- is a huge deal and will probably result in far less revenue, even if the same exact banners were run. The actual dollar cost of a delay past December would probably be tens of millions. That said, I still oppose running these banners, and I think this financial crisis is one made by the WMF (because, as of course you know, we've been talking about these banners for a long time). But a delay of a few weeks will mean a significant financial hit. It's one of the reasons why tick-tick-tick... they need to move fast here. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that, but I do believe we can start the campaign before Christmas. The timetable I had in mind was three weeks for negotiations, and one week for an expedited RfC to determine if the agreement has consensus; if the WMF started to to negotiate with us tomorrow the campaign could start on 22 December. I don't believe this is an unrealistic timeline.
 * I also believe that the community would not object to limited testing of banners, so long as the banners being tested address the concerns raised here, during the negotiation period. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Dariusz
In my personal view, the discussion is partly about the division of labor and "ownership" of space. I generally understand that the community may not like some of the messaging. Still, I don't think it is practical or reasonable to assume that the community can have a final say on how fundraising is done through banners - it is, and it should be done by professionals. It is thanks to these professionals that the campaigns last shorter, only as long as they need to run to collect the annual target. To use an analogy: we should not have an RfC about what servers software should we install - while we all have opinions, the bigger picture has to be that some of these decisions need to be left in the hands of staff. Ultimately, I also don't feel that this RfC is ONLY about the current content of some banners.

In a broader perspective, I do not think that English Wikipedia community should be making decisions massively affecting all Wikimedia community. While the banners are indeed shown on English Wikipedia, the revenue they generate supports smaller language communities. Overall, I’m inclined to say that the community as a whole (but not just one language community) should have an opportunity to express objections to some specific wording in our banners if need be, and it is the role of the WMF to hear it and take it into account, meaningfully (but not automatically or blindly), as banner effectiveness obviously cannot be the only criterion. Nevertheless, the community (and especially, just one language community, major as it may be) cannot object to banners as a whole and question the WMF fundraising base model. Pundit | utter 18:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * We can certainly object to the WMF growth and fundraising model (the WMF did a better job supporting the wikis when it had just a handful of employees). I object, and I strongly object to being told what I can or can not object to. —Kusma (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I definitely agree - a discussion about the growth and fundraising model is something we definitely can have - it is just that, IMHO, it should be a discussion held within our whole community, not just one project in one language, as clearly the results affect everyone. Pundit | utter  07:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should also use professionals then to write an encyclopedia, or to keep out copyright violations, or to keep out people and companies using it to promote themselves, or trolls writing hoaxes, or ... I don´t think "we need professionals to do this" is the smartest argument to use here, to explain why the arguments or opinions of the unpaid volunteers who actually create and maintain this cash cow can be disregarded or overruled. Fram (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Using professionals to write an encyclopedia does not work, we know that. We also know that community-designed banners bring much worse results than the staff ones - there is plenty of A/B testing done. My understanding is that the staff would actually be super happy if the community was able to suggest banners/slogans that work well, it is just not a reality. You have not replied to the argument about servers - should the community have something to say there as well? What if different communities have different opinions? How is the "we need professionals" argument different here?  Pundit | utter  07:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Using professionals to write an encyclopedia does not work, we know that." Uh, what???? I didn't know Wikipedia invented the encyclopedia? " We also know that community-designed banners bring much worse results than the staff ones": even assuming this is true (and after the plethora of false statements made by WMF and Board people here, I don't take anything they say for granted), one of the main issues is that we, the people who oppose the banners (and have done, vocally, for years now), do this because they are unethical in many, many ways, and because the WMF seems to have turned in a capitalistic monster, where growth of income and expenses is the main goal in itself, not producing the best results (as in, the best encyclopedia / image repository / ... for the readers and editors) for the least money. If people felt that you ran banners which were ethical, truthful, ..., where the money would actually be used for the benefit of readers and editors, and where the monetary goals wouldn't be unreasonably inflated, then most people wouldn't protest the banners. But first being largely ignored, and then getting a panicked bunch of Board members trying to intimidate us with lies, half truths, and empty rhetoric, is not going to convince anyone, and I wonder which professional thought that this would be a good tactic. Fram (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it is clear from the context that we're talking about paid professionals creating an online encyclopedia, apologies for the confusion. Pundit | utter  12:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting yourself, Dariusz. Below you state, "effectiveness cannot be the only factor, and listening to the community feedback is always important." What you're saying above is, in effect: "We know that ethical banners bring much worse results." Think about that. Andreas JN 466 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. Community-devised banners are not, by design more ethical than staff-devised ones. My understanding is that only some wording on occassion is problematic, not that ALL staff banners are unethical. Pundit | utter  12:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Since you feel that a project is the wrong place to discuss this, as a community elected member of the board what have you done to express the concerns represented in this discussion? What are you going to do going forward? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion in which I think a dominant view was that the community should have something to say when there is a specific wording/banner that does not resonate well, irrespective of its effectiveness. However, in practical terms: if we assume that the community should always decide about the banners, are we going to have 300+ simultaneous negotiations about banner content ongoing every year? For each prospective banner? Who is going to make the decision to pull the plug on smaller or less affluent communities as a result of revenue reduction driven predominantly by one wiki community? And so on. Pundit | utter  07:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at m:Special:CentralNotice, you have run campaigns on only 12 communities in the past two years; enwiki, dewiki, frwiki, itwiki, eswiki, nlwiki, ptwiki, dawiki, hewiki, nbwiki, svwiki, and huwiki - and several of those communities have only had a single campaign in that time. (There are two exceptions; you ran the same a few Hungarian campaigns across a number of Hungarian wikiprojects, asking them to support Wikipedia with 1% of their tax, but those banners were very simple, and you ran a Polish-language campaign across almost all Wikipedia's asking for the same, but that banner was again very simple.)
 * It seems misleading to suggest that enwiki deciding which banners are run on the site would require you to negotiate with 300 communities each year; even if every Wikipedia you ran banners on demanded the same consideration you would only need to negotiate with 12 communities. BilledMammal (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the CentraNotice calendar, it seems like fundraising is currently scheduled for the German Wikipedia; the English Wikipedia; the French Wikipedia; and the Slovak Wikisource, Wikipedia, Wiktionary; Wikidata; and Commons. That's eight communities, which doesn't seem like a ton to ensure find banner content acceptable. I don't know how you get to 300+. TomDotGov (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I mean two things: different projects the banners are run at, and different countries they are displayed in - as some of the comments above were related to the fact that we should reconsider the language in campaigns directed to the Global South, for instance. Coordinating the content with 12 communities is definitely easier than with 300, but still problematic in the case of disagreements. Nevertheless, I actually think that more communication and feedback from various communities should be a good thing. If as a result of this RfC we make it easier to flag problematic wording on early stages, that's great. My fear is rather that the discussion was on occassion pivoting to the WMF budget and fundraising as a whole, and this simply is not, IMHO, the right place (here the argument of one community versus 300 stays quite strong). Pundit | utter  08:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfectly fine to have the discussion about the WMF budget here on-wiki, rather than in the back rooms of the movement strategy process, where comments had a history of being ignored. Certainly, it's fair for the English Wikipedia to decide both how much and what type of of advertising to allow, and that requires understanding the WMF budget and what is and isn't vital. It would make a lot of sense to allow the advertising to say that $2.75 was required to keep Wikipedia thriving if there was any sort of financial distress. But that's not the case - the WMF is wasting money on multiple fronts (do we really need a year-long process with outside contractor support to find a sound logo?), and that needs to factor in to the decision the community has to make as to if to allow the WMF to advertise here. Other communities are also entitled to make similar judgments. TomDotGov (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * here the argument of one community versus 300 stays quite strong I don’t believe that is a strong argument; I see it as closely related to the suggestion that land votes.
 * Our overarching goal is to make accessible the sum total of human knowledge, and to suggest that enwiki (47% of non-automated views) has the same importance to this goal as kuwiki (0.0003% of non-automated views) seems nonsensical - and if this is the view of the WMF it explains why enwiki has been neglected for so long. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that traffic should not be the only criterion of whose voice should be heard. In other words, just because someone has the most views or money does not mean that they should make decisions for everyone. We have Meta for multi-project discussions (although, arguably, it is not as effective as it should be and I agree it is not optimal; also it by design requires English proficiency which excludes the majority of our community). Pundit | utter  09:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, and there are other metrics that can and should be used - but it is a better metric than suggesting all communities are equally important to our goals.
 * If I asked you to estimate how important to our goals enwiki is compared to all other communities combined is what would you say? Would you still say 1:300, or would you give a different number? BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd put it this way: en-wiki community is crucial for our goals. However, it should not be solely making decisions for everyone. Pundit | utter  11:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * En-wiki would no doubt grant the board the ability to engage in a consultation and promise to take the board's input very seriously in en-wiki's decision-making process.
 * Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pundit your response which mostly reasonable doesn't answer the questions I asked. You, as a board member, presumably have the chance to discuss this in places that I don't. As an elected community member are you going to represent the concerns presented in this discussion? Frankly I think a few more board members remembering that they have just as much obligation to the community, as they do to the foundation, similar to what Jimmy did below, would be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * +1, I hope in addition to explaining the Foundation's position to the community, Community Trustees are also explaining the community's position to Foundation staff. Levivich (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely bring these concerns to the rest of trustees, but I can assure you that they are well aware of the discussions, and open-minded. I am going to look for constructive, long-lasting solutions to address the concerns presented in this discussion. In particular, I think we should be looking for more ways of using the community's constructive insight into the promising banner candidates. We need to be able to do this with efficiency, but not just efficiency in mind, obviously. Knowing the head of the fundraising team as a brilliant, reasonable person, who is extremely committed to the movement, I'm sure we will be able to find longterm solutions, especially if everyone at the table comes with good will. Pundit | utter  08:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that the same "brilliant, reasonable person, who is extremely committed to the movement" person who this month wrote this? Which starts off with a title which only reinforces the confusion the WMF willfully creates between Wikipedia and Wikemedia, claiming that people are donating to Wikipedia, and further mixes the same truths, halftruths, and misleading statements we've come to expect from such WMF posts. Claims like people need to give money because Wikipedia supports 300 languages, while "by comparison, Google’s translation tool currently supports 133 languages; " give the impression that any of the money people donate will actually go to translating Wikipedia content to the other 300 languages, as if Wikipedia has paid translators for the content. In reality, the best it offers is the content translation tool, which relies completely on things like, you guessed it, Google Translate. The same claims are made in the next paragraph, "Because Wikipedia is available in 300 languages, it needs top-notch multilingual technology to ensure readers and editors can view and contribute knowledge in their preferred language." For most languages, the technology is exactly the same, no "multilingual technology" is needed to provide Wikipedia in English and in Dutch and in German. This is just newspeak to make people believe that much of their money goes to the multilingual aspect of Wikipedia, when in reality this receives an absoletuly minimal fraction of money. Which explains the debacles of e.g. Scots Wikipedia. In general, that blog post is the same waffle we get all the time, and doesn't really reflect the reality editors see every day. For example, most readers from poorer countries use mobile. A goal of the WMF is apparently to get more editors from there (yes, they even pride themselves that these figures have increased somewhat). But editing on mobile is absolutely dreadful, and even the simplest improvements take years and years. For example, it is impossible to turn a redirect into an article on mobile (meaning that e.g. after I turned my userpage into a redirect to my talk page, I can now no longer edit my own user page through mobile...). Editing an article talk page is for some reason different to editing an article, making for a very poor editor interface (basically, on a talk page, you need to first scroll to the bottom, click "read as wiki page", and only then can you open a section and actually edit it. Talk page messages without a header are nt visible to mobile readers. And so on and so on. Perhaps you can invite her to show her extereme commitment a bit more by actually interacting here, not just drive-by posting without bothering to reply to e.g. the question by BilledMammal. In general, a lot of resentment and distrust could be avoided if the WMF did much more work "out in the open", on the wiki, and not behind closed doors, with some perfunctory summaries afterwards. The WMF may believe that they are very transparant, but discussions like this one and many, many previous ones shouldhave made it obvious that that vision is not shared by many others, and that e.g. the deal with Tides has way too many unanswered questions. Which perhaps the head of the fundraising team would know the answers to, but apparently isn't willing or allowed to give? Fram (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Lorenzo
I see many comments on this page about the Foundation's cash reserves and the idea that if we were to stop banner fundraising this year, there would be very little impact to Foundation work because of the ability to dip into those reserves. Reserves are not excess cash: they are money set aside to ensure that we can sustain our mission even in times of difficulty - either to weather the storm (in case of short-term problems) or to allow for some space to make more drastic changes (in case of long-term problems). This feels particularly important as we anticipate another global recession. Earlier this year the Board passed a resolution to create a formal policy for the Foundation to keep between 12-18 months of revenue in reserve (with a target of 18 months). This is aligned with best practices: for instance, according to Charity Navigator (which assesses nonprofits in the US) an organization should have at least 12 months of reserves. The Wikimedia Foundation is currently at approximately 17 months of reserves; they are projected to slightly decrease in the next couple of years, but always staying within that range. If they were to approach 12 months, the Wikimedia Foundation would have to take actions to increase them. Failing to do so would not meet the Wikimedia Foundation responsibility towards the movement. - Laurentius (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Alas, it must be said here that the WMF always points out that it is best practice to have 12-18 months of reserve. And in saying this, it always elides that the amount referred to is becoming ever bigger, with the increases far outstripping inflation:.
 * For example, in 2015, the Washington Post published an article titled, "Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours?". It contained the following passages: In the fiscal year that ended last June, WMF reported net assets in excess of $77 million — about one and a half times the amount it actually takes to fund the site for a year. ... It is, in fact, considered industry best-practice to maintain a cash reserve in excess of your charity’s annual operating expenses ...
 * Today, however, the same reasoning is used to declare a need for a reserve of $240 million (that is on top of the $100+ million accumulated in record time – just five instead of the anticipated ten years – in the Wikimedia Endowment: ). Including the endowment fund, the Wikimedia Foundation now has about five times as much money at its disposal as it did seven years ago, when Caitlin Dewey published her WaPo article.
 * Members of the public are largely unaware of this development, with many being led to believe each year that people at the WMF "struggle to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running", as Trevor Noah put it in an interview with Katherine Maher last year:.


 * For the Sherlock Holmes fans here, I am more than a little reminded of The Man with the Twisted Lip. Andreas JN 466 18:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reserves do include excess cash. As of June 30, 2022, the WMF had $51 million in "cash and cash equivalents". That is cash sitting in a bank account. On top of that, $73 million in US Treasury securities, $47 million in corporate bonds, and $22 million in mortgage-backed securities, plus about $5 million in other "current assets", totaling over $198 million in current assets. Those reserves are all separate from the $100 million Wikimedia Endowment. The $100 million endowment is what's designed to make sure "the lights stay on" forever, that this website is always paid for. The $200 million reserves, are 12-18 months of the WMF's operating expenses, not English Wikipedia's. Now, nobody disputes that 12-18 months' operating expenses is a reasonable amount of reserves. But as the WMF grows and hires more staff and increases its operating expenses (doubled in the last five years), its reserve needs also grow. We got to a $200 million reserve by growing to a $175 million annual budget (up from $80 million in FY2017-18). I've been here for four years and I've seen the WMF's budget grow and grow, but I haven't seen a meaningful upgrade in Visual Editor, and I'm wondering where all that money is going and why the banners make it sound like we're just eeking out an existence here. Levivich (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So, Andreas - you are saying that the Foundation has been consistently following best practices; and that it has been doing what it said it was going to do. I'm happy to read that :-)
 * Reserve targets are always expressed in months, and not in dollars, because what a reserve provide for is essentially time: it is how long can you survive a temporary problem, or how much time you have to implement structural changes if you are facing a structural problem.
 * Levivich - reserves are kept in cash and short-term investments, according to the investment policy. The point is that it's not money in excess: it has a very practical purpose (even when it's not being spent), ensure that the WMF can sustain its mission in an uncertain environment.
 * I hear your frustration on not seeing the technical developments you would like to have. As an editor, I can think on top of my mind of many things I've been waiting for years and are not here yet. I also recognize the complexity of our ecosystem - the comment by Selena above is really interesting in this regard. - Laurentius (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lorenzo, I am not in the mood for jokes, so spare us your flippancy. Andreas JN 466 09:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But this is what you are saying. You are noting that, on this specific topic, the Wikimedia Foundation has been consistent, truthful, and reported following best practices. Yet you say that as if it was a bad thing. - Laurentius (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I said above was that the WMF "always elides that the amount referred to is becoming ever bigger, with the increases far outstripping inflation." It's not right to fundraise for rapid growth – WMF expenses have more than doubled every five years – with messaging implying it is to "keep Wikipedia online", or protect its independence (as though there were a threat to that now, when you have ten times more funds than you had a decade ago). You get people at or below the poverty line donating money to you that really have more pressing needs than you. If you want to grow, tell people, and tell people what you are growing for. Don't let readers wrongly assume that "Wikipedia must be out of money again" just in order to bring in more money. Andreas JN 466 13:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation financials, for reference:

--Andreas JN 466 13:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! Has any other non-profit in the known universe experienced 7,300% spending growth in the past 15 years? Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation was established in 2003 - so since then it has gone from zero to where it is now. This is true for every organization - and with an appropriate choice of the timeframe, every organization has experienced 7,300% spending growth in the first 15 years of its existence, because no organization spend money before existing :-) - Laurentius (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yay, flippancy and missing the point, how helpful. Similar to posts by Victoria above, or the fawning post by Pundit about the fundraising boss who has deigned to descend down to us once and then goes back to completely ignoring this. Never mind the 4th horseman of the WMF apocalypse. Good job, BoT, we really understand now why we need you. Fram (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Jimbo Wales
I will keep this fairly brief, and at a high level of principles. I was happy to see a discussion of the specific content of the fundraising banners - I have not always been comfortable with the messaging in some of our past banners (though I'm very comfortable with some messages that at least some people are unhappy about - we can have a longer discussion about that) and I regard it as unfortunate that this RfC veered into a wide range of issues that are very much beyond the scope of that original discussion, and very much beyond the scope of what is suitable for an RfC in English language Wikipedia. We are a global movement with open community processes that are appropriate for that wider discussion, most notably the movement strategy process which resulted in a strategy that demands a level of spending that would be impossible if some of the comments in this RfC were pursued. I would suggest a reboot of that original mission (of examining the banners), and I encourage both the WMF fundraising staff and thoughtful community members to work together to find a way forward that meets our twin objectives of financial health and a trustworthy campaign for the necessary donations.

To say this a different way: the question "are these banners to be run in English appropriate" is a valid one for English Wikipedia, when undertaken in a thoughtful, positive, and collaborative way. Questions like "does the Foundation have too much money?" and "Should the Foundation be a minimalist stub organization spending just a couple million a year to keep the servers running?" are very very far outside the scope of an English Wikipedia RfC, and should be taken up in the right place.

On that latter, much more important question, it is my view that we should be ambitious in both our spending and our fundraising. We have an important goal: a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet, in their own language, and we have an enormous number of challenges to get there. I would personally like to see a significantly increased amount of spending on a variety of efforts to support the growth of Wikipedia in the smaller (for us) languages. To put this into context, today there are only 19 languages with at least 1 million articles, and even that is a generous count due to a few which have extensive low-quality bot translated content.

Certain people in the community like to post numbers in a very accusatory way that anyone serious should see are not proper subjects for accusations, but for praise. The Foundation has a healthy reserve, in line with best practices advocated by major nonprofit governance organizations. The Foundation continues to go from strength to strength in a world where our "competitors" in terms of other large popular Internet sites have much more. Just to give one contemporary example that is on many people's minds: twitter, a toxic cesspit which has done real damage to the world (my opinion, not NPOV!) had revenue last year of over $4.5 billion dollars. I think we should be proud that we are targeting $175 million in revenue by simply asking people for money, and that this money is being spent wisely and carefully - too carefully in my view, and we can discuss that, but what I mean it I would love to some some higher-risk pilot projects with serious funding to tackle community building in some of the largest languages in the world. Hindi, a very important language of India, has only 153,000 articles. If we could spend $20 million a year and jumpstart that growth to get them to a million articles (along with all the other languages of India) that would be amazing - and we are now in a position where such ambitious ideas can begin to take place with some $1-$2 million trials of reasonable ideas - some of which would fail.

In short - I want to see the WMF succeed financially and expand in ways that fulfill our mission. I want all of our banner ads to be honest and thoughtful... and successful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be great to have a larger unpaid volunteer community in languages like Hindi. Unfortunately it isn't easy to use money to attract unpaid volunteers. Perhaps we need something else instead of money? —Kusma (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it that hard to use money to attract people? I don't think we've ever tried very hard.  I am imagining things like college scholarships for diligent editors.  I am imagining things like massive advertising and recruitment campaigns on university campuses.  I think it is underestimated how much money has been important in the wealthier countries of the world, where people can afford things for themselves like a new laptop and fast broadband.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are things that can be done with money, for example expanding the Wikipedia Library further would help people everywhere write more and better articles, especially in places with poor library access. But I am very sceptical about recruiting editors with money, especially as I have seen several disastrous attempts by Nigerian Wikimedians who used a WMF grant to set up a cash prize for quantity of edits made or number of pictures added to Wikipedia, which caused many hours of work for unpaid volunteers cleaning up after people chasing for the cash prize. From various paid-editing disasters we should all have learned that the motivation to edit Wikipedia should best be something intrinsic (the pride and pleasure that comes with covering more topics and writing better articles that will have a large impact), not the extrinsic motivations of money or a good grade in some class. If getting an article to GA status or not were to mean the difference between receiving a new laptop or not receiving a new laptop, don't you think this would significantly increase fraud and in turn distrust between editors? We have had more than a decade for people to come up with ways to engage new editors, and nobody seems to have developed anything that works, and throwing money at the problem doesn't appear to be a solution. —Kusma (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oof ... anyone remember the "Catalyst" program in India? Consultants being paid Western rates to try and recruit Indian volunteers, causing local resentment. So much money has been wasted on stuff like this already, driven at least in part by Google's desire to be able to fill their knowledge panels with content in local languages. The India Education Program a few years later was by all accounts another ignominious failure, with a legendary influx of copyright infringing content volunteers had to clean up: India_Education_Program/Analysis/Independent_Report_from_Tory_Read. These projects bear a resemblance to the UK Tory government's worst failures during Covid: the only people that came out alright were their highly paid "consultants". Andreas JN 466 09:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day Jimbo. We wanted Wikipedia to be successful as well - that's why unpaid editors like us, many have more editing experience than me - spend free time that we had to maintain the encyclopaedia. But the problem is clear - we feel that WMF is not spending the money as well as it should be, and kept claiming that they are on the brink of bankruptcy. WMF claimed that they didn't have money to fix up problems that are brought up by the Community, while at the same time donated so much to Tides Foundation (an organization that is clearly biased) or pay the board members executives high salaries. From the numbers, it took 24% of the donation for administration and fundraising for WMF, while other charities managed to go below that.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   20:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation claiming to be "on the brink of bankruptcy" - out of the currently proposed banners can you point to any with that message? If not, then please let's calm down the rhetoric a notch or two.  As I have said, I have not always been comfortable with some of the messaging, and I do think that's a valid thing for people to raise - definitely.
 * I think you have deeply misunderstood the role of the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation manages donor advised funds - this is a purely administrative role.  They spend the money as we direct them to spend it, period.  It isn't as thought the WMF has directed the money to an organization that can spend the money as they wish in "biased" ways!  Let's get the facts straight here, ok?
 * Can you point me to the numbers you are talking about? It's difficult to respond without more details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing I didn't like was the way $8.723 million ended up with Tides Advocacy in the 2019–2020 financial year, the year Amanda Keton moved from Tides to the WMF. $4.5 million of that was said to be for the Knowledge Equity Fund (for non-Wikimedia-related organisations), and $4.223 million was supposed to be used for Annual Plan Grants (for Wikimedia affiliates). The money was transferred secretly, bypassing participative grantmaking structures. To me it felt like a small group of WMF executives used the money as their private philanthropic piggy bank.
 * Now, most of that $4.5 million is unspent. I presume it's just sitting there in Tides' accounts, earning Tides money in interest and/or management fees. Is that so? I have asked before how much Tides organisations are paid for managing these funds. I have been told that this information will not be made public. Why not?
 * Next, of the Knowledge Equity Fund money that was spent, most went to US organisations. Is that really the most pressing priority in terms of knowledge equity on earth, bearing in mind that the WMF collects money in South Africa and India, claiming in emails to citizens of these countries that it is needed "to keep Wikipedia online" and subscription-free?
 * Now, as for the remaining 4.223 million Tides Advocacy got, nothing has been heard of it since then. At the time of writing, no figures are given here on Meta. A small amount pops up in Tides Advocacy's 2020 Form 990, a 288,400 grant to the Wiki Edu Foundation, and that's it. The 2021 Form 990 is due out any day – can we expect it to show that the remaining $4 million was paid to Wikimedia affiliates in the 2020-2021 year?
 * The Tides Foundation also holds over $100 million (how much exactly? No one will say) in the Wikimedia Endowment. No public accounts about the fund's expenses have ever been published. Why not? I have been told by WMF staff on Meta that millions of dollars flow into the Endowment as "pass-through donations", bypassing the WMF's accounts. (Also, any money that was left to the WMF in someone's will now goes to the Endowment instead wherever possible, according to a recent board resolution.)
 * Tides obscures the link between donor and grantee. In theory, Tides could have paid out millions of dollars from the Endowment to just about anyone; and nobody would ever be able to tell. That is not a transparent arrangement. So why not have KPMG go over all the incomings and outgoings of the Endowment for the past six years and publish that? That would help restore transparency. Andreas JN 466 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Concerning Tides Foundation, from the Wikipedia article alone we can already see it is not an unbiased organization. Some excerpts from Wikipedia article: . Also . Even Democrat senators have stated that Tides is a machine for Democrat dark money. From a neutrality standpoint, for me it is very clear that Tides is not an organization that is neutral. The Wikipedia article even stated that the approach of Tides is similar to Donors Trust, a similar organization on the other side of the spectrum - both managed the money to be given out to one political spectrum. I am sure there are many other "donation management" foundations that are neutral, choosing Tides is something peculiar for me.
 * Then we also see the general counsel of Wikimedia, Amanda Keton, is also the former general counsel of the Tides Network, the former head of Tides Foundation, and the former CEO of Tides Advocacy. This screamed WP:COI. I am sure if Amanda Keton is editing Wikipedia she wouldn't be allowed to edit articles about Tides and Wikimedia as she clearly have conflict of interest, but we see here that she is chosen as the general counsel of Wikimedia. No matter how you see it, choosing Tides while your general counsel is a former CEO of Tides looks like a clear COI to me.
 * As for the messaging in the banners, the message strikes out as Wikipedia nearly needs your $2.75 to keep their independence. This messaging is not true, and for me it strikes out that Wikipedia is on the verge of bankruptcy as they seem to need every dollar that you got.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   03:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, SunDawn, but I have a feeling the audience is over, and you may have to wait a long time for a reply.
 * Our lords have visited, our lords have departed. Andreas JN 466 18:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like an English Wikipedia that does't have its mission interrupted for over a month out of the year with intrusive banner ads. Recognizing that some resources are required to keep the site operating, it's important that the advertising be held to the same high standards of truthfulness as the rest of the site, and that the intrusion be as limited as possible. It's important to realize that each $20 million jumpstart, $1-2 M trial, $4.5 M equity fund, and $1 M branding project comes with a cost - people's access to free knowledge is interrupted by advertising. I get the feeling that the Foundation Board doesn't understand this as a cost as much as the community does. TomDotGov (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all a very valid thing to raise - but it's really to be raised in the right venue. I mean, I don't really agree with you on the substance of that concern - I think raising money to grow Wikipedia in the world is worth asking people to donate to do it.  But I think where we can agree is that this is a valid policy question - and the right way to raise it as it impacts the global movement, is through the right channels, not an English Wikipedia RfC.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Insofar as it will impact the English Wikipedia - by virtue of intrusive and misleading banner ads harming the usefulness and credibility of the site - this is the correct place to discuss what advertisements will be run here. This is also the place where we have access to administrators to implement the community's decision. So no, I don't think we can all agree on that. TomDotGov (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @TomDotGov Agree, We have been discussing this on pump for 10 years, and raising it through WMF via our elected trustees. We have also let WMF become the hub between Wikis and we need to rectify this. In the meantime, there are many members of other wikis here - should we lodge messages on various pumps asking them if they are also upset and would like to be included? Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the amount of money, but that it is collected from people under false pretences. If people gave that money in full knowledge of WMF financial status and of what it is they're supporting and why, I for one would not have a problem with it. Regards, Andreas JN 466 21:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, then we agree on the fundamental principles, and I'm sure you will join me in lamenting the way this particular RfC tended to lose focus on that valid question and wander into all sorts of matters that aren't really relevant to that question. I don't agree that the money is collected under false pretences and if we got into the nitty gritty we would probably agree on some banners and disagree on others.  What I'm trying to think about is a valid process and valid guidelines that we (we meaning you, me, the board, the community, the movement) can work together to create so that this isn't an issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been years. The board has little interest in a valid discussion process. The best that is *ever* done is some haphazard "consultation," in which the board claims they're taking community positions "into consideration," responding to little or no criticism directly during the "consultation," and finally doing whatever they want anyway.
 * Whether it's the trademark or the WMF name or the Fram case or the self-dealing board hire or board election process mess, it has been shown time and time again, over and over and over and over again, that the only way the board will productively engage is when leverage is exercised over them. The peasants are never given a voice at the lords' table until the quantity of pitchforks puts them into the position to do the least possible to make them go away. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If we could spend $20 million a year and jumpstart that growth to get them to a million articles. I think one of the themes of the above discussion is that we feel that not enough money is being spent on things like community tech. It's really hard to get excited about things like an 8 figure risky expansion of another wiki, or knowledge equity grants, or the endowment, until we feel that our issues at home (e.g. community tech) are receiving proper funding. are very very far outside the scope of an English Wikipedia RfC, and should be taken up in the right place. What is the proper channel? Perhaps the folks in this discussion are not aware of the proper channel, which is part of what has led to this disconnect between how WMF spends donation money, and how English Wikipedians expect WMF to spend donation money. Perhaps some of WMF's community relations folks need to publicize this a little better, for example with watchlist notices on key movement strategy votes. Thanks for listening. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a matter of high level principles individual Wikipedia's have almost absolute authority over what appears on their site, with the exception of content that violate policies with legal implications or contradicts the principles of the core content policies. This means that not only is the question "are these banners to be run in English appropriate" valid and appropriate, so is the question "should banners be run on enwiki".
 * Once the question is appropriate, so is any reason for opposing the banners so long as it does not contradict enwiki policies and guidelines. This means that while you are correct that certain questions are not appropriate for enwiki to address in a binding manner it is appropriate for the answers to them to influence the answer given to appropriate questions on banners. How you and the rest of the WMF then responds to this answer and the reasons for it is then up to you; you can either accept it, or you can take the steps necessary to convince us to change it.
 * Below, you say that Having said that, I think everyone - especially sensible people like you - should make it very very clear that it would be absurd to get into some kind of wheel war here. Given that WP:WHEEL permits actions to be reinstated when there is a clear discussion leading to a consensus decision in support of the action the only potential wheel warring would be the WMF attempting to block efforts to block the banners. As such, I ask you to clarify this statement: will the WMF respect the result of this discussion, or will they wheel war in an attempt to ensure the banners are displayed? BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Jimbo Wales' stated goal is admirable (though my personal – perhaps shortsighted – preference would be to see more investment in this project, by far the greatest success under the WMF umbrella). But I think it highlights one of the major objections many editors have with the WMF fundraising materials: they're dishonest. If instead banners and other calls to donate said something to the effect of "Wikipedia is a phenomenal resource, but is largely available only in languages spoken by Earth's wealthiest residents. Help us expand the scope of our offerings by providing critical funds that allow us to advertise and recruit new editors across the globe – particularly in places other education projects tend to overlook." I suspect you'd find much less resistance. Instead it feels the banners give the false impression that donors are supporting the English Wikipedia in particular, when really it's money going to support the board's hopes and dreams. I've nothing against those hopes and dreams per se, but object to the bait-and-switch. Ajpolino (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is so simple, and to have senior WMF people pretending not to understand this is simply embarrassing. Andreas JN 466 07:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that one conclusion from this discussion is that gathering feedback on the banner content, not only from the point of view of the effectiveness, but also consistency with our values, culture, community alignment is something we could further expand. That's fair. This would be a constructive result. However, I don't think it is ok to pivot it into a discussion about the WMF budget and fundraising in general, as such discussions certainly should not be usurped by a single project - the outcomes affect the global community. Pundit | utter  08:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you cannot discuss the banners in a vacuum, without reference to the financial situation. A banner saying, "Help us! We are going under!" is perfectly fine when the Foundation is down to its last pennies. It is not fine when the Foundation has $400 million in the bank, has just enjoyed a $50 million surplus, is planning to increase its spending by 30%, and has given all its executives a nice pay rise. Andreas JN 466 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Andreas, I don't think this argument is very helpful - it's really a classic case of a strawman argument. Literally no one is saying: "We should run banners that say 'Help us! We are going under!"  So defeating that idea is... not really helpful and will likely misread some of the people who read your comment into think that's what's the discussion is about.  Ironic, given what you're concerns about misleading people are!  Please rein in the extreme rhetoric so that we can make genuine progress on an issue that you care about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The rhetoric is what they are after. There is not a banner that can be written that will satisfy people in this protest, because it is not about the banner. This is a minority of editors using the only tools they can think of that the foundation cares about; reputation, money and vocal abuse towards employees, to hurt the foundation and exercise control. Andreas has been working this plan for years now, it should not be a surprise. And while I despise the method, the foundation and the BoT aren't making it easy to defend them from it. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The vote is nearly unanimous here. Levivich (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh there certainly is a wide array of things for people to agree on here, it's a near ubiquitous litany of whataboutisms, few on point towards actually collectively getting somewhere non-destructive. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I gather you disagree with the other volunteers here, but throwing around accusations of a conspiracy to hurt and control the WMF is overly dramatic, and also doesn't help us get somewhere non-destructive. Congratulations on being the first editor in this (very large) discussion to make a personal attack against other editors. Remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF in your future posts please. Levivich (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the assessment that nothing constructive is coming out of this discussion. At the end of the day the fact remains that Wikimedia is a privately owned company, and its ownership structure allows the WMF to do things on a property like Wikipedia to which volunteers editing the site might object. BD2412  T 14:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The productive thing coming out of this discussion is consensus to not run these banners. If the WMF does things the volunteer editors object to, they risk losing the volunteer editors. If it's one thing that platform operators have learned over the last 20 years, it's that userbases will move to a new platform given the right conditions. It happened to MySpace and Vine, it's happening to Twitter, and it can happen to the WMF, too. So sure, they legally own the domain name, but that's only as valuable as the volunteers who write the website. The volunteers are the ones with all the power and control, and when they all agree on something, they're pretty much unstoppable. Which is why all the high-ranking WMFers are commenting here: this is an existential crisis for them. If we run no banners this season, they may actually have to cut the budget and possibly reduce the size of the staff, or at least the reserves. And if they run it over objections, another high-profile dispute between the WMF and its own user base will also damage the WMF's reputation and thus its fundraising effectiveness. Levivich (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * on the idea that there's anything other than an insignificantly small number of very loud editors for whom this is a major issue. People who take joy in complaining about WMF REALLY like to do so.  The length of this thread is not evidence of anything other than the vehemence of the people who don't like the WMF, not on their overall impact to the user base of Wikipedia.  The rest of us, which make up a not-insignificant portion of the en.wikipedia user base, really don't care all that much, and are doing quite fine TYVM.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The editors voting oppose here are "an insignificantly small number of very loud editors"? Well, congrats on being the second editor to insult your fellow editors in this discussion! :-) Levivich (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that the number of people voting oppose is much smaller than the number of people actively editing Wikipedia is not really an insult. It's just math.  Can you elaborate on how you felt insulted by that?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I found "an insignificantly small number of very loud editors" to be insulting, and that line said much more than that the number of people voting oppose are smaller than the number of people actively editing Wikipedia: it also said they're very loud and insignificant (insignificantly small, to be exact).
 * But @Jayron32, let's cut through the rhetoric, ok? You and I have both been here long enough, you much longer than me. You know damn well that in every RFC, the number of editors participating is a tiny fraction of the number of editors editing. I've participated in many RFCs with you over the years and I don't remember you ever raising this "point" before, despite the fact that every consensus is formed by an "insignificantly small number" of editors (when compared to the total number of editors editing). You know as well as I do that over 90% of editors have never participated in any RFC; that doesn't make them illegitimate. You also know, from past RFC experience, that the total number of participants in this RFC is much larger than average, and that the size of the majority is much larger than average. The number of participants here, and the size of the majority, would be enough to find consensus in any major Wikipedia discussion, up to and including site banning an editor or changing a core policy. You know that's true, I know that's true, every experienced Wikipedian knows that's true. So why are you bothering to raise the point that the number of RFC participants is much smaller than the number of active editors? You know that's just rhetoric, that's not a substantive point. Levivich (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize, then, unreservedly for insulting you so. I had not had the intent of diminishing your point on the substance, but it is clear that was the effect of what I did.  I should have foreseen that, and not done so.  I admit fault and offer my apology without qualification for that.  Your objections have weight, and should be heard by the WMF.  That being said, there is also a bit of Chicken Little going on in this thread; once we start calling things "existential crises" and predicting the downfall of Wikipedia, we're also engaging in a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric ourselves.  So no, I should not have insulted you by claiming the weight of your comments didn't have significance.  Your objections (which I don't share, I should note) do have weight and are significant and should be heard by WMF.  However, even so, there's no impending doom coming to Wikipedia because of some indelicately worded banners.  There are many things that have the potential to run off Wikipedia users in droves; this is not one of them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misread/misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote Emphasis on for them, not for us. Not for Wikipedia, for the . To be clear, the "existential crisis" is that enwiki's users don't allow them to fundraise with banners on enwiki. It's "existential" because, as they themselves have admitted, the WMF absolutely depends on enwiki banners to bring in enough money to pay for the WMF. If we take that away, jobs may be lost at the WMF. Wikipedia, however, will carry on just fine, as you said. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually see a fairly direct parallel here with the circumstances at Twitter following its purchase by Elon Musk. BD2412  T 15:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Musk bought Twitter, fired the staff, and is trying to drive the platform to be a safe-haven for far-right extremism. The WMF ran its annual pledge drive exactly as they always do, except they ran some banners with some questionable wording.  I fail to see the connection.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The connection is that a community with certain preferences is reminded that they are not really in control of the platform. A Twitter discussion reaching a consensus among heavily involved Twitter users that some practice should be abandoned would be no more effective. BD2412  T 18:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But Twitter is a business, which was started to make its owners money. Twitter users have never had any say in the governance of the business.  Are you saying that Wikipedia was started as a business to enrich its shareholders?  Because, that's not true in any way.  Regardless of how much money the WMF collects in donations, they still don't pay dividends to shareholders or hold have owners that make money on increasing share value.  That's not the kind of organization that it is.  Which is not to say that the Wikipedia community should not hold WMF's feet to the fire with regard to how money is spent or what the WMF does to support the movement, but one should at least base that criticism on reality, and not by stretching some analogy beyond the breaking point to a trendy news story.  Stay on target!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Structurally, the ends don't matter. Wikipedia is owned by the WMF. The rest is of no legal consequence. BD2412  T 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't mean that the Twitter analogy is apt, except in the "Oooh, here's a recent news story that gets people fired up". Thousands and thousands of organizations exist.  Your rationale for the analogy seems to be "Twitter is a company and it owns stuff.  WMF is a company and it owns stuff."  That's hardly enough to make parallels between their corporate governance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Jimbo. Usability has been Wikipedia's biggest hurdle since before the deployment of MediaWiki. The issue at the core of this RfC is that salaries and wages have grown while visible investment in Wikipedia's usability has declined. Our main tool has always been Wikipedia's software; if we're not investing in it, the movement runs the risk of liquidation. RAN1 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for suggesting new ways to spend some of the accumulating money, good ideas! I haven't read the entire discussion but two points, 1) I'm totally in favor of having as much cash as possible to spend, save, and finance new projects even if some fail, and 2) I'd ask that WMF, yourself, and Wikipedia should all be very clear and publicly announce that Wikipedia will never sell or carry advertisements, and not imply in fundraising outreaches that this is ever going to be an option (have you all seen Britannica lately, viewed through popups and side-swings and who knows what else asleep in the coding - Wikipedia has really done a number on our old standby go-to encyclopedia of choice). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Victoria
When I was just an editor, I realised that wikimedians tend to live in silos. Some are in one man (or woman) silos where they only edit and refuse to communicate; most of us are in a project silo where we are comfortable and don't want to look beyond it. While I have minor contributions to English Wikipedia, Commons and other projects, my silo was Russian Wikipedia.

The projects under the umbrella of the Russian Chapter are in an interesting position in the Movement, because WMF cannot run banners or fundraise in them otherwise. After all, the Russian government is hostile to what they call "foreign agents", especially those notoriously liberal as Wikipedia. So the Russian Chapter has to fundraise on its own. So why don't they fork, then? Maybe because They still use the servers maintained by WMF, which is especially important now when Russian Wikipedia is virtually the only independent news source not blocked by Putin. Rusian Government is trying to replace Wikipedia by launching their own projects, and they keep crashing because they need more people and infrastructure.

And talking about servers, this year WMF opened a second server centre in Marseille because the infamous Amsterdam one was groaning and sometimes buckling down under the strain of Europe, Africa and Asia requests.

When they were able, Russian wikimedians went to Wikimania and other conferences. For people in the Global North, Trust & Safety are the police that curtails their freedom. For Russian and Belarusian Wikipedians who are being hounded and jailed, T & S is a real help - but you know that I cannot go into the details. The Problem with WMF is that much work goes beyond the public eye.

Btw, when I talk about "Russian", I don't mean just the Russian language. Modern Russia is a former Empire, so the Russian Chapter helps projects in around 30 languages, from Chechen to Bashkir.

I hope you forgive me if I say that in this RfC, English Wikipedians are trying to remain in a silo. The oldest, biggest and arguably the best. But WMF banners not only fundraise for your infrastructure. The banners are a fundraiser for the Movement as a whole. If another global project, such as Commons or Wikidata, tries to do the same, the results will be laughable. Remember what comes with great power.Victoria (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So, tell us, Victoria, how much money has the WMF spent on supporting the Russian chapter and communities in countries of the former Soviet Union? When I looked at the most recent Form 990 for a Signpost report, I found the WMF had spent 0.06% of its revenue on Program Services and Grantmaking in Russia and neighbouring states – $110,829 + $1,495, for a grand total of ... $112,324. Andreas JN 466 09:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like I don't need to tell you as you told me already. Please tell me if the millions spent on building Marseille server and maintaining Amsterdam one that serve Russia-based editors and readers are included into this figure. And I can only guess how much of T & C and Human Rights budget this year went to this area of the world.Victoria (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But that would require that Andreas cares about anything other than destroying the WMF. Which he doesn't. So he'll just ignore little details like that and hide behind his own interpretation of the figures. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I actually want is for the WMF to not use phrases like "humbly ask you to support Wikipedia's independence", "humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia", "If Wikipedia provided you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, please take a minute to secure its future by making a donation", "This Monday we ask you to help us sustain Wikipedia" – at least not at a time when it has successfully increased its funds tenfold in the course of a decade. I want the WMF to stop sending emails that ask people for money "to keep Wikipedia online", or "to keep Wikipedia free and independent", etc., when it is wealthier than it has ever been. This applies in particular when emails like that are sent to people in the developing world (India, South Africa). I want the WMF to tell people what it is collecting money for, so people know what they support.
 * The WMF is needed, but it would be nice to have a WMF that doesn't behave like the present incarnation has been behaving. Regards, Andreas JN 466 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By all means, tell us how many millions building the Marseille server and maintaining the Amsterdam one cost, and which countries they serve, etc. I don't agree that you "can only guess". You are a board member; you were elected to exercise oversight. Andreas JN 466 10:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not speaking for Victoria, but I think her point is that a lot of the things the WMF does helps people in places like Russia, even if it doesn't appear on a balance sheet as "money going to Russia". &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you summarised it very well.--Victoria (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to interrupt whatever the _new_ Head of Product & Tech Selena Deckelmann is doing so she can interrup a few other people to get you the precise amount of money spent on European servers, but as a member of the Product & Tech Board Committee I can tell you what countries they serve - all of Europe, Africa and most of Asia, which contitues 40% of global wikimedia data traffiic.--Victoria (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fundraising banners being objected to are those that pretend the money is needed for the upkeep of the English Wikipedia. I would not object to a banner campaign asking for money to expand information access in countries struggling with censorship. —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea to discuss for the next year fundraiser and seems to me logical - why do we still pretend that English Wikipedia is a stand alone project. But you realise that testing new concept banners takes time, we cannot change horses in midstream.Victoria (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think it’s a good idea, why do you need to “test” anything? It’s just swapping one bit of text for another. That does not take much time at all. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But you realise that testing new concept banners takes time, we cannot change horses in midstream. Enwiki has been raising these objections for years, and if instead of listening and responding to them the WMF has ignored them and no longer has time to respond to them, then that is the WMF's problem to resolve. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I think that this is the ultimate problem. The foundation and the board have been terrible about listening and taking action on this front for years. And the FR team have been stuck with targets to get per the direction of the foundation. So now it's a stalemate, which could have been avoided by listening sooner, and also actually doing something in the past whenever the foundation promised they were listening and then next year just do the same thing over again. While I don't support this RfC, I cannot deny that this current problem is of the WMFs own making. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kusma, thank you for sharing this idea. The fundraising team tested a similar theme that JBrungs (WMF) put in the sample message section for feedback below. We'd love your (and all) thoughts on that message or others from our sample messages. We're using feedback on this page to draft the next banners and we appreciate your ideas on how we can better communicate with readers.
 * Here's the line, if you want to share your thoughts: Access to knowledge around the world is under constant attack. As a nonprofit, we work to give access to knowledge to everyone, for free, forever.
 * Here's another message on which we'd love input: We are passionate about our model because at its core, Wikipedia belongs to you. We want everyone to have equal access to knowledge.
 * And finally, there’s a related sentiment from our testing archives; how does this resonate? The task of expanding access to free knowledge globally has never been more urgent, and the threats of widespread misinformation and online censorship grow more dire each day. SPatton (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @SPatton (WMF), these are better than pretending Wikipedia is facing immediate shutdown without donations, but could be improved by naming more concrete projects and explaining how the WMF will use the money donated to further these goals. If it turns out that only 5% of the money is spent on these issues, it is still questionable to run such ads (unless you allow people to earmark their donations like most disaster relief charities do). —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think most religious charities are also allowing specific earmarking for donations. For instance, Samaritan's Purse allowed donors to choose to which project their money will be donated.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   02:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaThere has been no suggestion of defunding the Russian Chapter, or the Russian servers; we are annoyed about nearly everything else, but not spending on servers, or even directly on chapters. Can you advise how much is the deficit between what the Chapter raises itself and what is needed?  If enWP decided to take charge of fundrasing, an option could be that the Russian chapter could have a few days of access to the banner space, replacing the Wikimedia brand awareness or mission related ones  This might also work for Wikimedia commons who have got similar concerns about not being listened too or funded.Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Russian Chapter cannot be defunded because it doesn't receive any direct grants from the WMF, it couldn't be due to Russia's laws. There are no "Russian servers", data from all projects are stored on severs in the US and in Europe, readers in Russia mainly use Amsterdam server - or did, before Marseille came online, I don't know how the traffic splits now. Wkimedia RU (Russian Chapter) is in dire straits now, because the organisations they've had contract with for example for funding competitions are pulling out as Wikipedia is considered a hand of the - I kid you not - US State Department. I can only guess how the Russian Government would react to any fundraising banners but knowing that they are looking for an excuse to block Wikipedia I'd advise against it. I don't see much point in running banners on Commons because the public don't use it, only wikimedians. I don't think that wikimedians should donate money, we donate our time. Victoria (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the State Department was invited to the 2012 Wikimania and had a big "Tech@State: Wiki.Gov" presentation there I am not surprised. (This was the Wikimania speech by Richard Boly, then in charge of "an ambitious State Department initiative that uses social media and online platforms to change the way employees communicate and reach outside their boundaries to advance U.S. foreign policy interests". There is also at least one WMF human rights staffer who previously worked for the US State Department.)
 * I mean, be real for a moment. If an encyclopedia like this were hosted by a foundation in Russia, citing mainly Russian sources on world politics, had invited the Russian foreign ministry to participate in its conference, and had a former member of the foreign ministry working on its human rights initiatives, mainstream US commentators would naturally make that a media talking point and assert confidently that the project "serves Russian foreign policy interests", even if it was populated by open-minded volunteers editing as they see fit.
 * By the way, I for one would have loved to see the WMF become more aligned with the United Nations rather than US political circles, but that is not the development that has taken place. Andreas JN 466 11:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Victoria, I do agree that Wikipedians live on their own silos, but that is not the main point here. First of all, we never object to any spending on servers - they can spend more if they wanted, but we wanted to know how the money is spent. Running a banner the whole month to support Russian Wikipedia is not a problem for me - Russia have real issues, Putin is really a real troublemaker, but WMF is NOT on a pinch and the message should not describe that they require money for "independence". We didn't object WMF spending money, but we would like to know more. Let' see your numbers: . 43 percent went to the websites - this means that this will be used for new servers, but what else? Then 33 percent is for tools, but can some of this money be used to fix up problems in en.wiki? Strangely some said they didn't have money! The 33 percent is also used for grants and advocacy. Can some money given to Tides been used to fix up problems in en.wiki? Why Tides? Can they give to someone else? Many questions abound about that. Finally, 24 percent for admin and fundraising is too large - can we have questions about those?
 * But the biggest issue is not about the banner, the issue has spilled to many other issues, but it boils down to one thing - WMF failed to listen to en.wiki editors. Only by threatening to cut off the fundraising banner WMF leadership came down here to listen. Many of the request here has been reiterated throughout earlier this year - but nothing gets done.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   13:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But the banners are about WMF independence. It takes a certain amount of money to run per year and there's less than 18 months reserves. So no money coming in means starting cannibalising parts of the organisation until there's nobody left to help wikimedians. WMF is trying to diversify re: Enterprise and Endowment but it takes time for these alternative streams to start being profitable. And I remember wikimedians being vehemently opposed to these not understanding what they are for - they are for not being completely reliable on the banners. The ads wre rooled out a long time ego, so the only other source is corporate sponsorship. Would you be happy with Wikipedia sponsored by Facebook or banners are a lesser evil? ￼
 * Direct support to websites doesn't mean just the new servers, it means repair and maintenance, it means electricity - I imagine all these data transfers across transcontinental cables require as much electricity as notoriously energy hungry cryptocurrency mining. And that's just the hardware, before we come to our "legacy software", which accumulated layers and layers since inception in the early 00ties. People ask why tickets and requests take so much time, as I understand it (I'm not a software engineer) it's hard to do anything, because you cannot just pull a couple of lines of code and fix it, everything is interconnected. Even then there's updates to the Wikipedia website, the mobile variant and the ongoing revamp of the Commons. The "legal support" - WMF is permanently in litigation with various dictators who don't like that Wikipedia presents NPOW and not their POV exclusively. For example, we were blocked in Turkey and the case went through the courts for many years, we won eventually. Recently WMF was fined in Russia for the coverage of Russia's war in Ukraine, of course, nobody is going to pay the fine. Now we have a problem with democratic governments as well as the crackdown on social media ricochets to us.
 * 33 percent - support to the volunteer community through grants, programs, training, tools - what enwiki problems do you mean? As in software? See above.
 * 14% on administration - we have about 700 people working for WMF in tens of countries on 5 continents. Each country has its own employment, pension, medical coverage laws. Managing the global workforce of this size is a task of enormous complexity, but worth it, I think, as we want to develop the global movement. What is the alternative? Fire all non-US staff to save on admin and spend the money on the salaries in one of the most highly paid countries? In the meanwhile, the fundraising is the main source of income, so they not only pay for themselves but for a lot of hardware, software, etc.
 * And it's not true that you can only engage WMF by threatening it. The new CEO Maryana Iskander had a huge Listening tour and based her actions on it. The was a request about the new pages patrolling (I think), there's an open letter on Commons that is being addressed and they don't threaten to do anything, just politely proposed what needs to be done and something is being done. The confrontational and threatening tone of this RfC - some people don't deny that their goal is to do maximum damage to WMF - is entirely on the conscience of these people. "The Old WMF" wouldn't have even bothered to reply, let alone listen.
 * As for the Tides, I believe Jimmy Wales is in better position to answer as I only joined the board a year ago. AS I understand it, these are investments, another attmt to wean WMF from the reliance on the banners.--Victoria (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * it's hard to do anything, because you cannot just pull a couple of lines of code and fix it, everything is interconnected It's not that bad, and I am a software engineer and used to be one for Wikimedia. In my view the problem has been management excessively focused on "new shiny" over maintenance, pressure to deliver the minimum viable prototype then move on to the next new shiny thing, forcing out of developers who a manager sees as in the way of their rise to power, and an increasing focus on US culture war issues. Anomie⚔ 12:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Each country has its own employment, pension, medical coverage laws. This part I know much less about, but doesn't WMF sidestep most of that by not technically "employing" anyone outside the US? Isn't everyone else (with maybe a few exceptions) considered a "contractor" either employed by an employer of record or operating under their country's version of "independent contractor" status? Or did that finally change in the last year or two? Anomie⚔ 12:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the alternative? Fire all non-US staff to save on admin and spend the money on the salaries in one of the most highly paid countries? This strikes me as an odd line to take, given that most US staff are paid far more than non-US staff and have far more generous benefits. Surely, you save money for every employee that is not in the United States.
 * By the way, how many non-US staff are there, how many are employees, and how many are contractors? Andreas JN 466 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We aren't going to get anywhere so long as the Board believes the community's concerns are borne out of the community's ignorance of how the WMF works: it's not. I believe the total amount of money spent on the servers and RuWiki, combined, is less than 10% of the overall $175 million budget. The WMF spends more on fundraising than on hardware. Am I wrong? If so, what is the actual percentage? If I'm right, why are we talking about servers and Russia? Two years ago, the Board decided to not spend $40 million, instead adding it to their reserves by buying more investments. Last year the Board reported losing $11 million on those investments. Those of us who complain about the money being spent are very specific in our complaints. When will we get specific responses from the Board? The responses so far have been very lacking in actually engaging with what were actually writing to you here. I remember being involved in discussions about these banners last summer. What has the $17-million fundraising department done in the past six months to alleviate those concerns? Why did they reveal these new banners so late in the season? We could have had this conversation in September and then there might be time to test new banners before December, but now, well, here we are. Levivich (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, let's assume that the community in general and you as its representative in particular have a complete knowledge of how the WMF works - I certainly think that my year on the Board is not enough to know everything, but maybe I'm just a slow learner. Please give me the source of the assumption that "WMF spends more on fundraising than on hardware", even forgetting that fundraising pays for itself _and_ the hardware.
 * Two years ago, was before my time on the Boards (I was elected a year ago) but were I on the Board then I think I would've approved it. As a small investor, I know that investment's value goes up and down, it's written in large letters on any investment platform. At the moment the world is recovering from COVID, there's a war in Europe and intermittent lockdowns in China, so it's a bear market, _ virtually all_ investments are down. But the investments are not lost if you don't cash them out. If we wait, we will not only recover paper losses but will have a profit.
 * Do you think my post is not specific enough? TomDotGov accuses me of cherry picking below. So not specific enough or too specific? Ot both and "damn if you do, damn if you don't".
 * It's obvious _now_ that the fundraising department made a mistake not engaging the community well in advance, they are paying for it in nerves and overtime. I hope they will learn the lesson.
 * Victoria (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Victoria: Thanks for your reply! I'll go point by point:
 * First, let me be clear that I am not the community's representative. I don't represent anyone but myself. You, however, are one of our representatives on the Board. I was very happy to vote for you and I rely on you and the other community-elected Trustees to represent me and the rest of the volunteer community on the Board. Thank you for doing that.
 * According to the WMF's financial statements, in FY2020, $3.7 million was spent on purchasing computer equipment while $12 million was spent on fundraising; in 2021, $3.1 million on computer equipment, $15 million on fundraising; in 2022, $3.6 million on computer equipment and $16 million on fundraising. That's why I believe the WMF spends more on fundraising than hardware. The Trustees voted on these budgets, so they approved this spending, I assume.
 * "Investments" is a broad word. I'm still wondering why the WMF owns $22 million in MBSes, the toxic assets that caused the subprime mortgage crisis. I hope none of the MBSes owned by the WMF are subprime MBSes, and I hope the Trustees already know that they aren't because they've already asked that question. Similarly, I have concerns about the corporate bonds. What kind of corporate bonds does the WMF own? Do we own oil company bonds? Companies linked to autocratic regimes? Is the WMF a responsible investor? Where does it disclose its investments? This isn't about more investments or less investments, it's about what kind of investments. One of the things the WMF invests in is itself, of course.
 * The WMF is an institutional investor, it's not investing for profit or to maximize returns, it's investing to preserve principal. It should be buying low-risk investments and it already does this (most of the investments are US treasuries). I wonder how the WMF's investment losses of $11 million (~5%) compares with the portfolios of other, similar-sized nonprofits, or with the Endowment.
 * As for cherry picking, let's make a deal: I won't hold against you what other trustees say, and you don't hold against me what other editors say :-)
 * The fundraising department may be paying for mistakes, but they are paid well: something like $5 million in salaries and wages for about 25 employees? Nobody is paying any of the dozens of volunteer editors who are pointing out these mistakes in this RFC, some of whom have been sounding the alarm about these banners for months or longer. But in my view it's not the fundraising department that made a mistake here, it's the C-suite. I don't know if this is true, but I'd bet that not a single trustee or executive ever told the fundraising department that there was ever any problem with their banners (because if they did, I bet they'd be changed already). The leadership should have anticipated that the community would have a problem with the banners because the banners made inaccurate implications. Notice how many times the words "immoral" and "unethical" have been used to describe the banner text: that's something the leadership, not the fundraising department, should have anticipated. This is why it's a "disconnect": the leadership apparently failed to anticipate the strong community backlash, which shows the leadership doesn't really know their community. I agree Wikimedians live in silos... some of WMF leadership lives in a silo, too.
 * I hope, aside from revising the banners, the Board directs the staff to review this discussion, pull out all the financial questions that people have been asking, and prepare a report suitable for public disclosure that provides information detailed enough to allow those questions to be answered. We really do rely on you and the other community trustees to provide fiscal oversight, and I want to thank you again for donating your time to do that by serving on the Board. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're cherry-picking one of the more noble things the WMF spends money on, while ignoring all the things the Foundation wastes money on, like a long and pointless Movement Strategy process, a Brand Studio (that does what?) and Equity Grants. I'd hope that as a board member, you'd prioritize maintaining some of the more important ways in which the WMF spends money (such as legal support), over things that have little to do with the Mission. If the Board of Trustees chooses to deprioritize Wikipedians in need, that would be the choice of the Board, and it's wrong to attempt to push that onto the community just because spending will be rolled back to where it was a couple years ago. TomDotGov (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right. The board is reminding us that rolling back spending to where it was two or three years ago would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. I mean we all remember 2019, just before Covid ... it was hell. I was there. With the WMF running on just $91 million, Wikipedia was barely able to display a page within a minute, and Wikipedians in countries all over the world ended up in gulags, from which they have now been freed, thanks to the $60 million increase in WMF net assets and the WMF budget (almost) doubling to $175 million. All you need for the world to be a better place is to give the WMF a few more tens of millions.
 * Don't forget, the envisioned goal (no kidding) is a billion a year: 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. Andreas JN 466 18:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I didn't take part in the Movement Strategy process, I don't think it's pointless. For the last 20 years the "strategy" was "let's write as many articles in Wikipedia as possible". Then it got modified by "in different languages" and "good articles, not any old rubbish", but as enwika matured, the are questions of not of the end goal - access to free knowledge for everybody - but how to achieve this. And it cannot be achieved by enwika alone, as we see the number of articles reaching the plateau, number of new editors falling and average age of the editors increasing. We as a Movement cannot go back when whatever enwika decided was the law. I understand it's frustrating, but I don't see the way - or the why - we need to go back to this. The Movement Strategy gives the broad goals to the Movement.
 * Brand Studio is in fact a win for wikimedians and an example of WMF and the Board listening to them. The was a corporate idea to change the logo etc. and a general Movement resistance to it. It was one of my campaign promises but I cannot claim any glory for it. In fact, when I became a Board member, I discovered that many changes that I promised - more interaction of the Board and WMF staff with the Community, for example, were already being impelmented.
 * Equity Grants were an idea of the previous CEO who is no longer with the Foundation so there isn't a chance of them recurring. The Board has done its main job - changed the CEO.
 * Victoria (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You say, The Board has done its main job - changed the CEO. Do you mean to say the Board fired Katherine Maher? I was quite sure she had left of her own free will.
 * Also, please note that there are still over $3 million left in the m:Knowledge Equity Fund at Tides Advocacy, and current status is that there will be further grants made from it to non-Wikimedia organisations. Andreas JN 466 11:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is displayed here. Emphasis mine.
 * "The Movement Strategy gives the broad goals to the Movement."
 * These weren't goals determined by the movement, but a wishlist of the board and a handful of board-friendly insiders blessed by the board, imposed upon the Movement. When they were unveiled to the community for one of the notorious "consultations," almost none of the people involved responded to or interacted with any community feedback. Most of the discussions broke down quickly as it became apparent that there was little point.
 * The shocking thing about the Movement Strategy wasn't how little the WMF cared about the community's wishes -- at this point, very few left believed they did -- but how little the WMF even pretended to care about the community's opinions beyond the empty claptrap about how excited they were to take the community's opinions into consideration while changing almost nothing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Responses to BoT comments

 * , please note that I say the following as a) someone who actually opposed the RfC, b) tried to help the WMF fundraising team improve their offerings beforehand and c) formally advised that taking this position in the event of an unhappy community was a distinctly unwise route. I say that last, because although I think some poor rhetoric has been used by many wanting to remove the banners, ultimately I do believe the Community ultimately has the authority to decide not to allow banners it views as repugnant to its position (though the WMF could remove the share of en-wiki allocated efforts that would have been raised by banners should it do so). Your comments don't suggest to factor in how to make it so that those most affected by the negatives of banners can get the most say in them.


 * You also say that staff must ultimately be the ones in the charge...but why? The staff are those most qualified to judge what an effective banner will be. They have no more or less competence at judging the morality of any given banner than I do. They also will not have to deal with the negatives on-wiki and through VRT that any banner campaign, but especially fundraising campaigns bring. If you want a global RfC to occur on the matter rather than local, I'd suggest that be unwise or it would require the removal of banners from local communities that otherwise backed their presence if the global majority disagreed.


 * As an early warning, should the WMF attempt to impose sanctions on administrators enforcing a valid local consensus, I would view that as an unacceptable overreach. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably completely unnecessary but BOT is short for Board of Trustees and is not referring to any of the above pinged people as bots. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not unnecessary at all. That point had me confused until I saw your post. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think as a constitutional matter it would be absolutely unprecedented for a community RfC on this sort of thing to be considered valid. The finances of the global movement are not a fit subject for an English language RfC with a relative handful of participants.  Having said that, I think everyone - especially sensible people like you - should make it very very clear that it would be absurd to get into some kind of wheel war here.  I think (nearly) everyone agrees on some broad principles and getting into some kind of administrative fight at this point would clearly be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.  As a community, we definitely tend to make better decisions when we work thoughtfully and carefully for a widely supported solution, and I see nothing in all of this discussion that would lead me to think that's not the right way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When those finances are raised heavily on the back of a single community, how can you expect it to be any other way? Wikimedia can't just pretend the en.wp is a wallet to keep sucking money off of volunteers hard work.  They can either put money back into things we need to continue to grow, or they can lose access.  Can't really be any other way. 47.160.161.90 (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the foundation having 18 months of reserves is financially prudent. It would be absurd to get into some kind of wheel war here because of course I think it would be productive to find some mutually agreeable language. But I hope everyone - especially sensible people like you Jimmy - would agree with Nosebagbear's points in his penultimate paragraph Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Banners on English Wikipedia (suggesting in so many words that English Wikipedia is under financial threat, e.g., may not remain ad-free) have been used to raise money that is then spent on things other than English Wikipedia. I believe the English Wikipedia community is, and should remain, the ultimate authority on whether or not such banners should run on English Wikipedia. I would say the same goes for the other projects, e.g. the French Wikipedia community has the final say over what banners run on French Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference is the structure - Fr, es, de have their own seperate WMFs when then feed money back to WMF.
 * I would also suggest that the donors should be allowed a clear externally auditable chance to specify a split on how their money will be spent over the next 12 months eg.
 * IT requested by en WP, Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, wikinews, .. I think Wikidata is supported by deWMF. Hardware and server support for enWP
 * Smaller WPs/a WP of their choice. We shouldn't get into the business of redistributing- it will always be corruptable, and will waste lots of time and management.
 * Charity and fundraising including software and IT
 * Wikimedia mission etc
 * Tides/Wikimedia foundation/DAF
 * WMF other But they already have their endowment Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While it's nice that you believe that, that's not how it has worked ever in over 20 years of course. I mean take charge however you want (not that most of this crowd has ever volunteered to do anything that required real life responsibility within this community, unlike the people on the board) but everything the movement has ever done has mostly been driven by the popularity of English Wikipedia of course. And that is just fine. If anything, there have been requests by editors that more of that en.wp income was spent on sister projects like Commons. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Nosebagbear and thank you for your comment. My feeling is that in principle the community should always have the right to give feedback on the banner content, and the staff should be wise enough to recognize merit in reasonable comments. Quite many views expressed here about unfortunate wording, especially in the Global South campaigns, resonate with what I think - effectiveness cannot be the only factor, and listening to the community feedback is always important. However, I don't think a community should have the right to veto a banner, or participate in its design all the way. For practical purposes, if we have hundreds of communities and plenty of banners, it would create a super expensive and, likely, highly ineffective system. I also think that problems, like the one this RfC stemmed from, rarely occur and the content of the banners then can and should be quickly discussed and altered, if necessary. However, I also think that this RfC is a segue to a discussion about the WMF fundraising model and budget. While we can have this discussion, it definitely does not belong to just one language, one project community, major and powerful as it may be. It is not right for en-wiki alone to attempt to make decisions that affect everyone. Pundit | utter  07:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The list of sitting board members who have recently said that they, too, have had misgivings about at least some of the fundraising messages is getting longer (so far I count you, Jimbo and Shani). It's unfortunate that those professed sentiments do not seem to have resulted in corresponding action by the board. (If this is due to being outvoted by the appointees, maybe you need to reconsider your choice of appointees.) Andreas JN 466 09:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Our current fundraising system costs $17.5 million (according to the CFO's comment here)... isn't that already super expensive? How much more expensive would it be if communities had the right to veto a banner or participate in its design all the way? BTW, what is our cost-per-banner, and revenue-per-banner? Levivich (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly doubt the "cost of fundraising" that reached 10 percent of the budget. Samaritan's Purse, St. Jude, and many other charities send regular mail to the donors (even small donors!) to provide update on their work, while Wikipedia didn't have to do that. Many charities advertise on YouTube and road signs, Wikipedia didn't have to do that as well. All Wikipedia had to do is to post the banner on the most prominent spot on their website which reached billions of people daily, and all is done.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   20:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @SunDawn: FYI, $11.8 million in fundraising expenses (of which >$3.6 million was "salaries and wages") were reported on the 2019 Form 990, and $14.8 million (including >$4.6 million salaries and wages) on the 2020 Form 990 (2021 Form 990 not out yet), out of ~$112 million total expenses in each year, so it has been about 10% (see 10th page of the PDFs, line 25, column D). Levivich (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See for 2021-2022 figures. Andreas  JN 466 22:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree that "an RfC on a single wiki, is not the way to decide the financial fate of all Wikimedia sites", this response misses the fact that the WMF never fundraises in its own name. It always (ab)uses the name of Wikipedia, with the result that most banners are outright lies because the project (i.e. the community) is not speaking those words or even actively disagrees with them. This RfC is merely surfacing what has been a lie for many years. To avoid lies, WMF could start using its own name. Nemo 08:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very valid point. As it stands the banner language is sub-optimal at best and deliberately misleading at worst. I also find comments suggesting that the major fundraising platform (en wiki) should have no real input into what goes out effectively in its name to be poor form as well. Since the fundraising is for the WMF, it should be clearly branded that way instead of being disguised as an appeal to keep en wiki running. Intothatdarkness 18:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's easy to see how absurdly wrong this argument is when you flip it around. "Wikipedia does not run its own servers, but in fact abuses the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation to offer our articles to readers, even though almost no readers understand who really builds the software, runs the data centers, and defends Wikipedia in court." Wikipedia and the Foundation are one community with different parts. We depend on each other. If we changed the brand of the Foundation (like some people wanted to) to the Wikipedia Foundation, it might make more sense to readers. At the end of the day, they would still be donating to the organization that keeps Wikipedia afloat from a technical and legal perspective. It's not even remotely a lie. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk  06:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From the banners -- and the reaction to the dislike of the banners -- it seems more that English Wikipedia keeps WMF afloat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement is really quite illuminating. The WMF attitude seems to be that when allocating resources, that the English Wikipedia (the indisputable flagship of our free knowledge movement) is just a "single wiki" among 300 wikis, but when it comes to fundraising, it suddenly the most important wiki by far. That is a shockingly hypocritical disconnect from reality and an attitude that illuminates the severe problem we face now in late November 2022. We are ethical people and the ad mongers aren't. Deal with it decisively now. When we PLEAD for better software tools to curate content and communicate with mobile editors for example, we are not asking for things that would benefit the English Wikipedia only. These tools would be for the benefit of editors throughout the Wikimedia Foundation websites. Do editors on our French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Chinese Wikipedias oppose this kind of software support? I do not think so. Anybody who tries to claim that this RFC does not reflect an overwhelming consensus is clearly wrong. Just an example that has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia per se: Year after year, the Android app for uploading photos to Commons has sucked and has deterred good faith contributors, and the WMF has repeatedly failed to deploy a reliable, bug free Android app to upload photos to Wikimedia Commons. Billions of people take photos worldwide on Android devices and it is extremely difficult for any of them to donate their photos under a free license. The app sucks. The app has sucked for years. Millions of dollars pour in and that app still sucks. Why the heck is that? Why can't a smartphone photo contibutor click three or four clearly labelled buttons and freely license their photo? Why does it take a half hour or more, and require a user to uninstall and reinstall the app to upload a single photo? Far smaller organizations deploy apps that work well. The butterfly editors and the dinosaur editors and the tropical storm editors and the asteroid editors may not have commented. They are entirely free to do so at any time. But the English Wikpedia editors and administrators who truly care about the governance of this project have spoken, and have spoken quite clearly. You need to do one of two things: Either come up with a RADICALLY DIFFERENT banner campaign that immediately creates a consensus in favor of your banners, or suspend your deceptive, unethical campaign on English Wikipedia for at least the next year. You can crank up your unethical ads on the French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese Wikpedias if you are determined to, and see how they react to your overreach. Stop lying about not advertising on Wikipedia when you advertise on Wikipedia every year. That is truly grotesque.  The consensus among the active volunteer content creators who are dedicated to the future of this encyclopedia is that we are overwhelmingly fed up with your unethical overreach which enriches the careerists among you and disregards the unpaid volunteers who have literally created your prosperous lifestyles and your exceptionally generous annual incomes and fringe benefits. For the sake of all that is good and righteous, please speak with us frankly and responsively, instead of spouting condescending PR agent talking points. Many of us have spent years or decades blocking PR people, and we place a very high priority on frank speech instead of baffelgab. Do not treat us like we just fell off a turnip truck.   Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Well… we could always…
… run our own banners along side the ones from WMF, asking people to NOT donate this year. Not an option I would actually encourage, just noting that if people are upset enough, it is an option. Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be disruptive to readers but if we are unable to block the banners (and I believe there are several options beyond modifying Common.css, if the WMF blocks that option) it might be worth considering. If we are considering more disruptive options a limited scale repeat of WP:BLACKOUT, perhaps of only the front page, might also be on the table. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Or another WP:BLACKOUT, or climb the WP:REICHSTAG :-D Levivich (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not support any banner created here on EN:WP asking people not to donate to the WMF. I just wish that the WMF would respect the EN:WP volunteer community and not run these misleading, wheedling banner advertisements while falsely claiming that they do not advertise when they obviously do. If these ugly banners go ahead, I would support an EN:WP banner above the WMF banner that says something like "If you are short on money in any way, you do not need to donate. The Wikimedia Foundation has cash reserves of $300 million (substituting the most accurate figure). If you are prosperous, engage in your own due diligence about the Wikimedia Foundation's finances and donate what you are comfortable with."


 * It is disconcerting to see the WMF repeatedly engaging in conduct that would lead to indefinite "promotional username - promotional edits" blocks if any other entity on earth behaved that way.  Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We could run our own banners that were silent on whether or not to donate, but just clarify that donations do not go to en.Wikipedia, but to the WMF and summarize what happens to the money - all the sister projects and global initiatives <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 04:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 "WMF would respect the EN:WP volunteer community and not run these misleading, wheedling banner advertisements". Editors are just donors of time; WMF represent and respect Tides and  tax avoidant donor assigned funds. WMF will placate us by toning down the messaging, but just increase up the number of banner days, divert the  donations elsewhere, remove any controls on themselves, encourage more entryism, and continue to de-legitimize editors.
 * WMFs approach to fundraising and to WP, is explained in this video by Zack Exley and outlined in this book he co-authored arguing that faceless minions, and small donations allowed organisers not to be constrained by those that fund them.
 * ""But even the most radical foundation that funds your start-up phase is going to want to rotate you out of its portfolio after a few years—that’s just how foundations work. If you didn’t use those few years to build an independent support base among the people you serve, then you’ll find yourself begging to an inevitably less-radical foundation—a foundation that will have all kinds of time-consuming questions and concerns about the best parts of your strategies and plans. The revolution will be funded—but by small donations that come from the people you serve or represent.""
 * ""But even the most radical foundation that funds your start-up phase is going to want to rotate you out of its portfolio after a few years—that’s just how foundations work. If you didn’t use those few years to build an independent support base among the people you serve, then you’ll find yourself begging to an inevitably less-radical foundation—a foundation that will have all kinds of time-consuming questions and concerns about the best parts of your strategies and plans. The revolution will be funded—but by small donations that come from the people you serve or represent.""

- Rules for Revolutionaries : How Big Organising Can Change Everything


 * Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a template which has seen regular use at the help desk/Teahouse during funding drives - it might have helpful wording for potential banners: HD/Donation. On the other hand, as an IP user, I find that the amount of space the fundraising banners occupy is already annoying, tacking more words onto them to make them even bigger... eh. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've wondered why this wasn't considered from the beginning. The vast majority of readers aren't aware that the people who run this site aren't the people who write the articles, let alone of the tension between them. It seems to me showing a site notice saying "Just so you know, a number of volunteer editors think the fundraising banners you're seeing are misleading and you should think twice before donating" could have much farther-reaching effects (viz publicity/outside pressure) than hiding the banners altogether. Nardog (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For my part, I'd rather not air our dirty laundry in public, so I'd rather not run banners than run competing banners; I'd only support running a competing banner if not running banners was not a technical possibility. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that there are two issues blended together here. One is the broad general one that WMF has overall gone pretty badly astray. The other is the fundraising wording one. To me the latter has a simple fix. The banners HAVE given the (false) impression that that there is a threat to English Wikipedia's survival that needs money to resolve. Reword them to stop giving that impression. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * When someone who is one of our most sensible and most liked and respected editors/admins make a forthright statement like this it’s really time for you all to sit up and take notice. Such a strong asseveration from an admin whose RfA carried the highest net score ever, can only mean there there must be something very, very wrong, and I am so proud to have been the nominator of that RfA.


 * Just a few weeks ago in both written talk page posts and live on Zoom, the BoT clearly told the community that they are not concerned with the community’s problems: “not in our remit” were the exact words, while stressing that they are only responsible for providing 'advice' to the Foundation's movement strategy decisions of the highest level. Any member of the Board who sides with the comminity gets thrown off it while the Board just rubber stamps what the WMF wants, and the volunteers whose dedicated work makes it all possible are treated like an expendable source of galley slaves - no lobby, no trade union, no celebrity salaries, and no thanks, but just keep stupidly rowing. One of these days they'll just stow their oars, give the Foundation the finger, and fork off. It will make FRAMGATE look like a storm in a teacup. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Information (2022 fundraising banners)
Between 29 November and 31 December the WMF will be running their English fundraising banners campaign (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, and US). Every year this results in a number of discussions objecting to certain aspects of the campaign but these discussions start too late to address any issues. This RfC, running before the campaign starts, is intended to prevent that from happening again.

The RfC started on and will run until 24 November (chosen so that if changes are required the WMF has time to implement them). On 24 November, the discussion will be hatted pending closure; closers are being pre-identified in order to facilitate a quick close.

Originally, of the banners they were going to run. This changed, and they only provided a sample on WPM.

In order to ensure that enough comment has been received that consensus is reached despite the shortened RfC period it has been listed prior to opening; editors who wished to be notified when it was opened put their name to the "Editors to notify" list, which was also pre-populated with editors who have participated in similar discussions

If there is a consensus that the banners are not appropriate to run but the WMF tries to run them without implementing the required changes then our proposed method to enforce the consensus is for Common.css to be modified to prevent them from appearing.

This list consists of editors who have added their name, or have participated in related discussions (Review of English Wikimedia fundraising emails, Wikimedia Foundation English fundraising campaign - October pre-tests, and Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Special report). Please raise any issues with the list on the talk page.


 * 1) AllyD
 * 2) AndyTheGrump
 * 3) Aza24
 * 4) Betseg
 * 5) BilledMammal
 * 6) Bilorv
 * 7) Blaze Wolf
 * 8) Bluerasberry
 * 9) Catleeball
 * 10) Certes
 * 11) Chiswick Chap
 * 12) Chris Troutman
 * 13) Clovermoss
 * 14) CoffeeCrumbs
 * 15) Cryptic
 * 16) Danre98
 * 17) Darwinek
 * 18) Daß Wölf
 * 19) Dege31
 * 20) Dutchy45
 * 21) Fram
 * 22) GretLomborg
 * 23) Guy Macon Alternate Account
 * 24) Hemiauchenia
 * 25) Herostratus
 * 26) Indy beetle
 * 27) Ineffablebookkeeper
 * 28) Intothatdarkness
 * 29) Iridescent
 * 30) Jayen466
 * 31) JBrungs (WMF)
 * 32) Jim.henderson
 * 33) Jr8825
 * 34) Kerry Raymond
 * 35) Kolya Butternut
 * 36) Kudpung
 * 37) Kusma
 * 38) Legoktm
 * 39) Levivich
 * 40) Mathmo
 * 41) Nardog
 * 42) NGC 54
 * 43) Nosebagbear
 * 44) Otr500
 * 45) Pelagic
 * 46) Perrak
 * 47) Peter Damian
 * 48) Pppery
 * 49) Qwerfjkl
 * 50) Randy Kryn
 * 51) Retswerb
 * 52) Rhododendrites
 * 53) S Marshall
 * 54) Seddon
 * 55) Seraphimblade
 * 56) Shells-shells
 * 57) SilkTork
 * 58) SmallJarsWithGreenLabels
 * 59) SunDawn
 * 60) The Grid
 * 61) The Land
 * 62) TheDJ
 * 63) TheresNoTime
 * 64) Tryptofish
 * 65) VersaceSpace
 * 66) Wakelamp
 * 67) WaltCip
 * 68) WereSpielChequers
 * 69) Wugapodes
 * 70) XenonNSMB
 * 71) XOR'easter
 * 72) Yair rand
 * 73) Yngvadottir

Recent banners (2022 fundraising banners)
Some of the banners tested between September and November are available below; they may be indicative of the final banners.

The following banners ran between 2022-11-18 21:00 (UTC) and 2022-11-21 21:00 (UTC) on enwiki for readers from Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. 10% of pageviews for logged-out readers included a banner, up to ten times per reader.

The following banners ran between 2022-11-07 21:00 (UTC) and 2022-11-14 21:00 (UTC) on enwiki for readers from Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. 10% of pageviews for logged-out readers included a banner, up to ten times per reader.

The following banners ran between 2022-10-26 21:00 (UTC) and 2022-10-27 00:00 (UTC) on enwiki for readers from Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. 100% of pageviews for logged-out readers included a banner, up to ten times per reader.

The following banners ran between 2022-10-11 21:00 (UTC) and 2022-10-12 00:00 (UTC) on enwiki for readers from Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. 100% of pageviews for logged-out readers included a banner, up to ten times per reader.

The following banners ran between 2022-10-03 20:00 (UTC) and 2022-10-10 20:00 (UTC) on enwiki for readers from Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. 7% of pageviews for logged-out readers included a banner, up to ten times per reader.

The following banners ran between 2022-09-23 20:00 (UTC) and 2022-09-25 20:00 (UTC) on enwiki for readers from Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. 10% of pageviews for logged-out readers included a banner, up to ten times per reader.

Question for the Wikipedia editors: what now?
So, the RfC is about to conclude, and if there isn't a sudden switch of positions among non-WMF affiliated commenters, it will result in clear opposition to the banners. Then what? Asking the WMF to delay the fundraising or skip a year on enwiki seem extremely unlikely to have any chance of success. If people want to pursue that angle, feel free of course, but I think we should decide on what action to take otherwise.

Thr main possibilities seem to be either hiding the banners somehow, or adding our own banners above or below with the vision of this RfC about the "official" banners. Both may lead to WMF intervention (on a technical level and against people attempting to implement the RfC results), but that would be an extremely unwise move from the WMF judging from previous such incidents.

Thoughts? Fram (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally we should ask first to be polite. But I agree the WMF is unlikely to say 'Yes we will not beg for cash misleadingly from our biggest pool of reachable victims this year'. Its not like they have ever taken any of the criticism before and learned from it. So I would say ask the question first, with a fairly short timeframe for an official answer, and look to technical solutions in the meantime. Either by preventing, or in the line of other misleading notices, attaching a "Pay no attention to the above, the WMF does not need your money, it almost certainly wont go towards maintaining the encylopedia'. Or there are more nuclear options such as saying where the cash does go (like towards sinecures for ex-leaders as an example). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful to let people know that there is absolutely no financial emergency and to make sure that WMF financial data like the table included in this section (also at WP:Fundraising statistics and Wikimedia Foundation) is prominently available to anyone who is faced with a banner. No one should be donating without being aware of WMF financial status. This will go some way towards protecting people like Thomas.
 * Beyond making things more transparent on Wikipedia itself, there is also a place for press coverage. I have had people tell me that they gave money to Wikipedia they didn't have, believing the site's survival was at stake, or that they gave what for them was a lot of money and then were mortified – well, really angry, actually – upon finding out that the organisation they had donated to actually had more money than ever already. The more we can do to get information into the public domain and avoid victims like that, the better. So, send tips to newspapers, blog about it, tweet about it, etc.!
 * There is nothing wrong with donating to the WMF, but people should do it for the right reasons and in full knowledge of the facts. --Andreas JN 466 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fram for starting this discussion because I agree with your major point. Not doing fundraising on enwiki is an existential threat to the foundation - larger than the threat COVID posed given the funds involved. Unlike FRAM we're also not going to have the board behind us and since the foundation ultimately has tools available that we as volunteers don't, we're not going to be able to match their response to an existential threat. So finding solutions, like replacing any mention of Wikipedia with Wikimedia in the banners feels like it ends with more concerns addressed than escalating through a banner strike. I don't think dual banners are the answer but I applaud Blueboar for at thinking in a solution mindset. I also need to note just how limited of a mandate those of us participating here can claim given the fact that Legoktm, who ran on a platform advocating much of what has been complained about here, didn't get elected to the board. Getting candidates like that to run in the future and actually getting them elected seems like something longtem we need to figure out. So while that's a longterm solution I also think we need to think about how we can find short-term solutions here - of which the Wikimedia/Wikipedia switch in the banner wording feels like the easiest that is also the most consequential. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You may be glad to learn that your account of the board (s)election outcome is inaccurate. Mike Peel was the only candidate who strongly supported the statement "WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever." (Kunal and Michal supported it as well, but not strongly.) Mike's candidacy was successful.
 * Shani, who successfully sought re-election as an incumbent board member, did not support that statement, but said in response to it: "I do feel that the online campaign can be improved. See videos for more." In her video she said, "The one thing that I think we can improve is our on-wiki campaign. It is sometimes too aggressive to my taste. I wish there was a way to fundraise but also frame it in a way that makes more sense to the volunteers who actually contribute to these projects. Even if we lose some donations, in the end I think it's worth it. I know that there are professionals working around the clock to fine tune the messages and make sure it's as effective as it could be. But I also think that the view and the good feeling of volunteers who actually contribute to making everything happen is important, so I would rather us fundraising through this campaign a bit less, but having a message that we can all stand behind and feel good about."
 * The candidates that were successful in the board (s)election are actually perfectly representative of the community sentiment expressed here. Regards, Andreas JN 466 19:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is more nuance to this than can be captured by a likert scale and I don't think the complaints here are just about the fundraising banners - just look at your posts which are often not about the banners at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the RfC is just about the banners, and to that extent the board members that were selected are in really good tune with the RfC. (I did vote for Legoktm as well ...) Andreas JN 466 19:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Should note that I am also glad Mike was elected and my comment above shouldn't be considered otherwise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps next time, wait a little after the elections to give time for the electees to actually join the board before throwing them in at the deep end. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I didn't think you were capable of jumping in and swimming in the deep-end I wouldn't have supported you @Mike. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All, first, apologies for joining the discussion a bit late -- I've been traveling without comfortable internet access, though I have been following everything. FWIW, I wanted to share some thoughts on this RfC. Acknowledging English is not my first language, it was difficult to shrink it all to a short answer and it’s a bit long, so bear with me) --
 * Thanks, @Andreas, for pointing it out. I stand behind everything I said during the elections process, and if you've been following what I've been doing as a Trustee, you know it wasn't just a matter of "campaigning"; The issue of better relationships between the Community, the Board and the WMF's staff, have long been on my mind, and was one of the reasons I wanted to join the Board. I have done all that I could to back it up with the type of work I have been doing as a Trustee in the past 3 years (and thanks to the community, will continue to do). Part of it included founding a new Board Committee, to have a better platform to do this type of work -- the Community Affairs Committee (CAC). This Committee aims to improve the overall communication and exchanges of ideas between the triangle of Community-Trustees-Staff, increase transparency, increase understanding of how the WMF and its Board do its work, and why, and at some point, hopefully improve trust, which will result in bringing us all closer to fulfilling our joint strategic goals. How does it all connect to this RfC?
 * Going back to the initial point of banners -- I totally agree with the sentiment raised here, that banner texts should be something the community of volunteers operating the website is comfortable with. But I have never, ever, questioned the need to fundraise to the best of our ability, to have reserves, to continue supporting a global community of Free Knowledge, and in essence, continue to build our Movement's (not just WMF's) resilience and sustainability. That is part of our duty as Trustees.
 * I also agree that WMF has grown quite rapidly in past years, under previous leadership. But we have a new CEO this year, who she is doing tremendous work to improve the way we operate, in strong partnership with the Board. The Board itself has changed drastically since I started out. All in all, WMF has changed the way we do things. Some examples. Our budget has not increased this year. Rather, Maryana is looking for ways to improve and optimize the way we work with existing staff. The Annual Plan Process (APP) has changed drastically and will continue to evolve, partly by re-opening for community input. We are in the middle of a Product & Tech reform, which will inform our next steps for the coming year and improve our ability to support the Movement. A series of additional steps have been taken to improve things that haven't been dealt with in years -- some of them are already visible to the community (and I do hope people who are looking closely notice a difference!), and some not just yet, but have been happening nonetheless. And despite what people say, we are more transparent than ever in the past (though we do hear you that it's not enough and even more transparency is needed). Why am I stressing this?
 * Admittedly, the tone of some of the comments here was difficult for me - at times sarcastic and lacking trust, at times not-constructive, at times out of scope for a single project (however important, and there's no question about that), and at other times filled with inaccuracies or misunderstanding of what we do and how (like the point about Tides, which Trustees and staff have already commented on). As some of you know, I am personally very sensitive to the tone and the way things are being said. I prefer conversations that are constructive and truly AGF. In that sense, to me this thread was not one of our finest moments as a movement. That said, I am not writing it in judgement of anyone; rather, to me, this RfC is simply a strong signal from the community that whatever progress we have made in the past year/s (and we have made progress!), it is not enough. It's a moment for self-reflection, and opportunity to fine-tune what we do, and also to acknowledge we still have a long way to go in order to fulfil the CAC's / Board's / WMF's / Community's goals -- that we really have a thriving movement. I do believe we are aligned on wanting that same thing.
 * I guess the most important thing I'd like people to take away is this -- The current Board, and current WMF leadership, are really listening. We are deeply rooted in the community. We are not 'out of touch' as was suggested, and we actually care about getting it right. We are here to serve. That in itself is quite different than our history of Trustees involvement. In working on solutions, we may have a different perspective on things at times, but we believe most of the issues raised here are solvable, if not in the short term, then certainly in the middle and longer terms. Doing a personal meta-analysis of the Board (and WMF's leadership), I truly believe we have the strongest, most dedicated, and most engaged Board in the history of our movement. Is that enough? No. But it's a good place to start change. We realize people want to see results and we are working to produce them. Real change (rather than last-minute changes like the ones that will happen with the banners this time) takes time. It takes commitment and continuous, constructive dialogue. Granted, we cannot change the past, how things worked and happened way back when (with previous Boards and previous staff); but we really are trying to change past patterns, not repeating mistakes, and all in all improve things for the better. So to me, it's not a question of whether it's happening, but rather how fast it's happening - a matter of pace, really. I hope the rest of the community acknowledges at least that by the end of this process.
 * Now, in changing things, will we be able to please everyone, all the time? Most probably not. But as Nat noted in her update earlier today, we are listening, and we do want to make it work. As she also noted, addressing the additional issues raised throughout this RfC on Banners will be a longer process. While as other Trustees have noted, some issues mentioned go beyond the scope of just English Wikipedia (or an RfC of a single project) as it influences our global movement, this RfC will nonetheless inform our work moving forward. For this RfC on banners, as Nat wrote, we are already working on changing the language, and I hope to see wide support from the community in doing that.
 * I also want to reiterate that it will be a continuous effort and will be happening via various spaces and opportunities. One avenue we will keep exploring things through, would be the Open Conversations with Trustees that the CAC is hosting. Our next meeting will be December 15th, and we will dedicate a portion of the meeting to discuss this RfC and issues raised through it. I do hope the community joins this meeting and continues the dialogue constructively.
 * All in all, your support and trust mean everything in us being able to do well in the role you've entrusted us with. To me, we're not called Trustees in vain. Working on building that trust with this community and others is part of what we will continue to do and strive for. I look forward to more discussions (even if difficult ones), as it’s the only way I see forward, and I hope you'll give us the benefit of the doubt and AGF throughout the process. It is needed for the process to be successful. Happy Thanksgiving to those celebrating it, Shani (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comment and for everyone's engagement, @Shani. Hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving week for those observing it. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shani. Just one thing though -- what do you mean when you say Our budget has not increased this year.? As far as I can see the budget has increased very substantially once again -- expenses in 2021-2022 were $145 million, and planned expenses this year are $175 million. Revenue in 2021-2022 was $155 million, and planned revenue for 2022-2023 is $175 million. These are big increases, especially when also compared to the 2020-2021 expenses ($112 million). Sources:
 * See also the June 2022 board meeting minutes (my emphases): FY22-23 is not anticipated to be a year of rapid growth. The Foundation anticipates 17% growth to a budget of $175 million with moderate growth in terms of staffing. Next year, the fundraising team will be increasing targets in each of their major streams, with a particular focus in Major Gifts.
 * I find these sorts of counterfactual statements very, very concerning – what am I missing here?? Andreas JN 466 23:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Shani, happy Thanksgiving to you as well if you are celebrating it. Thank you for responding. In my opinion, the lack of AGF stems from the lack of WMF responses earlier. Only the threat to stop the fundraising banner that can hurt WMF income prompted WMF upper echelons to step in here to address the concerns. As you have seen, the issue is not only on fundraising banners, but also on how WMF used the money, how support is lacking despite huge donation income, and so on. If WMF have addressed this concern tactly and satisfactorily earlier this year, it won't have come to this. WMF lost lot of AGF when they didn't care.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   16:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From the WMF's point of view, this is a much more existential situation than the comparators. It's not a buggy new feature that community members are pushing back on. It's not a one-editor conduct issue that highlights an unclear boundary between community processes and WMF enforcement. It's the WMF's biggest revenue stream. The Board statements are lining up to make it perfectly clear that they already know about the issue and, while sympathetic to some points, do not believe that unilateral action by English Wikipedians to disrupt the fundraiser is justified or permissible. If someone decides to use this RfC as grounds to use technical methods to stop the fundraiser, I think the WMF will view that as starting a fight they cannot afford to lose. The Land (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Land We don't actually have to use technical means to stop the fundraiser; add a template to each page - "please give give to the Internet Archive instead", and there are many many many non-technical things we can do
 * The problem is we actually do need a pile of dosh to fix up Wikipedia, there are a lot of good people at WMF, and poisoning Wikipedia is just dumb. Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fram Root Causes are we haven't given WMF a long term strategy, WMF have been playing college type politics to reduce editor control, and they have concentrated on interesting stuff.
 * At the moment, move this RfC to a WP space article and we use our strength of collaborative article creation to list WP and WMF issues in a structured way to then create an IT and process strategy,
 * My preference for WMF is to make the fund raising message simple and not emotional, centralise all IT and concentrate on editor and dev efficiency, stop the usage of non WIki closed communication, oursource legal to EFF, monthly ask me anything by the IT director and trustees on Pump, remove all the anti-oversight policy and reporting changes, stop trying to influence government policies, remove the advisory board, axe fund raising departments in poorer countries, remove weasel word department names, answer the questions asked on RfC, and fix up the Tide disaster. Yep that's about it. And we need to fix our problems as well, so we can  create a strategy.  Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of the objections miss the mark. I completely agree that it is not really ok to have banners suggesting that donations go exclusively to en.wp, when we all know that is for sure not the case, by a fairly wide margin. That should change, and I hope the office is hearing that from the community. What is not reasonable is asking a nonprofit organization to just skip a fundraising cycle. Like it or not, the WMF owns Wikipedia, and donations are what funds everything the foundation does. We can't make them just not do it, and we should not be trying to do that, or quibbling about what the banners look like, or anything other than the actual core issue, that the banners are not honest or clear about what the donations are actually for. Fundraising should always be as transparent as possible and I don't see how it is a negative to emphasize the global nature of this movement. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed – epsecially re: What is not reasonable is asking a nonprofit organization to just skip a fundraising cycle. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. I do have a few suggestions (apologies if they already have been made, I am not going to read the entirety of this discussion)
 * Allow for donating to different funds, so that if people only want to donate to keeping the servers running but not the other grants or funds, they can.
 * Still allow donations, but turn off the banners and the campaign once a certain goal is met. --Rschen7754 02:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the challenges with that is that when you offer someone a choice like that, the result is an profoundly increased likelihood of not making any choice at all, even if there was not negative sentiment towards any option presented. Seddon talk 14:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Various charities such as the United Way provide an option for a general donation, to be allocated as the charity decides is best, as well as directed donations. I feel this should help alleviate analysis paralysis. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is actually a very reasonable proposal that is used by most charities that I knew. If I donated to Samaritan's Purse and wanted the money to be solely used for project A, it shall be so. If I donated to Salvation Army and wanted it to "stay local" it shall be so.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   16:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for the most part. I don't think we can ask them to skip a fundraising cycle, but I do think it would be reasonable for it to be postponed for a number of weeks, even at the considerable costs this would impose, given the magnitude of the issue. The banners' honesty is the main thing, and this should be solvable reasonably quickly. --Yair rand (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a considerable cost - just interest on the funds raised, so about 130 K *.
 * WMF A/B tests are focused on donations, rather than on whether readers decide to seek information elsewhere, so the current banners/intrusive pop ups/guilt  "Lost Wikipedia reader cost" is not measured. They do know that load time deters readers, and that banners are a major contributor
 * The calculation for the $130 K = $20M * 3/12*0.03, assumes money market rate of 0.3%, and a 3 month delay, and $20 M (??) raised). As a large percentage of  WP editors struggle financially, $130K  may seem enormous huge, but it is very small in comparison to the "Lost Wikipedia reader cost",the "Volunteer editor hours", and the "WMF paid hours" in reading and commenting on this discussion, and the Editors leaving because of the banner. We also benefit from only a small percentage of the 130K.  Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the November/December fundraising season that includes Giving Tuesday (this coming Tuesday) and the end of the year is particularly important for nonprofits. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to just change the banners to better wording via js?<span id="Qwerfjkl:1669274254678:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(proposals)" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  07:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some hacky js as a proof of concept: (tested on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia?banner=B2223_111816_en6C_m_p1_lg_txt_WeWMF).<span id="Qwerfjkl:1669308490987:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(proposals)" class="FTTCmt"> —  Qwerfjkl  talk  16:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Previously: MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 10. Nemo 18:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with ; the WMF is a registered nonprofit that has evolved way beyond its remit, has stashed away a sizeable endowment, and has been fundraising deceptively. It is not only reasonable, but moral, to seek to rein this in, at least on the one project whose community we are. In particular because the banners the WMF has placed year after year on en.wp and proposes to again place on en.wp this year both imply and state that the donations are sought and used for the continuation of Wikipedia. The ends do not justify the means, however fervently WMF employees may believe in its self-declared broader mission, and continuation of employees' jobs cannot be a consideration in itself for a charitable organization appealing to the public. My first preference would be for us to suppress the display of the banners on English Wikipedia, by any technical means possible, and if the WMF overrides that action, to go to the press with a statement that we, who actually created, maintain, and continue to develop English Wikipedia, do not endorse the banners and sought to dissuade the WMF from running them. My second choice would be for us to run a banner on English Wikipedia, with wording such as:"We, the editors of the English-language Wikipedia, do not endorse the below/above banner. [link is to this RfC as closed by ] The Wikimedia foundation has an endowment in excess of $X and only Y% of its spending in the last fiscal year was in support of Wikipedia and the other projects. Please see details [HERE] [link to an information page with links to WMF financial statements and explanation of items such as chapter support]. You may also wish to create an account, which does not entail identifying yourself and makes it possible to hide some of these banners." Yngvadottir (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The point I think you are missing is that not only with this fundraisign issue, shock tactics are the only way to force the WMF to sit up and listen and to have some respect for the unpaid volunteers who make it all work. If the WMF is so stupid that they will let it escalate so far that the communities will carry out threats of industrial action, then the WMF will have to cut their own celebrity salaries in order to plug the deceptively claimed hole in the finances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the fundraising banner issue
I seem to have missed the opportunity to comment on the fundraising banner dispute above, but I am concerned about how things may evolve from this point, so it might be worth proposing a more concrete outcome, realizing that I may be out-of-time or out-of-scope for the current RfC, but I'll give it a try. Please pardon unaccustomed brevity from me, but I'm typing in a mobile on (US) Thanksgiving Day. But how about something like this:

1. For 2022, recognizing the current time constraints, the WMF will modify the banners to be used on En-WP in a good-faith effort to address the concerns discussed above about the accuracy of their contents. The En-WP community will allow those banners to appear this year.

2. For 2023 and subsequent years, the WMF will post the proposed text of the year's banners on-wiki each year by June 1 (about six months before the start of the banner campaign) to allow for an unhurried discussion with the goal of reaching consensus each year on wording that satisfies both the WMF's goals and the En-WP community concerns.

Thoughts? Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (Anyone who thinks this should be moved to another place is welcome to do so. I'm on a mobile today with a weak connection.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually think July is too far in advance. Can I suggest 3 months as the principle so that if the Foundation changes its banner timeline the proposal would adapt with it? Because I think this is a solid proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a great solution for this and coming years. I'm pretty flexible on the exact timing. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Concurring with, July next year is absolutely unacceptable. There is no way that the WMF is technically so inflexible that urgently solutions cannot be addressed. It's just a question of good will, but the WMF appears to have none.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Re #1, are you suggesting that we now just trust the WMF to come up with something appropriate by Tuesday and acquiesce to whatever that turns out to be? If so, my response is no, because I see little evidence that such trust would be justified. Just on this page –
 * One board member claimed that "Our budget has not increased this year" when the minutes of the June 2022 board meeting they attended planned for a 20% growth in expenses (the minutes read "The Foundation anticipates 17% growth to a budget of $175 million with moderate growth in terms of staffing", but the actual percentage is 20%: $175M/$146M total expenses in the year just ended = 1.20).
 * A senior executive claimed the WMF has been experiencing "enormous growth" in traffic, but Wikimedia's own page view stats at stats.wikimedia.org show no such thing. The only thing that has experienced "enormous growth" is the Foundation's assets.
 * We were told below by the board chair two days ago that "draft messaging was being worked on" and would be shown to us yesterday. It didn't happen, nor was there any acknowledgement or apology that it didn't happen (I mean, people would understand; it was Thanksgiving in the US) nor an indication of when we will now see these new drafts.
 * In a word, it is business as usual. Would you buy a used car from someone behaving like that, sight unseen?
 * Re #2, I agree with Barkeep49 that a three-month interval between the start of discussions and the start of the relevant campaign feels right.
 * June would be okay for reviewing the emails that go out from September (note that the earlier RfC on the email texts came to much the same result as this one), and September would be good for the banners. Andreas JN 466 09:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that a draft space has been opened at Fundraising/2022_banners since I wrote this (see announcement in the section below). The drafts posted there to date look much better than I anticipated. Andreas JN 466 10:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think #2 is a good solution, and the June start will allow the WMF to engage in an iterative process with us, where they have space to test the changes they make in response to our concerns so that they are best able to meet their goals while satisfying our concerns.
 * However, any solution needs to keep in mind that the December campaign is not the only one the WMF runs, although the other campaigns are less visible to us due to a lower proportion of editors being based in the countries those campaigns are run in. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Nataliia, Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Hello again. Thank you all for the constructive comments here, which I took to the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees in a meeting the Board held yesterday along with staff. What the Board and staff have heard is quite clear, here and elsewhere: the Wikimedia Foundation should change the fundraising messaging to take into account more direct community and readers’ input.

Depending on the outcome of the RfC closure, hopefully the changes can be done by next Tuesday for the English campaign. The content the fundraising team would run next Tuesday will be based on the comments and ideas collected in this RfC, Meta, and other avenues. That draft messaging is being worked on and will be shared by the team tomorrow for further improvement. During the next year the team will develop a better process for this globally as there is quite a lot of detail to figure out.

More to the point, it is time for a reset between the Foundation and our communities on the seemingly intractable issues that we have been discussing for many years. Maryana will share more with you soon about the budget impacts of the changes in the fundraising approach, as well as the other concerns raised here (and elsewhere) about the direction of the Wikimedia Foundation --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your words encourage, and using the yearly-promised percentage of the funds for Wikipedia growth, conferences, and new ideas (Jimbo had some very good ones above) will help greatly. Hopefully things can run smoother, a dedicated formal statement of "No paid advertising on Wikipedia, now or ever" could put that issue to bed, and things like full transparency, etc., will work wonders. I believe that everyone means well, and personally I'd love to hear that Bill (or Melinda) came into the offices with a five billion dollar check (give a take a few hundred mil). And Happy Thanksgiving (esp. if you are in the States)! Randy Kryn (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * [[File:Can a leopard change his spots? Why, certainly, if he can get hold of Soapine., c. 1870-1900, from the Digital Commonwealth - 1 commonwealth 7m01bs623.jpg|thumb|300px|Can a leopard change his spots? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] JN 466 23:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)]]
 * Deeds are fruits, words are but leaves.
 * There have been promises made along these lines for a long time. Few, if any, have been even partially fulfilled. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is all too true, and part of a familiar pattern in WMF–community interactions. As they say, we shall see what we shall see. Andreas JN 466 23:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, this reply only showed that WMF didn't care about en.wiki editors, or even carefully read the concerns that has been aired out on this RFC. This RFC is not only about fundraising messaging, but WMF should have clearly seen other issues at play: lack of support to the editors, concerns to how donation are being used, concerns about endowments and grants, and general concerns about how WMF didn't give its editors (the one that have huge contribution in keeping the "product" alive) enough respect. If WMF is reading the room, fundraising message is just ONE of the concerns, and addressing just that is not "resetting" the relationship.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   15:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

and 1,344 words to tell us that nothing is really going to change any time soon other than instead of spending more money on the communities' concerns, the WMF is actually scaling back. But they are making cuts on precisely the areas where the volunteers need support rather than reducing  the money the WMF spends on itself and its junkets and non-encyclopedic ventures.

What's the point of the CAC if the board simply always sides with the WMF and states that community concerns "are not within our remit" ? With such a statement the board has accurately shot itself in the foot and anything they say now is merely thin attempts at saving face. In contrast, it will lead to the action that the English Wikipedia editors are proposing here. Contrary to what the communities used to believe, the BoT is not a watchdog, and between the board and the WMF it's not even clear which tail is wagging which dog. Community members who are elected to the board usually get thrown off it for doing their job and exposing scandals of the highest order. Whoever, or whatever process appoints the CEOs doesn't have a history of making the best decisions -  it's even rumoured now that  the last CEO  was actually  'asked' to  leave.

Community-WMF tension is nothing new but this time it's reached it peak and everything is boiling over; comments from the WMF or the board might be in good faith but they are just fuelling the fire instead of directly and pro-actively addressing the issues. Either withdraw these intended banners or reap the consequences. This should be compulsory reading for you all, but will you click the link? Will you finally understand those wise tabulated concerns from yet another disenchanted volunteer who is slaving away at doing the Foundation's work for free? Work that is directly concerned with Wikipedia's increasingly fragile reputation for neutrality and accuracy. What is the WMF going to do about it if the community does indeed proceed with its threatened civil disobedience and block the banners? Fire all the volunteers? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi I think this is in the wrong section; not responding to Nat's concise, practical comment above. – SJ +  20:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter where it is,, the RfC above was closed 9 hours ago. It's in the cluster of comments by the board and is addressed for the attention of 7 board members. Those who it concerns have been pinged and will read it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A quick note to make sure people are aware of this follow-up message from Maryana Iskander on VP/M: Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new banners and invitation to co-creation space
I am writing on behalf of the fundraising team, who have been taking in all the comments and ideas shared on this RfC and in other channels. It is clear there is a lot of care and passion for our projects and how we ask our readers to support them. Thank you. The team continues to welcome participation to improve messaging, and we’ll think more deeply about ways to improve the collaboration channels for future campaigns.

In response to this conversation, the team has created a new page where we can collaborate on messages. Jimmy is already there writing new banners based on testing over the past weekend and the discussion on the RfC. We ask for your help and ideas on how we can improve them together. Please join him! Thank you for helping create the campaign this year. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Advancement team's hard work on this – especially on Thanksgiving Day in the US, on which I know folks were burning the midnight oil. Even though we and the Foundation may have disagreements, I particularly want to recognize those who have been working on this when you would otherwise have been spending time with family and friends for the holiday. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 11:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If they have really waited until yesterday to create these, then they (or at the very least whichever brilliant leader steers this 40-person(!) team) are not really to be thanked but to be watched in disbelief. Whoever ordered them to do this on Thanksgiving should probably be asked to look for a different job. Everyone saw the result of this RfC coming, and everyone also could predict the outcome of this RfC long before it even started, based on the complaints over the years and the previous RfC about the fundraising emails. Thanking and recognizing people because they had to scramble to finally do a decent job for which they have been paid for years already? No. Fram (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that this page was only publicised after Jimmy Wales left his comment under each proposed draft, thus enabling him to position himself as someone who was on the side of the community on this all along.
 * Let it be known that two days ago, he was still proposing to explain to me, by email, why the old wordings soundly rejected in this RfC were "100% honest and fine". Andreas JN 466 12:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. Jimmy had a different opinion than you, respected you enough to engage in a direct correspondence to see if he could persuade you, and then he respected the community consensus once it came out rather than on continuing to insist on his preferred outcome and this is a problem? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, of course not; it's just that the timing of the publication of this draft page, four minutes after he made his last edit on that page, has enabled him to position himself prominently as an advocate for the very changes that did not seem to be his preferred outcome two days ago. I mean the result of the RfC was clear for at least a week, wasn't it? It's a PR touch I noticed – as far as the substance is concerned, I am very happy that he has changed his tune, and that we are now talking about decent draft messages. Does that make it clearer? Andreas JN 466 13:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gosh I hope they did some work as the RfC went along but that they did wait until yesterday to really work on them because yesterday is when it was formally closed. So that's when they knew exactly what consensus they had to meet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thank you to the team, and my apologies - if I had known it was a US public holiday on the 24th I would have scheduled the close for a day earlier. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Impressive, frankly better than I expected. Good job fundraising team. Levivich (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A quick note to make sure people are aware of this follow-up message from Maryana Iskander on VP/M: Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What next?
The initial scope of this RfC was the content of the banners, but it quickly went beyond that scope to include other issues with the banners and issues with our relationship with the WMF in general. This expanded scope remains unresolved and we now need to determine how to address those issues.

In regards to the banners, I believe that the process is relatively straightforward with three outstanding questions: There is no time to address these questions prior to the December campaign - although I hope the WMF will consider and address on its own initiative the concerns raised - so we can instead hold a full RfC at a time convenient to us on them.
 * 1) Whether fundraising in poorer nations is appropriate
 * 2) Whether the increasing duration of both the pre-campaign testing and the campaign itself is acceptable
 * 3) Whether the format of the banners is too disruptive

Addressing our relationship with the WMF is more complicated and I believe we need to work out our own idealized image of our relationship with the WMF before we can do so; we can then use this idealized image to sit down with the WMF and attempt to come to a compromise that will satisfy both of us. Determining this idealized relationship would itself be a multistep process; I believe we should start by having general discussions on the following topics:
 * 1) What we believe the WMF's responsibilities to us should be
 * 2) How much influence we believe the WMF should have over us
 * 3) How transparent we believe the WMF should be

Finally, I think we need a discussion on WP:CONEXCEPT and whether we can block fundraising banners to force the WMF to come to the table at times where we believe they are being obstinate to the detriment of Wikipedia and our mission. My reading of this discussion is that there would be a consensus, but I believe that formally establishing that, as well as establishing requirements for when we can use such a tool, would be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Short term, I'm happy to see what the revised banners say and if there is any objection to them. Long term, we need to have another one of those Movement Strategy votes, because the last one was too long ago and I don't think it represents the current community anymore, and as we've seen, for the WMF, Movement Strategy seems as inviolable as the Ten Commandments. Tell me where I can vote for "The WMF's mission is to invest donations in hardware and software maintenance and improvement for Wikipedia and its sister projects." Because we (the WMF and the community) don't seem to be on the same page about that. Levivich (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the Movement Strategy, while I agree a total re-evaluation of the strategy is due, I think there are two changes we should ask the WMF to do to encourage the broader community to get involved in the relevant debates. First, shutter the forum they are currently using and return all discussions to meta. Second, enable editors to participate in discussions on meta without leaving their home wiki.
 * For the second, I haven't given much though to its practical implementation but I believe a modified version of transclusion might be the best solution. BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be best to start at home (enwiki) and see if there is global consensus here to re-evaluate the strategy. Levivich (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Where fundraising in poorer nations is concerned, the issue of the messaging used in banners and emails acquires even greater importance. To give an example of how these banner messages have been perceived, the Indian Express reported in 2020 during the first Indian fundraiser that "an alarming red and white banner began to appear across the top of every Wikipedia page earlier this year — asking for donations to keep the site up and running" (my emphasis) – and remember, this happened at a time when the WMF was wealthier than it had ever been at any stage in its existence.
 * Fundraising messages used in South Asia, Africa and Latin America should be scrupulously worded to ensure that there is absolutely no implied threat of Wikipedia going offline, of free access to Wikipedia being withdrawn by introducing a subscription, running ads etc. The emails used this year all failed in that respect. Andreas JN 466 10:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Media coverage of this RfC

 * Stephen Harrison: "The Huge Fight Behind Those Pop-Up Fundraising Banners on Wikipedia", Slate. Quote: The Wikipedia editing community recently held a poll rejecting the proposed banner ads, pressuring the foundation that supports the site into drafting alternative ads with softer language. ... Over the course of a messy monthlong debate, participating Wikipedia editors protested that the proposed ads were misleading and unethical, while raising the specter of what would happen if the site’s contributors and the foundation failed to come to an agreement before the start of the annual fundraising season.
 * Keoni Everington: "Anonymous posts Taiwan flag, Mahsa Amini photo on Iranian Hajj site. Hacktivists accuse Wikipedia of 'suckering and hoarding up money by pretending that it's under existential danger'", Taiwan News. Quote: The hacktivists included an image showing Wikipedia's burgeoning revenue in recent years and accused the organization of "suckering and hoarding up money by pretending that it's under existential danger." They then included an archived link to a request for comment on the appropriateness of the banners used by Wikipedia's December 2022 fundraising campaign. Andreas  JN 466 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Rebecca MacKinnon VP WMF post on linkedin Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jacob Cohen: Wikipedia’s donation request drama, The Hustle. Quote: In the end, the foundation and contributors were able to find common ground. In part, one of the notes now reads, “If you can comfortably afford it this year, please join the readers who donate.” --Andreas JN 466 20:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia ha meno bisogno di soldi di quanto si pensi" ("Wikipedia needs less money than people think"), Il Post, January 2, 2023. Quote: "This time, it all started with a poll published at the Village Pump - the discussion pages of Wikipedia's volunteer community, known as 'Wikipedians' - in which the majority of voters rejected the texts proposed for this December's fundraiser." --Andreas JN 466 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia tra volontariato e raccolte fondi" ("Wikipedia between volunteering and fundraising"), Forche Caudine, January 3, 2023 (small cultural online magazine, quotes Il Post). --Andreas JN 466 23:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Together, let's preserve this special space" (current banner wording)
The following banner wording is currently running in the UK (highlight emphasis mine): To all our readers in the UK, Please don't skip this 1 minute read. This Monday December 5th, we’re asking for your support. We are the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia and 12 other free knowledge projects. If you can this year, please join the 2% of readers who give. Now is the time we invite you to give £2 or whatever seems right. Wikipedia is different. No advertising, no subscription fees, no paywalls. Those don't belong here. the technology that makes our projects possible and advance the cause of free knowledge worldwide. Show the world that access to independent and unbiased information matters to you. — The Wikimedia Foundation To me, the highlighted passage seems to fall foul of the RfC outcome logged above that banners that state or imply any of the following are not considered appropriate on the English Wikipedia: I've started a section at Fundraising/2022 banners to discuss this wording. --Andreas JN 466 23:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [...]