The majority of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation comes from individual donors all around the world. These donations allow the Foundation to provide the world-class technology infrastructure that supports 15 billion monthly views to Wikipedia and its sister projects, protect free knowledge globally through legal and advocacy efforts, and support the incredible volunteer editors who have built 63 million articles across more than 300 languages. In the past year, the Foundation has been focusing heavily on improvements to our products and technology, particularly the needs of experienced editors, as was outlined in the FY 2023-2024 annual plan. Going forward into the FY 2024-2025 annual plan, the Foundation will continue this course by prioritizing maintenance and upgrades for technical infrastructure, such as MediaWiki core, data center operations, and site reliability engineering services. There are also key results around a number of issues discussed here over the past year, such as ways to help volunteers connect to others who share their interests, building newcomer edit workflows that reduce the burden on experienced editors, building a new community wishlist that better connects movement ideas to Foundation activities, and improving tools for editors with extended rights.
To fund these efforts, the Foundation’s fundraising team will run its annual English fundraising campaign (for non-logged in users) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Funds raised from these countries account for more than 50 percent of all funds per year and this is an important moment to invite readers to support Wikimedia's mission. To prepare for the campaign, the fundraising team will continue the yearly practice of running limited "pre-tests" between July and November, to ensure optimal systems and banners, in collaboration with volunteers, rolling into the usual end of year high-traffic banner campaign.
Collaborating on messaging with volunteer stakeholders is key to the fundraising team. We will start with a message directly adapted from the co-created banner message that ran in December 2023 to kick off the pre-tests and work together with volunteers on new ideas for this year's campaign.
Many ideas shared by volunteers on the English campaign co-creation page last year were incorporated into our fundraising. Such as:
Language around the role of Wikipedia in relation to AI was introduced to the banners
The concept of time sensitivity, to encourage readers to donate now rather than later, was further explained
Clarity that the messages come from the Wikimedia Foundation by adding the organizational logo to all banners was introduced
It was made easier for readers to stop seeing banners for example increasing the duration for which a reader could dismiss banners for
Improvements were made to the payment methods and options, including tests to simplify the Venmo checkout flow, and a major milestone of releasing in-app Apple Pay transactions with the Wikipedia Apps team.
Donors also saw an invitation to start editing on the Thank You page, after they donated. This led to 4,398 new account creations, and 441 of those accounts went on to constructively edit within 24 hours (a constructive edit means the edit wasn’t subsequently reverted within 48 hours). For more detail on the results, have a look at the Growth Team’s page.
Based on collaboration on wiki and in person last year, the fundraising team wants to continue co-creating banner messaging and ideas with you. You can participate:
On wiki: Right here on this en.wiki collaboration page, or the fundraising Meta page. The team will share campaign insights, plans, and updates on this collaboration page. Updates will include message ideas for input, summaries on banner testing, changes to messaging over time, and space for new ideas and questions from volunteers. While we won't be able to test every single message idea shared here, we will build from the process in previous years to continue to try ideas shared in this collaboration space as well as other new spaces we're setting up this year.
In person: Members of the fundraising team will attend Wikimania, WikiConference North America, and other movement events for in-person conversations and collaboration.
Live conversations: Virtual conversation spaces for fundraising staff and volunteers to collaborate on fundraising. Is there an existing meeting you'd like us to attend? Please let us know!
Direct individual engagement: If you're interested in connecting directly, please email Julia Brungs at jbrungs at wikimedia dot org.
As is regular practice for the fundraising team, the first tests of the new fiscal year in July will be technical systems and payments tests. For these tests, last December's control messaging will be used. And to kick off new messaging, the team welcomes your ideas!
‘Current best’ banner from the last December campaign
June 17th: An important update for readers in the United States.
Please don't scroll past this 1-minute read. We're sorry to interrupt, but it's Monday, June 17th, and it will soon be too late to help us in our fundraiser.[under discussion] We ask you to reflect on the number of times you visited Wikipedia in the past year and if you're able to give $2.75 to the Wikimedia Foundation. If everyone reading this gave just $2.75, we'd hit our goal in a few hours.
In the age of AI, access to verifiable facts is crucial. Wikipedia is at the heart of online information, powering everything from your personal searches to emerging AI technologies. Your gift strengthens the knowledge of today and tomorrow.
If Wikipedia is one of the websites you use most and if the knowledge you gain here is valuable, please give $2.75. Every contribution helps: every edit, every gift counts.
Please share your ideas here! These can be iterations on the message above, new sentences, inspiring words, themes, or new concepts to try. We'd love to use this space to plan out the first message tests of the year together. Thank you for any ideas you'd like to share!
It would be refreshing and in alignment with core values if you ran an unconventional call for funds. Taking inspiration from the editors here is a potential path; "Hi remember us? We are the thousands around the world ensuring information remains free and accessible? We need your help again and only... (continue with your messaging about the $2.75)." I have more but thought I'd test this out. Realizing it is not the major guilt trip the referenced one is (a subtler, gentler guilttrip) but believing it is a more authentic start to a conversation we've been having for 20 years or so. Wake them up with love and care
Thanks for opening up this space again! Quick question - what messages were notably unsuccessful last year? Were there any other themes (besides the example given above) that stood out? —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that messages like that come across as deeply manipulative and that's not the image we want to portray. I also think the banners have been getting more and more intrusive in recent years, especially on mobile when they can take up the entire screen. How about something simple and retro like this chestnut from 2009?
WIKIPEDIAFOREVER
Otherwise, there are great simple and positive slogans that aren't obnoxiously long here. I'm partial to Written by volunteers, supported by readers like you. Donate today Of course, Give us the money or your homework gets it has a certain je ne sais quoi. The WordsmithTalk to me00:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this proposal is good and straightforward. We have had complaints about the obtrusiveness of the current ad campaign, so I think something smaller this year would really set the right tone from the WMF. I would show that they've listened to our concerns and readers' concerns, and acted instead of doubling down. Cremastra (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WIKIPEDIA FOREVER style banners were widely panned at the time, but nowadays we can look back fondly because we didn't realize how good we actually had it. The WMF fundraisers, like the state of web advertising in general, have just gotten so much worse. I think keeping it small, simple and with a positive message (instead of manipulation and guilt tripping) would be a breath of fresh air to readers who are constantly bombarded by ads that demand more and more of their attention. The WordsmithTalk to me05:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reminder that in in a 2022 RfC the community resoundingly agreed that "banners that state or imply any of the following are not considered appropriate on the English Wikipedia":
Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations
Donated funds are used primarily to support Wikipedia and/or its volunteer editors
Readers should feel obliged to donate regardless of their means ("guilt tripping")
As the person who closed that discussion, I'd also add that the clear wish of the majority of participants was that the fundraising team endeavour to reflect the spirit of these limits in their messaging, by prioritising honesty, accuracy, and respect for readers over maximising donation revenue. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore this banner is definitely not appropriate here. I hope the WMF is watching this page, and considering some of the alternatives provided. Cremastra (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe, I wonder how accurate you feel the "Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations" line is these days. Wikipedia's existence depends upon money; that money currently comes from smaller donations. If donations stopped, how do we imagine getting money without giving up independence (e.g., by running advertisements or having to please a major donor)?
I saw someone posting that the entire movement – WMF, WMDE, and all the other affiliates around the world, combined – spend less than Google paid their CEO. I have been wondering whether we could come up with comparisons that would be fun and a little less personal than pointing at an individual. Maybe something like "We need just five hours' of Google's annual revenue to run for the whole year"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that our existence is under threat. w:en:Internet censorship exists, and Wikipedia, especially the English Wikipedia, is not beloved by every politician in the world. However, these more immediate threats aren't primarily financial in nature.
There are long-term financial threats. For example, how do you get donors, if everyone gets Wiktionary definitions and Wikipedia information from their smart speakers, without ever visiting a WMF-hosted website?
Right now, though, I think the financial need is to get ahead of some of these problems (e.g., hiring more lawyers), and the financial threat is internal, primarily in the form of people who don't know what really needs to be done, and how much that really costs. I've asked people for years what they think should be cut from the WMF's budget, and the responses I've gotten tend to fall into three categories:
Ideas that don't hold up under any scrutiny: This tends to come in the form of saying that the WMF shouldn't give Google a voluntary choice between ordinary download rates and paying for high-speed connection and guaranteed tech support, because everyone knows that high-speed connections and tech support are basically free anyway, but it can also take other forms, e.g., saying that the software changes benefiting Group A should be canceled because I'm not in Group A, or saying self-contradictory things, like the WMF needs fewer employees, and also why aren't they doing more, like building tools to counter all that AI garbage?
Canceling programs that aren't run by the WMF: If I had a dollar for every time someone thought that the Wiki Education Foundation was part of the WMF...
Bad ideas: For example, hiring less competent staff or hiring only people from developing countries, because that would be cheaper ...but not necessarily less expensive in the long-run.
What I haven't ever heard is something like "Yeah, I actually know what the Legal team does, I can tell you the names of the multiple countries threatening legislation targeting Wikipedia specifically, and I think that they've hired too many lawyers" or "Yeah, I run a similarly high-volume website in my day job, and I totally think that 200 engineers is enough." Reddit has less traffic, lower technical needs (e.g., less video support), and three times as many employees. OpenAI (home of ChatGPT) has more than twice as many employees. At some point, you have to ask yourself whether all of these other organizations are run by stupid CEOs with pointlessly bloated payrolls, or if maybe the WMF actually needs the number of people it's employing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To connect that back more clearly: How does this show up? In the form of editors, most of whom have no relevant business experience (some of whom are just teenagers), claiming, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that there's no threat to Wikipedia's existence, that Wikipedia could remain independent without small donors, and that if the WMF can't raise enough money while telling people that their donations aren't actually needed, then they should just cut the budget.
Expect those people to be the first people to complain about "mismanagement" if the site goes down due to staffing cutbacks. The fact that the English Wikipedia didn't crash when Queen Elizabeth died is because the WMF spent many millions of dollars solving very boring technical problems and literally having engineers working round the clock. If they stop that kind of work, then the next big event will take the site down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that banner too. Recent test banners I have seen when logged out seemed fine as well (even though they did not explicitly say Wikimedia was financially secure). AndreasJN46614:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall Jimmy and others made a similar argument during and after the 2022 RfC. The points of contention are basically the size of the WMF budget and the size of its reserves. I forget the exact figures (and probably they've changed in the last two years), but the point was made that if, hypothetically, all donation income ceased tomorrow, Wikipedia could still use its reserves to continue under its current budget for years to come. Or, if it scaled back to just essential maintenance, potentially indefinitely. Of course nobody seriously expects or wants something like that to happen, but it's why a lot of people were unhappy with language that strongly implied the project was under immediate threat or experiencing financial difficulties. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about suggestions of urgency and subtle threat in emails
For reference, there is similar language in the current English fundraising emails (Email 1, Email 2, Email 3, Email 4) as well. For example:
"I’m sorry to interrupt, but it's Friday, June 14, 2024, and time will soon run out to help us because the clock is ticking on this fundraiser." (Email 2)
"But time will soon run out for you to help us in this fundraiser, so if you've been holding off until “later”, this is your moment. We need you. Please, remain one of Wikipedia's rare supporters." (Email 3)
"I know I said I was done in my last email, but it's Friday, June 14, 2024, and we haven't reached our goal. There are only a few days left in this fundraiser to make a difference. You have shown with your last donation how committed you are to helping us sustain Wikipedia. Please, remain one of the 2% of supporters who propel this important mission forward. It matters. We need you. Please remain an active Wikipedia supporter." (Email 4)
What do people think about these wordings? Also, the font size in the sample emails linked on Meta and above is tiny. (I was only able to read the text after copying it out.) Julia, could this be fixed? In the past the sample emails were always legible right away. And note that the Jimbo pictures are gone, replaced by pictures of Lisa, the WMF fundraising chief and deputy CEO. That's a departure! Regards, --AndreasJN46617:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem like standard marketing tactics of guilt tripping and creating a false sense of urgency. Most of the message is fine, but I don't like the deceptive language that's being pushed with those lines. It also looks like the images of Lisa Seitz-Gruwell actually violate the terms of CC-BY, which is incredibly embarrassing for the WMF. Email 3 and 4 seem to use c:File:Lisa Seitz-Gruwell 008 - Wikimedia Foundation Oct11.jpg, and Email 1 uses a cropped version of this. CC-BY 3.0 Unported requires attribution in the form of the creator's name, title of the work and a hyperlink. All of this appears to be missing, and the hyperlink for "found on Wikimedia Commons" just goes to the Main Page. The image for Email 2 also claims to be from Commons, but I can't actually find it there. A reverse image search only turns up the profile picture on Lisa Seitz-Gruwell's Medium account (which also has no attribution). The WordsmithTalk to me17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible, but in that case the attribution probably wouldn't say CC-BY 3.0, found on Wikimedia Commons. It seems to clearly indicate that it's being used under the terms of CC-BY 3.0 Unported license which the image is licensed under on Commons. If the author signed some sort of release or license, then that licensing text wouldn't be necessary. The WordsmithTalk to me18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @The Wordsmith, thanks for the reminder to always provide accurate attribution. This image was created by a staff member and we’ll make sure any images we use under the terms of a CC license have accurate attribution before the campaign goes out. SPatton (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more quotes from the sample emails worth pondering:
"We don’t charge a subscription fee or run ads because we don’t want to put barriers between you and the knowledge you seek. In return, can we count on your support today?" (Email 1)
"Major websites have come and gone; new generations are growing up with no memory of a world without the connectivity and instant gratification of the internet. We owe it to them, in a world that is always changing, to keep Wikipedia free for everyone. Like it always was and always should be." (Email 2)
"This might be my last chance to request, so I want to make sure this third email reaches everyone who might donate. Right now, we're at a critical stage of our fundraiser." (Email 3)
"You have shown with your last donation how committed you are to helping us sustain Wikipedia. Please, remain one of the 2% of supporters who propel this important mission forward. It matters. [...] But I hope you'll agree that in a world where disinformation is everywhere, it is crucial that everyone has access to trustworthy information. We need our community of donors to help us reach our goal, and time will soon run out in this fundraiser." (Email 4)
The WMF doesn't charge subscription fees because not a single editor wants to be an unpaid sweatshop worker writing for a paywalled site more like. AryKun (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We apparently need to establish a Fundraising Ethics Advisory Panel with community volunteers on it, cos we don't want this rubbish coming back every year. It's hard enough, convincing newcomers that they have to be honest and truthful and neutral, even when we're NOT sending them branded communication that pretends there's a deadline to donate money.—S MarshallT/C22:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input and active conversation.
Cremastra, we are indeed actively reviewing feedback coming through this page. The sample banner shared was from the December campaign, which aimed to create a sense of urgency for the end of the year (December 31st). We appreciate your feedback that this urgency may not be appropriate at other times of the year. As we plan our testing priorities, we will take this sentiment into account and work on alternative messages. I’ll post back here with some suggestions and results from upcoming tests.
Joe, we appreciate your input regarding the 2022 RfC .The general use of urgency in messaging is an important and appropriate persuasion tool in nonprofit fundraising. It helps potential donors understand that their donation is necessary to advance a cause they care about. The 2022 RfC, as you pointed out, identifies specific messaging themes where urgency is inappropriate, and we intentionally avoid these in our banner appeals, though interpretation can vary and we are here for those discussions.
Andreas, I’ll look into the font size issue and ensure we post clearer samples. Thank you for pointing this out.
Next week we will run a brief benchmark test and then proceed with limited content and feature testing. Will share learnings from that in this space soon. Sheetal Puri (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would contest the view that it's appropriate and ethical to use urgency and deadlines in messaging at any time when the WMF is in absolutely no danger at all of running out of money.
We as a community insist on absolute truthfulness and utmost good faith in messaging. Everything that appears with Wikipedia or Wikipedia-adjacent branding must comply with every single one of Wikipedia's standards of accuracy, objectivity and neutrality.
If this impacts your ability to raise money, and I appreciate that it likely will, then we need to be speaking to the people who set the fundraising targets -- not the poor people who're trying to meet them.—S MarshallT/C07:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to be threatening the WMF with that. We're not at Defcon 2 here. They're engaging in perfectly reasonable discussion and are usually, if not always, compliant with sufficiently-clear guidance from the community on fundraising ethics.—S MarshallT/C07:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I'm certainly not proposing such an extreme step at this stage. (Sorry if that wasn't clear from my comment). Cremastra (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no subscription fee on Wikipedia, and the articles you read are free. We don’t profit from the knowledge you seek. In fact, we firmly believe that knowledge should exist outside of the realm of supply and demand. But that doesn’t mean we don't need support from our readers. We respectfully ask for just one donation this year so that Wikipedia may continue to expand to new corners of the world."
The proposed India email 1, scheduled for use from 22 July to 15 August, reads:
"We don’t charge a subscription fee or run ads because we don’t want to put barriers between you and the knowledge you seek. In return, can we count on your support today? No gift is too big or too small."
I find the South Africa wording okay, while the India wording is subtly threatening. Can you see the difference? What do other editors feel? --AndreasJN46612:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree. The specific problem with the India wording is "we don't want to" combined with "In return" which makes it seem too much like quid pro quo. Though I'm not an expert on Indian English, so it could just be an WP:ENGVAR issue on my end. I do think the South Africa messaging sounds good, focuses on our core goal and asks for help to achieve it. That's exactly the message I think Wikipedians should be sending to readers. The WordsmithTalk to me17:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is an ENGVAR issue, because I do not read it as quid pro quo (I'm an Indian). It feels like a fairly reasonable phrasing on this, equivalent to "We don't charge a fee. So can you support us?" Soni (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was interpreting it more like "We don't want to charge a subscription fee, but we will if we don't get enough money". If it reads differently to people in India, then I withdraw my concern about it. The WordsmithTalk to me18:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In past years, English wordings for India were much the same as what was sent out to the rest of the English-speaking world a few months later. I would be very surprised if Indian email recipients were singled out for more urgent-sounding appeals. That is not the case, User:SPuri-WMF, is it?
At any rate, The Wordsmith, you put your finger on exactly the same points in the wording that struck me. The South Africa wording in the old Jimbo emails is excellent, and far more in line with what was agreed in 2022. AndreasJN46607:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, SPuri-WMF. The samples provided on Meta-Wiki are just that – samples, provided with the understanding that you will try a number of variants in the course of a campaign. Can you give us an assurance that whatever agreements are made here concerning banner and email messages will also be observed in alternate email texts not provided on Meta-Wiki? --AndreasJN46612:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all from a constant user of Wiki. I just thought I'd throw out my thoughts to youall. AS a note, I've contributed in the past.
It seems this years banners asking for contributions ran waaaaaay to long! So long I got vexed and sent a trite msg back about the campaign being so long. Isn't it enough for just 1 month long campaign. If I access Wiki just once a day, that's 30 times a month it's in my face. Multiple that by 3 months and.....I got a nice reply but still saw the banners.
Now I'm getting an email from the Fund Raising Officer Lisa Seitz Gruwell. I just had to look it up.
The Financials says it all. Wiki is not floundering financially!
Thanks Ganesha811, for the question about last year’s themes. The team worked closely with volunteers last year and found for example that messaging around AI worked really well.
Some messages and themes stood out as unsuccessful last year. Headlines are particularly challenging to replace. We tested over 18 headlines on themes from AI (e.g., “Wikipedia is still human”), to free knowledge ( “Wikipedia is still free”) to the importance and usefulness of Wikipedia (e.g., “If Wikipedia is useful for you, read on”). However, these did not seem to resonate as well as our main headline, “Wikipedia is not for sale”.
We also tried to refresh the opening line of our banners, “Please don’t skip this one-minute read” with a variety of phrases that are close in context (“don’t skip today”, “don’t dismiss today”, “don’t jump past”) and completely refreshing with a new theme (“You’re here looking for information so we’ll keep it quick”, “Thank you for stopping”), and removal of the line altogether. “Please don’t skip this one-minute read” continues to be the opening line.
We also saw success by adding more educational value to our banners, explaining that Wikipedia is written by volunteers and hosted by a non-profit. We start some light pre-tests next week. Here are some ideas of themes we are thinking about trying.
Wikipedia as a place where people can get information they trust
Wikipedia as a place where the knowledge is trustworthy because humans create it
The work of the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain Wikipedia’s technology and protect people’s right to free knowledge around the world.
Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to reader privacy and never tracking or selling their information. To quote this new Wikiminute video, “in a world where personal data has become currency, privacy is worth every penny.”
Thanks for the details. I'll see (bearing in mind the discussion above) if there are some phrases or themes it might be interesting to try out. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful. While I'm not sure asking readers to "trust" Wikipedia is a winning strategy, I do appreciate the positive messaging and it seems like a step in the right direction. One thing that still seems unclear to several of us, though: what metrics are you using to define "success"? Is it purely click-through rate and donations, or are people giving qualitative feedback on the messages? If your test results are available on Wikipedia or Meta I'd be interested in taking a look. The WordsmithTalk to me22:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These look like better options. Have you considered testing something quote short; like one sentence and a button? People might be steered away by walls of text, because they're annoying, but more willing to donate if they perceive the requests as more gentle. Cremastra (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many donations we would get from something like this:
If you have found Wikipedia useful recently, please donate. [button]
It has been a few weeks and we wanted to give you all an update on what we have been testing, share our developing ideas with you, and recap how our session was at Wikimania.
Let’s start off with Wikimania. Both myself and Sam attended the conference and it was great seeing many volunteers there. We ran a banner fundraising messaging workshop (you can find the recording here). We had about 25 participants at the workshop and had a good conversation with them. We heard some new points which we would now like to bring to you all here, to hear what you think of them. Volunteers in the room suggested to:
Use more visuals in our banners, particularly photos of editors and other examples of “Wikimedians in action.”
Highlight the work of the community in the banners
Include a goal thermometer or other specifics on our targets for a given fundraising campaign
Personalize banner messaging more based on article category, geographic location, etc.
Encourage editing as a secondary call to action, which we already do on our Thank You page and can probably pull forward into the banner flow for non-donors.
Going forward from these suggestions, we wanted to share with you what our thinking was for our next phase of testing. We would like to:
Include more language in the banners which highlights the work of the community
Test new goal language
Experiment with increased personalization, such as references to article category or revisiting ideas around mentioning the number of fundraising appeals we’ve shown a given reader. We used to have a ‘seen count’ in our banners that indicated to a reader how often they were shown a fundraising appeal. This was removed due to feedback. We have now heard that people might find this useful after all, and we would like to discuss a revamped version with you here, perhaps limited to only referencing the first few times we ask and then disappearing on later impressions, as well as allowing readers to hide the “seen count”.
We would appreciate any reactions or suggestions from the people watching this page.
Finally, the Foundation is hoping to hear from volunteers about new fundraising approaches to potentially experiment with on the Wikipedia app. The Wikipedia app is a useful place to test new ideas as it is a much smaller audience than our desktop readers, and we’re hoping to hear suggestions for things to test as well as feedback on an early stage proposal for article badges. While this work is not directly connected to our upcoming English Fundraiser, your ideas and recommendations would be appreciated. This work is connected to our longer term goal of diversifying where our revenue streams come from, so that we have more sustainable funding as potential donors increasingly access Wikimedia content on other platforms.
What are your thoughts both on the outcomes of the Wikimania session and on our ideas going forward?
Comment I do like the the idea of using more visuals in the banners; I've seen banners using newer language/colours/visuals for the various Wiki Edit a Thons over the last few months and they seem nice. "Meet the editor" posts might be a good idea, putting a face to the message helps make it feel more human. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be worth trying a banner that consists of only one sentence and a donate button. Something that short might be able to pull more donations. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR and Oaktree b thank you for suggestions and support of the visual ideas. We will go back to the team and brainstorm more on this.
Alien333,the language in our banners is not intended to imply any immediate threat to Wikipedia’s existence. We use language that highlights the very time-limited nature of our fundraisers to help motivate readers to give, e.g. our fundraiser won’t last long or you only had a small chance of seeing this message.
Some of the language in the emails could be construed as suggesting urgency. (E.g.: "This might be my last chance to ask, so I want to make sure this third email reaches everyone who might give. Right now, we're at a critical stage of our fundraiser in France." [1]) AndreasJN46614:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBrungs (WMF):Thank you. That's the reason you are giving us, that may not be the reason internally. And even if it is, and that we acknowledge communication cannot be perfect, this still could however be better worded to convey 'your' intended meaning of very time-limited nature of our fundraisers. So it is not just about your (WM) intentions, it is about how it is conveyed! Regards, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!05:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the cliche, but an exciting and Think different style Apple Inc. visionary style messaging that inspired instead of scaring readers? e.g Wikipedia is one of the few sites that presents accurate information without ads. What if Wikipedia was more than that? Your donations would accelerate our mission to..." and example bold missions could be: combat disinformation, close knowledge gap, fight harmful AI, etc... ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include a goal thermometer or other specifics on our targets for a given fundraising campaign.
Yes out of any and all suggestions please add this. Its makes it far more clear what your doing. Maybe have another bar/indicator if you want of how long the banner has been up. so people can see how well the banner is being responded to. Honestly I see people on the street do a better job.. I see cardboard cut-outs that say what their deal is without emotive language and a pot with money in it (or not in it). Feyman Diagram (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the recent suggestions and engagement! We’ve got a bunch of interesting tests happening now and in the next few weeks:
Content centered around generosity: At its core, Wikipedia runs on generosity: the generous volunteers, readers, editors, and donors who find value in Wikipedia and want to give something back to it. Together, we've made this free encyclopedia into one of the most popular websites in the world.
New headlines focused on trustworthiness
Trialing a very short and simple banner with a single line of inspiring copy and perhaps using a visual, as suggested by various folks on this page
Fresh content helping to contextualize our fundraising goals, and potentially a retest of a progress bar or ‘goal thermometer.’ We have tried progress bars in the past like this example but never found a fully effective design. We have received feedback suggesting we provide more details around our goals and targets, and we will work towards this in a few ways: through more messaging about our goals and where donations go, as well as visual or graphical elements like progress bars.
I think generosity and trustworthiness are good frames. Could they be mixed with some of the successful AI language from last year? "Wikipedia is written by humans, not AI - humans generously giving up their own time to provide trustworthy information" - something along those lines. Looking forward to hearing how the tests go! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today I wanted to update you all on some of our recent testing, share some ideas for input and development with you, introduce a couple of new fundraising streams we are testing, and talk briefly about an upcoming public awareness campaign.
Let’s start with the testing. Thank you for the many suggestions we’ve received. Over the last weeks we tested the following suggestions from volunteers and other stakeholders:
Mentioning the community in the banner. We saw a strong result from this copy inspired by all the encouragement, particularly at Wikimania, to talk more about the work of volunteers:
“Every day, countless volunteers work tirelessly to create and verify the pages you rely on. They ensure that the information you seek is accurate and accessible. Wikipedia thrives on human effort and collective agreement. Let's preserve this spirit together.”
We will take this learning forward as we work more on the banner content.
Educating donors about our model: We tested and adopted new ‘hidden paragraphs’ in our small banners that give donors much more insight into how the work happens behind the scenes. Our small banners don’t have much space, so we are happy to incorporate more educational content in this way:
“There are 60 million articles and counting on Wikipedia in different languages. It's the biggest free educational resource in human history. While Wikipedia is written by volunteers, hosting isn't free, and neither is all the other work we do to make sure Wikipedia continues growing for many years to come. We're building this not just for today, but for generations to come. That's why we're inviting you to support the not-for-profit organization that keeps Wikipedia online. Just 2% of Wikipedia readers donate each year. Join us, and support this free resource forever. Thank you.”
New headlines focused on trustworthiness: We tried many different headlines in recent weeks. Currently, we have not found a headline that performs better than our current headline, Wikipedia still can’t be sold but we have some interesting ideas for future testing. Some of the ideas we tried:
Wikipedia still fights against misinformation.
Wikipedia: For people, not profit.
Amid a crisis of trust, Wikipedia stays reliable
Wikipedia. Still not here to influence you.
Going forward into our next weeks of banner testing, I would love to hear your thoughts on:
Our simple ‘one line banner with a donate button’ : Many editors, most recently QuicoleJR on this page, have encouraged us to try a simple design with some inspirational text. What do you think of this concept?
Any suggestions?
Educational messaging: We’ve seen strong performance from a few different messaging ideas. Could you tell us which of these are your favorite, or suggest your own ‘hybrid’ by combining multiple elements?
Wikipedia is the only place online that transcends algorithms and carries a radical commitment to giving you the facts and nothing more. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's yours. And it takes all of us, working together, to keep free knowledge alive for the world.
Every day, countless volunteers work tirelessly to create and verify the pages you rely on. They ensure that the information you seek is accurate and accessible. Wikipedia thrives on human effort and collective agreement. Let's preserve this spirit together.
Other updates
In order to build a long-term sustainable revenue model, we are looking to diversify our fundraising channels. This year, in the U.S., we are launching two new ways for people to give, SMS donations and direct mail. Both channels are common and widespread fundraising methods in the U.S and help us serve different audiences. New formats –like mail– will also allow us to bring broader awareness to our nonprofit mission.
Finally, the Communications Department is planning to launch a new communications campaign designed to increase trust and support for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. This builds on our Knowledge Is Human campaign last year. The project page contains the published results of the 2023 campaign, and describes the plans for the 2024 campaign, which will go live in late October. Communications staff will be at Wikiconference North America to answer questions from volunteers in person, or, per usual, on the project talk page.
I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback. And if you are at Wikiconference North America this week, I am hosting a fundraising lunch table on Saturday October 5th. I would be happy to brainstorm with to you in person about our fundraising efforts.
FOREVER
