Talk:Fundraising 2010/Report

Please add your feedback here! Meganhernandez 20:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Beautifully done! A great synopsis of a really great fundraiser. Wish we had put together such a well-written debrief of the strategy process! --Eekim 04:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty nice, isn't it Eugene? Yay for Megan and the others who wrote it :-) I think that whenever the occasion arises, we should point other non-profits here; AFAIK we are the only people publishing fundraiser postmortem information that is this detailed and candid, and it could be really useful for other groups that are fundraising online. Sue Gardner 01:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What do donors want?

All the emails I read on the Italian queue asked for a single thing: being thanked for what they did. It is likely that this will happen next year as the chapters will prepare themselves better for the event. --Elitre 06:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, it is really important to thank our donors. It is a mandatory requirement in the fundraising agreement. Meganhernandez 19:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy's voice

The report says "Jimmy's unique voice really resonates with readers." Were there some banners/appeals with audio or video? Is this explained somewhere? John Vandenberg 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this is marketing speak and in this case his "voice" was written and with a picture. WereSpielChequers 16:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. By Jimmy's unique "voice" I meant his own words. We have not yet tested a fundraising video but are looking into it for this year. Meganhernandez 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pie charts

I think the pie charts are missing a "rest of the world" slice. Also do we have any info as to how much of the world we can't reach either because they don't have the ability to pay electronically or we can't take their currency? WereSpielChequers 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The description of the charts say that each slice is a proportion of the top 10, so the charts are not "wrong". However the charts to suggest to the reader that the US donated 80% of the amount instead of 66%. The "rest of world" (besides the top 10) donated $2,389,999 - that is bigger than the second highest, and over a quarter of the size of the US amount.

I've noticed that the raw data isnt available at [1]. Is the raw data available somewhere else, so we can do complete country breakdowns like User:John Vandenberg/2008 country breakdown and User:John Vandenberg/2009 country breakdown. Or has the WMF provided a complete country break down somewhere else? --John Vandenberg 09:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New chapters participating

It would be nice to mention which chapters were new to the fundraiser in 2010.

According to WMSE report for February 2011, this was the first fundraiser for WMSE. It was also WMAU's first fundraiser.

I did add that it was also the first fundraiser for Wikimedia Österreich based on the "no" columns in Chapter Agreements, however that doesnt appear to be a good indicator, as Wikimedia Österreich is reported to have participated in the 2008 fundraiser at Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_January_2009#Fundraising_.26_Grants.

Also, Wikimedia Polska is listed on Chapter Agreements as a non-standard agreement. If this agreement meant they participated in the fundraiser, it would have been their first time, and there would have been 13 chapters participating rather than the "12" currently listed. John Vandenberg 09:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)clarified status of WMAU and WMSE. John Vandenberg 09:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Poland participated in previous fundraisers, but I could be wrong...perhaps they were doing fundraising in a unique way that's not tracked on the table. Mike Peel 09:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be right about that. They reported a considerable amount of tax-deductible donations at Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Polska/January-July_2010#Financial_matters. John Vandenberg 10:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 for denoting the new chapters participating and adding the number of times a chapter participated in FR before. However, it is not clear to me why how tax-deduction and non-profit status are relevant to this table in this page? In addition, non-profit is a very broad term that doesn't exactly clarify the chapter's local recognition. We can start a separate page on chapters legal and admin details that would include more specific status and updated information. I also suggest moving transferred amounts to a separate report on foundationwiki. I actually uploaded this earlier but had to remove it since I didn't get confirmation from all chapters for revealing their data back then. Should re-uploaded back. Thanks - Moushira

Which information would help clarify chapters local recognition? Personally, I believe that for-profit/non-profit/recognition-as-charity are fairly clear divisions in most countries - but I'd love to hear situations where that wasn't the case (particularly since I have a UK-biased perspective). I would prefer for the info from chapters to be available on meta rather than the (heavily edit-restricted) foundationwiki if possible, as that makes it a lot easier to correct info as needed. Are there still chapters that haven't given permission for the info to be publicly revealed? If you can let me know which ones (either on- or off-wiki), then I'd be happy to help encourage them to give that permission. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the non-profit column as I have now confirmed that all participating chapters are non-profit. The tax-deductibility status is important information. I also think the transfered amounts should be here, in this report as the amount transferred is the chapters primary/initial contribution to the WMF programme. The WMF reports and wiki could also report this information. It doesn't hurt to have it reported in multiple locations. John Vandenberg 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)