Fundraiser - tough going?, seems like the fundraiser's finding it hard this year Options

Is it just me, or does it seem like the fundraiser is finding it hard going this year?

I'm a little unclear about what major donations have been kicked into the total, but I thought it'd be interesting to observe how the number rises - it's at 2,764,642 for me, which from totally unreliable recollection means it's been at rather a snail's pace for perhaps a week now?

thoughts, and the total at the time of posting would be interesting......

edit: it went well for a short bit and then things really slowed down. Every time I see the counter I'm surprised by the lack of progress.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Tue 18th November 2008, 10:03pm

2,812,937...

I also read that this is due to go for quite a while! - I'll do a couple more days, and start extrapolating etc. :-)

Here is the thread from last year's fundraiser. Greg kept a running tally.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=fundraiser

I recall from last year that the funds were way short of targets for weeks, until some wealthy dupes, who had obviously fallen for The Con hook-line-and-sinker, dug into their pockets and bailed the thing out.

Here is the thread from last year's fundraiser. Greg kept a running tally.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=fundraiser

I recall from last year that the funds were way short of targets for weeks, until some wealthy dupes, who had obviously fallen for The Con hook-line-and-sinker, dug into their pockets and bailed the thing out.

Was it really fall? I don't think they were duped, they know what they were doing. 'Wealthy' people are wealthy because they know what to do with their money. It's a form of corruption probably.

Here is the thread from last year's fundraiser. Greg kept a running tally.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=fundraiser

I recall from last year that the funds were way short of targets for weeks, until some wealthy dupes, who had obviously fallen for The Con hook-line-and-sinker, dug into their pockets and bailed the thing out.

Was it really fall? I don't think they were duped, they know what they were doing. 'Wealthy' people are wealthy because they know what to do with their money. It's a form of corruption probably.

Might you be suggesting this?:

2,866,048.....

and I'm almost ready to dust off the 'ol faithful calculator (still with my name 'n form written on the back.......)


Re : the speculation about wealthy donors etc. - it wouldn't be a big deal in my book for large-ish donors that the foundation are aware of to be sort of 'introduced' into the fundraising drive at certain spots. My impression generally is that folk spend all their money for christmas, so I'd predict a pretty severe fall off in January - it's actually pretty sensible to mitigate that by announcing a new, large, donation at that point..... we'll see I guess.....

Anyone remember how much they actually started with? It wasn't 0, I thought it was close to 1 million already donated.

Anyone remember how much they actually started with? It wasn't 0, I thought it was close to 1 million already donated.

They got 2 million at the outset from private donations, so they are misleading people into thinking that ordinary public donations have got them where they are now.

With the gloom of the economy, no wonder it's slow.

Anyone remember how much they actually started with? It wasn't 0, I thought it was close to 1 million already donated.

They got 2 million at the outset from private donations, so they are misleading people into thinking that ordinary public donations have got them where they are now.

And from the PDF, the two highest donations were from anonymous donators.

With the gloom of the economy, no wonder it's slow.

And because of deletionism.

They are not going to make anything like $6million. The bloom has gone from the rose.

I remember two years ago that any criticism of Wikipedia on say, Slashdot, was immediately modded down and/or I was attacked in personal terms, but such halcyon days for Jimbo have long gone. Wikia is struggling as well.

It's time for investors to actually ask the question as to what it is they are investing in.

Deletionism and inclusionism are just as much to blame as anything else. Wikipedia is a cult which has been exposed for what it is, an empty sham.

2,969,734 - that's a pretty big increase.....

sums and speculation next week :-)

They are not going to make anything like $6million. The bloom has gone from the rose.

I remember two years ago that any criticism of Wikipedia on say, Slashdot, was immediately modded down and/or I was attacked in personal terms, but such halcyon days for Jimbo have long gone. Wikia is struggling as well.

It's time for investors to actually ask the question as to what it is they are investing in.

Wikipedia as a project has shown little progress this last two years, and really, it seems doomed to failure, in the medium term. Seriously who's want to invest in it? Funny thing, they only needed $2,000,000 a couple of years ago, if my memory serves me. Why the big "jump" in costs, surly inflation is only running at 5% per annum. I think they are getting greedy at the Foundation.

Or maybe Jimbo has a different plan: He fails to get his $6,000,000, and then makes a plea to the community to put some "limited" advertising on WP, in order to keep the project afloat. Then the door is wide open to advertising, and Jimbo becomes a zillionaire!

They are not going to make anything like $6million. The bloom has gone from the rose.

I remember two years ago that any criticism of Wikipedia on say, Slashdot, was immediately modded down and/or I was attacked in personal terms, but such halcyon days for Jimbo have long gone. Wikia is struggling as well.

It's time for investors to actually ask the question as to what it is they are investing in.

Wikipedia as a project has shown little progress this last two years, and really, it seems doomed to failure, in the medium term. Seriously who's want to invest in it? Funny thing, they only needed $2,000,000 a couple of years ago, if my memory serves me. Why the big "jump" in costs, surly inflation is only running at 5% per annum. I think they are getting greedy at the Foundation.

They are getting concerned with self-preservation. The laws of the state of Florida are likely to be a lot tougher as regards internet "porn" serving than the laws of California. And it costs a whole hell of a lot more to do ANYTHING in California than Florida (where your employees don't even have a personal state income tax), and all kinds of business and regulatory taxes are higher, as well. Sales taxes go from 6 to 7.5% on everything, for example, even if you're a 501-c-3. Then add that to paying for office space in San Francisco and probably housing also (which is why the actual Bay Area middle class lives in Oakland...), and you've got a recipe for financial disaster.

All of this for a foundation that is just paying for air-conditioned server space at the end of a fiberoptic cable, and could be on any piece of cheap land in the country-- for example some rural bit of Arizona or Texas. But the cheaper the land, the more rednecked the locals and laws are likely to be, and then there's your porn problem, again. Plus, Jimbo and crew would feel culturally deprived! Like, they weren't used to that in Florida, or Alabama.

But it's your duty to pay for the cultural development of Jimbo and FloSue. I think Sue Gardener's 300 k a year salary (did we not get that from the WMF tax returns??) helps with that, but in SF, it doesn't go as far as you'd think. Do you know what one of those cute Victorian houses on Market costs, even today?

I wish there were a way people could just donate to support a particular project instead up all Foundation projects. I love Wikisource and to some degree Wikiquote, but I would not want any money I donated to go to the English Wikipedia.

I wish there were a way people could just donate to support a particular project instead up all Foundation projects. I love Wikisource and to some degree Wikiquote, but I would not want any money I donated to go to the English Wikipedia.

But some folks are giving. Strange how the kitty suddenly jumped to over $3M just after the languor of the incoming funds were alluded to here at WR, on this very thread. Jimbo is looking for money from his "workers", I see he has the begging bowl out on the "talk" pages too. Oh!, what a neck, made of brass? Eh!

Some handy links:

* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate..._fiscal_year.3F

* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Specia...utionStatistics

* http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@l...g/msg00001.html

Quick comparison 2007 vs 2008:
a) First week of data only: 10/22/07-10/28/07 vs 11/03/08-11/09/08
b) Only including donations UNDER $10,000

2007 Donors: 7547
2008 Donors: 14825

2007 Dollars: $203,605.40 (ave. gift $26.98)
2008 Dollars: $406,126.06 (ave. gift $27.39)

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

Non-profits don't pay sales taxes for purchases of goods and services, providing they provide the needed documentation to the vendor. A non-profit might have to collect (i.e. charge) sales tax for the sale of goods tangential to it's mission (e.g. sale of "gear" or books) but a donation is not a sale and is not subject sales tax.