Talk:Donation

Donating to Wikimedia

GaylordBumBum 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Do we have to have the reference to Wikimedia donating at the top?[reply]

Perhaps not at the top, but maybe at the bottom, or at least a link to this. I am googling right now to find that dam* wikipedia donation page.... was hoping to find it here too, but didnt so far... 80.108.103.172 (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to leave it where it is now (since April 22 2009), at the top of the article... does not "To donate to the Wikimedia Foundation..." appear as the second line of the article in your browser? Thanks in advance for the new server! --CliffC (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overheads

SiobhanHansa wants a source for the claim that "donating to smaller charities, often tends to reduce expenditure on overheads". Is this really contentious? It seems obvious and well known that large organisations often have higher overheads than small ones, which often run entirely or mostly on volunteer labour, have no need for multiple levels of management, and pay little or no rent. Zsero 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size of an organization does not dictate the percentage that is spent on "overhead", a term that itself is not uniformly defined across organizations, and is dificult to measure. Your argument here that it is obvious and well known that larger organizations have higher overheads than smaller ones does not support the assertion that by donating to smaller organizations you cut overhead (you merely make a smaller organization somewhat larger, which would, according to the assertion, increase its overhead). Also the piece you have replaced (still without a citation) "Donating directly to a charity (rather than through solicitation)" is not obvious. Donating directly to a charity does not reduce business process overhead. It may reduce some fundraising expenses, but it may not. The fact that an individual donation did not rely on or use a particular fundraising process does not necessarily mean expenses were not incurred by the organization. Organizations tend to have their fundraising plans set in advance of any particular gift and will incur costs regardless of how the actual money comes in. Only donations that by-pass a process where costs are directly related to money received will actually result in lower expenses for the organization.

But more than the lack of a citation I think the thrust of the assertion is inappropriate. It seems to simply highlight overhead as an unacceptable expense rather than balancing the need for good controls to ensure organizations are run properly with the benefits of nimble and lean organizations (none of which is guaranteed by the size of the organization). It might be better here to discuss, for instance, the difficulty in measuring the impact of a donation, rather than putting in a normative and controversial statement. -- SiobhanHansa 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a clear separation of the spirit of donation (of giving freely) and the legalities of donation (which are excruciatingly intricate and vary from country to country. That's actually what brought me to this page because I was hoping for some US leads/references for correctly identifying the legal donor and preparing properly addressed correspondence when there is a corporate/foundation/organization donor involved (I edited the page - adding two words - to acknowledge that an institution may be a donor) H 1/4/2008```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.5.51.64 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

including, but not limited to

"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. --Unimath (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]