Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

• Discussions of proposals which do not require significant foundation attention or involvement belong at Village pump (proposals)
• Discussions of bugs and routine technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
• Consider developing new ideas at the Village pump (idea lab).
• This page is not a place to appeal decisions about article content, which the WMF does not control (except in very rare cases); see Dispute resolution for that.
• Issues that do not require project-wide attention should often be handled through Wikipedia:Contact us instead of here.
• This board is not the place to report emergencies; go to Wikipedia:Emergency for that.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

What's the WMF? Why do people dislike it?

As I'm fairly new to anything in Wikipedia that isn't page editing, I've come to notice a fair amount of dislike towards WMF, demonstrated in some of the topics above, along with the idea lab section. As far as I know, it owns Wikipedia as well as the other projects like Wikibooks and Wikinews. However, I don't really know what it's endgoal is. So, two questions if you'd be kind enough to answer:

1. Did it do something wrong? / Is there a disagreement between it and the community?

2. What is the WMF's objective, or purpose for hosting this series of websites?

I feel pretty lost, so answers would help. Thanks! -- Coolman2917 (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems like this board has become largely about criticizing the WMF, so you're not exactly getting a random cross-section of opinions :), but there's absolutely a lot of people with negative feelings about it or some aspects of it. It's been true for as long as long as it's been around. I'd say the problems in the relationship between the foundation and the community (the English Wikipedia community, at least) boil down to two things: money and power (but then, what doesn't?). Early examples of power issues were when the foundation implemented major technical changes either without sufficient community input or against many people's wishes. A few years ago they banned a long-time user in a way that, to put it mildly, caught people off-guard and many saw as an overreach into on-wiki business. As for money, they have a lot of it, and there are a lot of conflicting ideas about how it should be spent. There will always be tension between a group of volunteers who puts in a huge amount of free labor to create a product and an organization whose employees are well-paid thanks to that free labor. It puts everyone in a tough spot. The biggest of all issues is probably the allocation of resources -- debates over where money should go. Some say the foundation has too much money, hoarding some and spending some on things that are too far removed from its actual purpose. Lately that criticism has taken the form of objections to fundraising banners. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"What is the WMF's objective, or purpose for hosting this series of websites?" - The Wikimedia Foundation was founded after Wikipedia, to be the corporate structure that owns the servers Wikipedia runs on. Prior to that Wikipedia was being run on the servers of Bomis, but when it started to become unprofitable it was spun off to a new, non-profit entity (the WMF). It was founded as a non-profit, with a mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

One of the conflicts between the WMF and the community come down to who is serving who. Does the WMF exist to serve the community and enable the community to produce free educational content? Or does the community exist to further the WMF's goals of developing and disseminating free educational content? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Asking "who is serving who" is not really the right question. It's a symbiotic relationship; neither could exist without the other. People (on both side) seem to forget that a lot. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

After analyzing the responses I see it largely has to do with people's donations and the controversial ways to which they are spent. Thanks for the answers - I feel a lot more informed about this. -- Coolman2917 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Aside from that, sometimes the community also have issues on how independent en-wiki should be, or how far WMF could govern en-wiki. The biggest debacle ever is WP:FRAM, which is still remembered by many editors, and in my opinion, many editors see it as WMF infringing on the independency of en-wiki. But most debacles are about how the editors see WMF as "begging" for money from readers, while WMF doesn't provide the editors (that are improving Wikipedia constantly) enough tools to improve the Wiki. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The WMF needs Wikipedia far more than Wikipedia needs the WMF. Andreas JN466 07:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a symbiotic relationship at present, but the assertion that WMF needs the community is increasingly untrue. Most of the work of the community is done by a core of content contributors, and as WMF's endowment becomes larger, it becomes increasingly possible for WMF to employ contributors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

An interesting proposition.

The m:Wikimedia Endowment currently stands at around $120 million (we don't know exactly, because the WMF won't say ...). According to Wired's excellent "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet", Britannica contributors were paid the equivalent of 50 cents per word in today's money. English Wikipedia contains 4.2 billion words, so employing people to produce that amount of words would have cost over $2 billion. (Bear in mind though that with constant editing and arguing, the actual number of words typed into Wikipedia is far greater ...) Over 21 years and at about 200 million words per annum (which corresponds roughly to the current rate at which words are added to English Wikipedia), that works out at approximately $100 million a year, which is indeed within the WMF's reach today. However, that is only English Wikipedia, and the administration and recruitment costs involved in employing such a huge number of writers would be astronomical.

More importantly, perhaps, would a Wikipedia written by paid authors be Wikipedia? I don't think so. If you retain a crowdsourcing element, then the authors would have to spend much of their time engaging with improvement suggestions rather than writing new articles, which would drive up cost. Secondly, if the WMF moved to a paid contributor model, the volunteer community would fork and keep the volunteer-run project going somewhere else. Finding an alternative host and funding would be relatively easy – we know that Wikipedia can run on $5 million a year. At least a proportion of the public would prefer that project, which puts in question how much money the WMF could actually make from "their" project. Paid contributors vs volunteers would be an interesting contest (and we know how Britannica vs Wikipedia ended ...).

Incidentally, the creation of Wikipedia as a whole (all languages) involved about 3 billion edits (an edit being anything from a typo correction on a talk page like this to posting a 5,000-word article in mainspace in one fell swoop). As the WMF now takes about $170 million in revenue each year, this means each volunteer edit is worth about 5 or 6 U.S. cents per annum to the WMF. Cheers, Andreas JN466 19:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm still forming my thoughts on the WMF, but here's some of what I've observed to be the areas of tension: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Community tension with the WMF. Don't forget the WMF also does a lot of good work too. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Coolman2917 (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Coolman2917:, To some extent, I think it's partly a reflection of human nature. When everything is going fine, you don't get feedback: have you called your auto mechanic lately, to tell them how much you appreciate it that your car is running fine, or your plumber to let them know the faucet is still not leaking nine years later, or FedEx that they've successfully delivered the 17th package this year without a hitch? Putting it another way: the views you read are biased in a natural way, reflecting the things people don't like or want to change. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting way to put it.. I like when everyone has different opinions, it provides a nice thing to discuss and an objective to agree on all terms. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 20:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I like Mathglot's answer here; I note that I am almost always entirely satisfied that the WMF acts in good faith in what it believes are the best interests of all of its communities. That being said, I also like that the WMF really pisses a lot of really loud people off. Not because I agree that those people are justified in their vitriol, but because any organization with money and power needs to have its feet kept to the fire all day and every day. It's the Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? issue. Anytime someone with any power over anything isn't being actively stared at, you can usually believe that they are doing something untowards. I have generally agreed with most decisions of the WMF, and where I have had my disagreements with the things they have done, I have generally at least understood their motivations and accepted that they are working in the best interests of a LOT of moving parts, and sometimes my perspective is not going to be the one that wins out in those situations. But, like I said, I only trust them because I know there are people who will hate every single move they make, and will thus scrutinize and attack everything. That's a GOOD THING in a functioning democratic society. All leaders should constantly feel under attack all the time; it's the only way that we know they are keeping everyone's best interests at heart. Even people I agree with, I appreciate that there's someone who doesn't agree with them keeping them on their toes. --Jayron32 18:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Meetings about misinformation with FBI, CISA, etc..

Re: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ Are there centralized contribution pages regarding changes made that were requested by these organizations, or are any changes made by uncollated accounts? -- Jeandré, 2022-11-02t16:25z

The report says that someone from Wikipedia (which I interpret to mean WMF) spoke to US government organizations about how Wikipedia addresses misinformation. It doesn't say that any changes were made to Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging user @Jeandré:. But as TBUA said, CISA didn't ask for any edits at all from the WMF, and the WMF in turn hasn't made any disinformation edits. Intercept (who I normally like) had a rather poor article here. As well as asking how we address misinformation, the meetings also were things like "we think X might be trying to add disinformation, you guys should be aware" rather than "Remove edits a, b, c to get rid of this disinformation". Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I recall that the Wikimedia Foundation's job ads for Disinformation specialists which started to spring up around 2020 ask for Arabic, Russian and Persian language skills (example; apparently, fighting ISIS is also part of the remit). What would interest me to know is how, to what extent and through which kinds of mechanisms WMF work in this field impacts content.

As far as I am aware, the WMF never volunteered the information that it collaborated with the Department of Homeland Security. "Government agencies" were mentioned, yes, but that is a rather unspecific term. (Corrections welcome; maybe I overlooked a disclosure somewhere.) All of this makes it very clear that Wikipedia is a U.S. project. At least I am not aware of the WMF collaborating with any other country's government in a similar way.

See also ongoing related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/In_the_media#Foundation_help_with_disinformation, where HaeB mentioned a lo-o-o-ong but notable Techdirt critique of the Intercept article. Andreas JN466 11:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In France, big websites should write a report about fake news every year (Report of 2021). It's done by WMF (+ me and a staff member of Wikimédia France if it's more informal meetings). Pyb (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. Regards, Andreas JN466 00:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The WMF has also worked regarding disinformation regarding Indian and Iranian elections, and this work is not limited to the English Wikipedia (e.g. the main target of many disinformation actors relating to Iran is likely to be the Farsi Wikipedia) which is why they recruited people with knowledge of those languages. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I take it this work was coordinated with the U.S. government rather than the Indian and Iranian governments? Andreas JN466 16:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to have been coordinated with anyone. WMF can have decided, on its own, that deliberately using Wikipedias (of any language) to spread misinformation is counter to its mission, and then it can decide, all by itself, to hire people that can help them do so. I have no idea if this is what they did, but I also didn't jump to any conclusions that they were coerced to do so or coordinated with any government to do so. The best answer is usually the one that involves the least assumptions. --Jayron32 18:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would further add that while the WMF is headquartered in the US (and, more specifically, is incorporated in the state of Florida), it operates as a Non-governmental organization, not beholden to any government. I see no indication that the WMF would allow itself to be seen as under the influence or control of any government. Fighting misinformation arises out of the second of the five pillars, and is independent of the agenda of any government. - Donald Albury 19:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false should be raised to the status of a guideline. At the moment the second pillar says "verifiable accuracy" but points only to verifiability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply commented on the coincidence that for about twenty years, the WMF never hired any Disinformation specialists. But just around the time the meetings with the DHS started, it placed multiple job ads for Disinformation specialists speaking the various foreign languages mentioned.

Certainly, it could be completely unrelated and a complete coincidence, but it doesn't seem very likely to me. Andreas JN466 20:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking back at the earliest Functionaries emails I have saved that mention disinformation, it seems it was a minor incident during the 2020 US election campaign that made the WMF sit up and take notice. It is very clear that the initiative to learn from the incident and get processes etc in place was the WMF's own.

It seems very plausible the US government's interest originates from the same event, but this is speculation on my part.

Sorry for being vague, but the details are in document marked "Private and confidential - not for distribution" so I obviously have to be very careful what I say. It was primarily handled by Oversight and stewards and there wasn't an ANI thread or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Thryduulf, I appreciate it. Was that the case described in the document shown on the right?

I still have a hard time seeing how this would have naturally segued into a specific interest in Indian and Iranian elections, as well as Arabic and Russian. That seems far more aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests. Regards, --Andreas JN466 13:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The community has had to deal with attempts by (possibly government supported or aligned) groups trying to control content in various language Wikipedias for a while, now. Simply trying to maintain the neutrality of all language Wikipedias should be enough to explain a desire to fight disinformation with more formal tools. - Donald Albury 14:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It's the coincidental timing and terminology. The WMF left the Croatian Wikipedia in the hands of right-wing extremists for a decade, despite community outcry ... now the belated WMF intervention in that project is held up as the first example of the Disinformation effort in the context of the WMF m:Human rights impact assessment, which is a project run by User:RGaines (WMF), who says on his user page, Prior to joining the Wikimedia Foundation, I worked at the US Department of State leading a portfolio of foreign assistance programs. Andreas JN466 15:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of government alignment, I recall that as far back as 2012, Hillary Clinton sent Richard Boly to Wikimania. Boly was 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 a video of his Wikimania address on YouTube. The whole thing was part of a Tech@State: "Wiki.Gov" initiative. (More about this here.)

So I have some sympathy for people living outside the U.S. harbouring suspicions that Wikipedia is essentially aligned with, or infiltrated by, the U.S. government.

I love the U.S. but I'd much rather see Wikipedia clearly aligned with the U.N. than aligned with any national interest. I think it is more compatible with the NPOV idea and would enable Wikipedia to make a more effective contribution to international understanding. Andreas JN466 15:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia app for Android

I have detected a fake Wikipedia app called Search Wikipedia and developed by "Apps Nesst" on Google Play Store. Could you take action against that fake app? --Agusbou2015 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

All Wikipedia text and most images are freely licensed for reuse, including for commercial purposes. There is nothing wrong with this app, although I have no intention of using it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Wouldn't the app violate WMF's trademark? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think so, MJL. If I were to write a book about Twitter, that would not violate Elon Musk's trademark, just like our article Twitter is not a trademark violation. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Eh, I don't see think that comparison holds true. If I write about Twitter, there's a clear separation that makes it clear I'm not affiliated with them. "Search Wikipedia" is not as clear (while also directly competing with our own app of course) and probably falls closer to something like Wikipedia Art which was allegedly a trademark infringement (according to the WMF). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, according to the WMF. I very much doubt that their view would stand up in court, and doubt even more that a simple statement like "search Wikipedia" would do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

MJL, the Wikipedia Art website is still up, 13 years later. So much for the WMF's legal theory. Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know what's going on there
(or at the WMF for that matter). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am also not a lawyer, but my understanding of trademark law is that it's based on the likelihood of confusion on the part of the average person. The top of the website contains a prominent disclaimer This web site documents a performance art work that promotes critical analyses of the nature of art, knowledge and Wikipedia. It is not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way. The Wikipedia website is located at wikipedia.org. which was not present on the only version of the website available on the internet archive dated before the legal letter was sent [1] (18 February 2009), nor in the screenshot in the letter [2] (PDF page 2; letter dated 23 March 2009). The disclaimer is present in the first version archived after the date of the letter [3] (27 June 2009). It is likely therefore that the legal people took/take the view that the disclaimer is sufficient to avoid confusion and/or sufficient that legal proceedings would not be straightforward and thus not worth spending money pursuing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Companies can use purely descriptive terms to describe themselves without violating trademark. A repair shop that fixes Ford cars, for example, can call themselves a Ford repair shop. Typically, though, to avoid confusion that they are unaffiliated, they will include an explicit statement saying so. Trademarks can be used by others as long as there is little possible of confusion, either through explicit disclaimers or because the two entities are not in related areas. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Reporting this to legal-tm-viowikimedia.org is probably the best thing to do. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WMF Blog post - "7 reasons you should donate to Wikipedia"

Posted at medium. The seven reasons provided by the WMF, with longer explanations available at the blog post, are:

1. We’re a nonprofit, and readers and donors around the world keep us independent.
2. Wikipedia serves millions of readers and runs at a fraction of the cost of other top websites.
3. Reader donations support the technology that makes Wikipedia possible and improvements to how people read, edit, and share knowledge on Wikipedia.
4. We’ve evolved to meet new needs in a changing technology landscape and respond to new global threats.
5. We manage our finances responsibly and balance Wikipedia’s immediate needs with long-term sustainability.
6. Supporting Wikipedia means you’re helping it become more representative of all the world’s knowledge.
7. Contributions from readers keep us going.

BilledMammal (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I start a list of reasons you shouldn't:

1. We're rolling in money already...

AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I find it absolutely absurd that they decided to create a blog post about it. What are we lying to people now about Wikipedia's money situation? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have all the data we need to critique these claims properly, but I'll have a go anyway:

1. Long term, individual donations help ensure independence. However, much of the WMF's income is from large companies. (See discussion below)
2. Probably true, though Wikipedia also runs on a fraction of the amount donated.
3. A tiny percentage of reader donations support the technology. Most of the money goes on salaries, opaque funds and virtue signalling.
4. Corporate mission-speak is difficult to prove or refute.
5. It should be easy to manage responsibly with donations approaching 100 times the cost of running the servers, but many important technical requests go unfunded.
6. Is donors' money spent on influencing Wikipedia's content? Presumably this refers to small sums spent to fund articles on underrepresented topics.
7. The accumulated surplus would keep Wikipedia's disks spinning for at least a century.

Finally, no one is able to "donate to Wikipedia": the Donate link in the sidebar headed Wikipedia sends most of the money elsewhere. Certes (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I can answer 4. "We’ve evolved to meet new needs in a changing technology landscape and respond to new global threats." You've tried evolving when it's not needed, and there are no global threats that money can stop. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

To be fair regarding #3, some of the salaries go to people who maintain and improve the technology. It's not all unnecessary as you imply. Unfortunately some of the salaries go to bad management, people who push US culture war stuff, and such. Anomie⚔ 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

much of the WMF's income is from large companies - that statement simply isn't true. Seddon ^talk 00:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a relatively small proportion overall, though still quite a lot – how many million a year would you say, for Foundation and Endowment combined? Andreas JN466 00:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not up to date with the specifics these days but if I had to guess its probably only about 3-4% of the total revenue in a given year, especially if you omit matching gifts programmes which are directly driven by gifts from individuals. Even our major gifts program is mostly driven by individuals and based off of the 2020-21 fundraising suggests an average of $600 for the whole programme. Seddon ^talk 00:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

But to be clear, the issue I take is with describing it as "much of the WMF's income". Seddon ^talk 00:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It may in part be a response to social media threads like [4] and [5] but there is always something like this in the run-up to a fundraising campaign. Expect a fluff piece in some major newspaper soon.

As for 6, historically this has generally involved employing some highly paid consultants to try to get people in developing countries to work for Big Tech and Wikipedia for free, like [6] or [7], usually with dire results. Andreas JN466 11:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that the same blog post is also at https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/11/03/7-reasons-you-should-donate-to-wikipedia/ --Andreas JN466 12:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, the WMF abusing the confusion between WikiPedia and WikiMedia again to scam people into donating money to WikiMedia while pretending you are donating to WikiPedia. Highly ethical behaviour from User:Lgruwell-WMF there. Too bad the rename of Wikimedia to make it even more confusing didn't work. Fram (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Related to this, some of the banners the WMF is currently trialling include the following:

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 for free every day..
• Resources to help the Wikimedia Foundation advance the cause of free knowledge in the world.

Given the lack of technical support in the areas we need it, like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and NPP, the first two points seem a little dishonest. BilledMammal (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

When has the WMF ever been honest regarding donations? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Seddon ^talk 01:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The answer that we have had before to such doubts is that anything that increases the amount of donations to the WMF is by definition good. Fundraisers are only judged by the amount of funds that they raise, however unethically they may do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I no longer donate and no longer edit. Here's why Foreskin. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Some seriously duplicitous comments by some individuals here: Certes said that large companies donate most of the WMF's money, which is not just wrong but egregiously so - and still hasn't struck through that statement; Blaze Wolf has made allegations of lying that if against another editor on this level of evidentiary basis would be viewed as a personal attack; BW also suggests that there is no threat to wikipedia that can be handled by money - tell me, did the WMF parts of the legal teams and internal administrative support of Block of Wikipedia in Turkey happen for free? Or compliance with changing privacy law? By all means be opposed to wasteful expenditures like the equity fund - but if you're inaccurate or unpleasant elsewhere, part of your reasoning being legit won't cut it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for pointing out my error, though I deny the allegation that it was duplicitous. I have struck through my comment at my first opportunity, the error having first been pointed out at 00:50 this morning whilst I was asleep. So, if not large companies, where is the money coming from? Does 96% of income really come from private individuals donating a few dollars each? Certes (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Certes - it's over 85% of the new revenue (that is, excluding endowment's own effects) is indeed individuals outside the major gifts category (which is $1000+). A person donating £800 is obviously not a "few dollars", but the average donation amount is between $5-15, depending on region. Of the issues I have with WMF fundraising, that they are so heavily focused on small donations from large numbers of people is not one of them - donor pressure is simply not an issue, and for most charities - it is. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. That suggests that about 20 million individuals donate to the WMF, a number I find surprisingly high. Some will be millionaires who can easily afford a three-figure donation, but I am still concerned that less wealthy donors may give sums they will miss without properly understanding how their money is used. Certes (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  More like 9 million, given an average donation of about $13 outside the major gifts bucket? And that sounds very reasonable given the Wikimedia traffic each year. Another key fact is that over half the donations are under $10 - it'll only be a few % donating triple figures. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Certes and Nosebagbear: The 20/21 fundraising report spoke of 7.7 million donors and a donation total of $155 million. The report contains a further breakdown – major gifts were $18.4 million and so forth. Note that gifts to the endowment are not included in that total. The endowment seems to average about $20 million a year, $5 million of which each year comes from the WMF itself (and is listed as an expense in the WMF's financial statements, under "Awards and grants"). The WMF board also decided last year that money left to the WMF in people's wills would go to the Endowment instead: [8] Andreas JN466 17:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  The WMF does not need anymore money cause they have enough already and basically claiming that Wikipedia might go away soon if they don't get more is just straight up lying as it isn't true. If you want to think that the WMF needs all the money it can get go ahead, but I'm sticking with what I am saying. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Blaze Wolf - please tell me, which ones out of the 2022 test banners we've had have indicated "basically claiming that wikipedia might go away soon"? It was a real problem with the 2020 banners, but all those I've seen for this year's are much better on that particular phrasing. It's certainly possible I've missed one or more (likely, in fact), but can you direct me to them if you're going to hold this position on that basis Nosebagbear (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to argue with you over this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, it's noteworthy that although the current banner does ramp up the donor pressure by pleading twice to Please don’t scroll past this., it no longer seems to hold the sword of Damocles over the head of readers/editors by saying that Wikipedia will cease to exist without its donation. It does say If you donate just $2.75, or whatever you can this Thursday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years., which is somewhat mealy-mouthed phrasing, in that it does not explicitly outright state a cause-and-effect relationship; it merely says it could keep thriving. Of course, this is just one banner I've seen while logged out, and for all I know they could be running more threatening banners that I'm not aware of. It's also interesting that they no longer call $2.75 "a cup of coffee", like they always used to do in years past. In my opinion, the more ongoing problem - and I've said this in the past - is the people who feel they have a vested stake in Wikipedia by donating, and thus they feel that threatening to withhold donations will allow them leverage in disputes or requests. This is undoubtedly a direct result of the pleading and beseeching that WMF does every year. When you create a culture that Wikipedia is run by some homey little local non-profit that exists only on the goodwill of their fellow man, you are in fact deceiving people in a very dishonest fashion. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be suprised if $2.75 isn't "a cup of coffee" anymore because of inflation and other stuff. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  A small sampling of the test banners the WMF has ran in the past month can be found here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  One wording I saw in the last few days asked me (humbly, probably) to protect Wikipedia, another banner I saw and saved in late October said: To all our readers in the UK. Please don't scroll past this. This Monday, for the 1st time recently [I wish ...], we interrupt your reading to humbly ask you to defend our independence. 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. We're a non-profit that's also a top-ten global website, with the same costs as other major sites. Advertising isn't evil but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you are an exceptional reader who has already donated, we sincerely thank you. If you donate just £2, or what you can this Monday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years. We ask you, humbly: please don't scroll away. If Wikipedia has given you £2 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to donate. There has actually been low-level fundraising throughout the past four months already, euphemistically described as "tests". (I don't think they give the money they receive during these tests back to people saying, "Hey, this was only a test. Thank you for responding." ) I've seen at least four or five banners recently, and I am not often logged out.

  What the WMF never talks about either is its continuous spending growth. Its expenses more than double every five years, and it has had eight-figure surpluses for 9 of the past 11 years. So the money demands are never really about "protecting Wikipedia" or "defending Wikipedia's independence", they are about funding WMF growth and growing the Endowment. The average donor is completely unaware of this. Andreas JN466 17:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I must correct a misstatement on your part Andreas. As far as I am aware, endowment banners use different messaging which expressly states the funding is for the endowment and for "the future". It can't really get more explicit. Seddon ^talk 18:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  A banner from 2021 to confirm. Seddon ^talk 18:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Seddon: Every year, the Foundation donates at least $5 million of its own money to Tides for the Endowment. In recent years, money going to Tides generally amounted to about half of the entire "Awards and grants" total. But I do remember that last December the Foundation actually stopped the fundraiser for a few days because of volunteer complaints and then ran a specific Endowment banner for a few days in December. But wasn't this quite exceptional? I don't recall another occasion where specific Endowment banners were shown. Regards, Andreas JN466 18:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I also disagree with Andreas' general point. If the endowment funded our entire spend, then it would feel odd, but our surplus is (very) large but not on that scale. Donating excess raised to the endowment is also fairly standard - should we suggest they must spend everything? The WMF's "lag-time" on amounts raised is fairly substantial (particularly with the growing amount of recurring donations - figuring out whether they are true recurrings or not is difficult) - so I would also get that endeavouring to go (right, it's the 22nd, we've done what we need, shift to an endowment one) is tricky.

  But it may not be impossible - Walt notes that the banners aren't as drastically doom-heavy as they were. I would also concur with him that the multiple "don't scroll past this" mentions are unnecessary (although I imagine they are effective). On top of that, a shift to more positive language should be tried - if we go "we have secured Wikipedia's independence", "we haven't run ads and we won't", and talking about some of those expensive projects that the community actually agrees with (as opposed to, say, the equity knowledge fund) - those are some better changes to make. And given that we do run significant surpluses, perhaps we should say that a shift to endowment banners at the "best guess of annual plan goal reached" should be standard for this and future years? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  There isn't just a large surplus; spending just went up by 30% and there still was a large surplus. Wikipedia makes a good cash cow. For the effectiveness of "don't scroll past this" see [9] – apparently the phrase works wonders. Andreas JN466 23:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't object to the endowment per se – only to the mismatch between stockpiling money, skyrocketing expenses and inflated executive salaries on the one hand and fundraising messages claiming an urgent need for money "to keep Wikipedia online" (this year's email campaign) or "defend our independence" (current banners). And we know the more money people give, the more the WMF will spend on itself. Andreas JN466 23:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: I realise I failed to respond to your constructive suggestion. Sorry. Switching to Endowment banners once the annual plan target is reached would make a lot of sense. However, the annual plan calls for an increase of about $20 million in revenue over the year just ended. Annual spending just increased year on year by more than 30 percent. How to handle the fact that WMF fundraising goals increase every year far in excess of inflation? Andreas JN466 21:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Procedures on test accounts

Following an extended discussion on this board in August, the foundation has finalized and posted new policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a very positive outcome, the policy looks solid... and short, and clear, which is much appreciated :-) Levivich (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Announcements

WP:VPM has new WMF announcements about fundraising banners and committee opportunities. Rather than repeat such items, I suggest that editors interested in future news watchlist WP:VPM. Certes (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Community wishlist survey every two years

Another announcement, just in via Tech News: Starting in January 2023, Community Tech will be running the Community Wishlist Survey (CWS) every two years. This means that in 2024, there will be no new proposals or voting. Time to take things into our own hands? Certes (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm rarely openly critical of the WMF, but the CWS announcement concerns me. As I understand it, the gist of the announcement was "We don't have enough staff to keep up with the requests, so we're taking action to reduce the number of requests we get". I would have hoped they would do the opposite, i.e. increase the number of staff allocated to the work. There's a note from @DannyH (WMF): at meta:Community Wishlist Survey/Updates/2023 Changes Update that they are "taking this announcement down". It's not clear if that means they've changed their mind, or that they just want to rephrase things. Danny, could you clarify the intent for us? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, given that the community itself had criticized the WMF earlier for holding a new CWS while the wishes from the last remained unfulfilled, the move seems logical. – SD0001 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the criticism was that wishes remained unfulfilled a year later, rather that the annual CWS continued. Certes (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi all — I understand that the initial announcement and then taking it down has caused some confusion. Our intention with the Community Wishlist Survey moving to a two-year cadence was so that the team can take on more complex wishes. However, I understand the concerns with this approach, and our goal is not to reduce the number of requests we get, or the chances for input. We haven't made a final decision regarding changes to the timing of the CWS, and we hear and will take all of these concerns into account. Let me know if you have questions. — DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I too was concerned by this announcement. I'd like to see enough resources provided to the community tech team to hold the wishlist more often, not less often. With a good amount of devs, an ideal cadence to hold the wishlist might be every six months. It's important to shorten that feedback loop between requesting software and receiving software.

I honestly think there is huge potential to improve community relations by increasing the size of the community tech team, so that they can do the wishlist more often and deliver more wishes. WMF sometimes works on abstract software and ideas (e.g. Wikimedia Enterprise, Knowledge Equity Fund, etc.), and some volunteers don't feel that volunteers tangibly benefit from these. The wishlist is something that volunteers do directly and tangibly benefit from. The wishlist puts volunteers in the driver's seat. It deserves WMF upper management's full attention.

I'll step off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae and DannyH (WMF): combining these views, perhaps splitting the wish list into small requests held every ~6-12 months and large requests held every ~12-24 months would be worth discussing (if feasible)? It's not always easy for non-technical users to know the scale of the requests though, so ideally each request would be responded to with a back-of-the-envelope outline of how much work would be involved in implementing it, and whether any teams (e.g. legal, trust & safety, etc) would/might need to sign off on it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

So the WMF budget continues to skyrocket and yet the CWS is running less often now? Classic WMF. WP:CANCER —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• I am very concerned about these recent statements from DannyH (WMF) especially as he sat in on a video conference between members of the volunteer communities and very senior staff barely two weeks ago. The meeting was essentially about increasing the engineering workforce. The community was however again met with many vague excuses as to why this 'apparently' can't be done despite a huge glut of funds. With most of the traditional encyclopedic topics already covered and under continual updating by regular gnomes, growth is probably at a sustainable level already and hardly any of the new articles arriving are important or urgent material. Expenditure on costly 'Growth' experiments to recruit and retain more editors are not a priority for software development, nor have they been requested by the Wikipedias. Now the WMF wants to cut back the support for the communities even more. I find this highly disturbing in the wake of that very recent meeting.

It will certainly now not encourage the volunteers to continue to do the WMF's development and repair work for free, or even think out of the box for new ideas as they have been doing recently. Instead, even patches and minor features developed by Wikipedians are being rejected for code review at Phabricator which now appears to adopt a stance of gatekeeper for policy and the purse. It does indeed look as if the WMF is determined to exasperate the volunteers even more. The community vs WMF relations are once again at a very low ebb and it's a question how long the volunteers will continue to tolerate this before making a drastic stand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)