"Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

Fundraiser

"Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

Fundraiser response

Wikipedia should have received by now the Nobel Prize for Peace. It is the first project to prove that human cooperation on a global scale is not only possible but very efficient too.
— Anonymous, donor^[3]

This table shows the statistics for days six through thirteen of the fundraiser, along with the equivalent data for the past two years. Donations to international chapters are excluded from these totals; although 50% of chapter revenue will be reinvested in the Foundation. Figures have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

A live feed of donor comments can be viewed here, and an overview of donations here.

Fundraiser 2009 statistics in comparison to previous fundraisers^[4]
Year	Day	Donations	Money Raised (US$)	Average Donation (US$)	Max Donation (US$)
2007	6	949	28,635	30.17	860
	7	794	30,097	42.39	10,000
	8	710	27,832	27.82	513
	9	692	20,662	29.86	518
	10	669	30,930	46.23	10,000
	11	582	22,108	37.89	2,000
	12	542	17,890	33.01	399
	13	1325	41,268	31.15	1,000
2008	6	2,118	60,775	28.69	1,000
	7	1,999	56,261	28.14	1,000
	8	1,873	56,719	30.28	5,000
	9	1,720	46,867	27.25	500
	10	2,378	69,480	29.22	1,000
	11	1,548	46,774	30.22	1,000
	12	1,741	52,520	30.34	1,000
	13	1,733	64,181	37.03	10,000
2009	6	1,057	23,591	22.32	11,000
	7	1,947	64,412	33.08	1,000
	8	2,652	83,378	31.44	1,000
	9	2,748	99,678	36.27	5,001
	10	2,675	74,529	27.86	1,189
	11	2,372	95,963	40.46	5,000
	12	2,391	87,323	36.52	2,222
	13	2,296	77,257	33.651	562

Links

There are two current pages on Meta for feedback about the fundraiser:

Launch feedback, for feedback about technical problems with the launch
Alternative banners, for suggesting new or modified banners.

On the English Wikipedia, there are two pages for discussion about the fundraiser:

And if you're looking to donate, the form is at wmf:Donate.

← Previous "Fundraiser"

In this issue

23 November 2009 (all comments)

Fundraiser

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

The article doesn't mention that the actual Wikipedia Forever banner (the one everyone hated the most) was pulled on the 18th. MER-C 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because, according to the stats it was used on a number of days from the 17 onwards. See here for instances of [5] and [6] being used. I didn't therefore feel confident enough to make the claim. Since Rand hasn't been posting updates recently, and since we reported it being placed into 20% rotation last week, and since I cobbled this together moments before publication, I figured it best to stick to certainties. Hiding T 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a bit of a slap in the face that Wikipedia paid an outside company to create an ad campaign when they have 11 million registered user who freely generate content. Many who both already understand the philosophy behind Wikipedia and are obviously willing to contribute.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They probably could have tossed it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design, tbh. --King Öomie 15:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I don't understand why the WMF prefers to use professionals who can be held accountable for their work rather than relying on the talents of our volunteer amateur designers. They did such a great job coming up with new designs for our main page after all. ROTFL! Kaldari (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, definitely, professionals who can be held accountable always do a much better job than volunteers. --Zvika (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikimedian would have tend to make banner for wikimedian. I think it's better to have some external pro to reach non-wikipeida-related people. DarkoNeko x 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        DarkoNeko, one would think that. However, we saw otherwise. Killiondude (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Why can't a volunteer be held accountable? Is it because the professional gets paid to do it (while volunteers, by definition, do not)? mike4ty4 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I was trying to be ironic. All of us here are doing what paid professionals ought to have been able to do better. --Zvika (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the donations have increased after a small start, so that's good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table doesn't match its source. Where are the numbers coming from? -- kenb215 talk 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the figures are taken from here. You have to knock a day off their stats, since I've followed the numbering from the last report. But beyond that, they matched as of some short time, no more than an hour before 11:41, 24 November 2009, although granted, there's been a little movement in the numbers since then, likely down to the technical issues mentioned in the two signpost reports. You'd have to check with Rand, because I know I transcribed the figures accurately. Hiding T 14:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

Home

About