Talk:Fundraising

Archives

---

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Welcome to the Fundraising team's talk page - content from 2022-2024 has moved to archive 8

The content has been moved to Archive 8. Please ask questions or start constructive discussions around the WMF’s fundraising on this talk page. If you would like to help with our translation and localisation efforts please ping me and I will get you on touch with the team. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed changes to fundraising banner tests

Dear all,

We would like to share with you our thoughts on running limited fundraising banner tests on English Wikipedia for non-logged-in readers, all year around.

Current situation:

Between July and December, we conduct banner tests on English Wikipedia for technical stability, payments, design, content, and other aspects, leading up to the End of Year “Big English” fundraising drive. These tests are limited in both their duration and percentage of readers who see them.  

As our fundraising program has evolved, we’ve realized that this timeframe provides limited opportunity for more in-depth testing, particularly on the technical and payments side of things, where our back-end development work is a constant and complex process. We can’t control the roadmaps of global banks and payment providers, which makes it even more important to align our testing with our own development cycles.

Starting January 2026:

To ensure we gather sufficient data for informed decisions to enable year-round optimization, especially regarding payments and technical systems, we would like to run limited banner tests on English Wikipedia during the full calendar year. This will help us to choose the right systems and features and make the donation experience smooth for our donors.

Recognizing that this shift may impact the on-wiki experience for some, we remain committed to not increasing fundraising banner impressions for non-logged in readers. Non-logged-in readers will see no more than 12 fundraising banner impressions during the testing phase of the year (January to November) on a single browser/device.

Please leave any comments you have below. Thank you, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi JBrungs. In what ways do the "roadmaps of global banks and payment providers" affect this issue? What are the limits on duration and percentage of readers who see them? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What % of readers typically see a banner in a "limited" test? Ganesha811 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, any frequent reader will see 12 so-called “test” banners on each browser/device they use, plus an unlimited number in December. That’s been my experience. 98.97.11.52 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What steps will you take to obtain the informed consent of your test subjects? 38.121.127.246 04:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

How often will people hit this 12 banner limit? How is it tracked? In any case, people already feel we ask for money too often. Extending this to year-round would only make that impression worse, whether or not the times they see the banner remain the same. ARandomName123 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

A reader will see 12 banners on any device/browser between January and November. We use CentralNotice’s built-in impression diet feature to set a max number of impressions. It is difficult to say when readers will hit this limit as it depends on their reading behaviour. Generally, banners will not be shown all the time on Wikipedia between January and November but only for short test windows throughout these months. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Just clarifying: is the current limit 12 banners between July and December? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, quick clarification. The current limit is 12 impressions per device/browser between July and November. A non logged in reader will then see banners again (if they have reached their banner impression limit) when the full fundraising campaign starts in December. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Unlike many nonprofits, we manage our own donation platform, donate.wikimedia.org, rather than relying on third party options. This gives us a lot more control to protect donor privacy, and helps us secure the most cost-effective processing rates. But it also means we take on additional work maintaining our own platform integrations with all the payment providers and banks we support around the world. This is full-time work, and has gotten more complex as we offer new methods, new donation types, and more markets. Payment providers and banks often update their systems on their own timelines—this could include changes to APIs, new security requirements, or the deprecation of older systems. Having the room to run banner tests year-round will help us ensure that the majority of donors in our big campaigns have the smoothest experience possible.

Regarding limits: during the testing phases (January–November), banners are shown to only a small percentage of non-logged-in readers for a limited period, for example 5% of English Wikipedia readers in the U.S. for 3 hours. We may run a longer test if, for example, we are testing adding a new donation method that needs more impressions to get enough transactions. We also cap impressions so that a non-logged-in reader will see a maximum of 12 banner views during this period on a given browser/device. We reset these parameters for the December campaign.

Hope this helps clarify, and happy to answer further!

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

How much revenue was collected from “test” fundraising in 2024? By how much is that expected to increase with these changes? 98.97.11.52 20:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The number of donations and total revenue we earn from any given testing window varies widely based on length of testing, % of traffic limiting, and what we are testing. Some tests generate a few thousand dollars in revenue, whereas there are others where the figure is higher. All revenue collected in pre-tests contributes to our annual goal for that region, and is reported in our annual Fundraising Report. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Payment methods are too exclusively American

I live in Belgium. I recently organised a small fundraiser at work and wanted to transfer the profits to the Foundation. I encountered the following difficulties.

1. As a European I was attracted by a possibility labeled SEPA because it carries the implicit promise of a cost-free transfer. Tried this multiple times, always hitting an error message.
2. I then tried to use my credit card but hit an error message again (yes, I checked the limits). Exasperated I wrote to the helpdesk, stating that I did not trust PayPal and how could I get rid of my money as easily as possible?
3. The help desk replied that the transfer by credit card had been made! Which is nice and worrying at the same time. If I get an error message on a payment I would expect the payment to have failed. I might even try again multiple times.
4. The donation page also contains a possibility to transfer to a UK bank account. However, since the UK is no longer in the EU (and they never adopted the Euro in the first place), this does not offer the promise of a cost-free transfer.

What is stopping the Foundation from opening an account in an EU Member State that uses the Euro? One of them even has English as a national language. It would save a lot of money on transfer costs. More importantly, it avoids technology that generates error messages, thereby increasing trust from potential benefactors. No mandates, no blank cheques, no sharks: just publish an IBAN account number with the corresponding BIC code and presto. What am I missing here?

Lieven Smits (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lieven Smits,

Thank you so much for your support of the Wikimedia Foundation, and for organizing a fundraiser on our behalf — we’re truly grateful. We’re also very sorry for the difficulties you encountered while trying to complete your donation, and we appreciate you taking the time to share your experience with us.

While we’re not able to offer a solution at this time, your input highlights the importance of continually reviewing our infrastructure and exploring ways to make the donation process more seamless for supporters around the world.

In the meantime, if you or others ever need assistance, our donor relations team is here to help. You can always reach them directly at donate@wikimedia.org, where they are happy to help you further and collect thoughtful feedback like yours to help guide future improvements.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, JBrungs. We're all doing the best we can :-)

Apart from continuous infrastructure improvements, would you give consideration to my proposal that you open an Irish bank account? According to the Fundraising/2023-24 Report the Foundation received $49,423,340.29 from Europe - which admittedly is not the same as the Eurozone, but that's still hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank fees we could save every year. Lieven Smits (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lieven Smits,

Thank you for your suggestion. I have passed this on to the team but we currently do not have plans to open an account in the Eurozone. For now, we offer the SEPA payment option for our EU donors. I am sorry that you ran into issues with this method and I hope this won't be the case again in the future. Thank you again for your donation and your thoughtful feedback. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lieven Smits: maybe it's an option for you to donate to the local chapter? Wikipedia:Donatie has information about giving to Wikimedia Belgium (and Wikimedia Netherlands). As the page explains, the focus of the local Wikimedia organizations is a bit different than that of the WMF, and their work in supporting locally is also very important for us. Thank you so much for your efforts, and thanks Julia for engaging in the conversation! Ciell (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Ciell, I will certainly consider that option when I organise something again. I will also have my thoughts when I see the banner next time. Lieven Smits (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Contributing just money, and not data

I was talking to a visitor who DID like to regularly contribute money during funding-drives, but he wondered: He just wants to be able to give money, but he doesn't see why he would have to contribute his data to do so. Why is that so? Mysha (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mysha,

Thank you for getting in touch. We collect and use various personal information from donors that includes: amount donated, address, donor comments and email address. Requesting this information from everyone best enables us to comply with U.S. laws as well as laws in other countries. Creating a single workflow for all donors, regardless of donor location or donation amount, is the most efficient use of donor dollars and WMF staff time.

Please note that we do not share, sell, or trade donor information with any other organizations or companies. For more information on what information we collect and how we use it, please see/share our Donor Privacy Policy. We also offer the option to unsubscribe from any future emails from the Foundation once the donor has received the initial tax receipt (tax receipts are sent to donors from the US) -- there's a link at the bottom of the email that takes you to our one-step opt-out option.

For an anonymous offline donation option, people can consider a postal money order, which may be purchased with cash. If this option is chosen, please make it out to 'Wikimedia Foundation' and send to: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. PO Box 98204 Washington, DC 20090-8204 USA

I hope this helps with the enquiry you got and please let me know if I can help further.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Not really; I'm not certain why you would value having a more efficient system over getting more money. But we've found a different solution: Not all ways to donate money to parts of Wikimedia do go through YOUR fundraising system.

Still, you earned the visitor's compliment for at least handling his question. Mysha (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but…

“…our fundraiser won’t last long” is a lie. Your fundraiser will last through the end of December, and apparently indefinitely beyond that. ~2025-29193-41 (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I am receiving three identical Wikimedia Foundation fundraising letters, all to the same address. I hate your wasting your funds on this duplication. How do I notify the committee? I've tried returning all three asking to be taken off the list, but they still arrive. There seems to be no way to talk directly to anyone. ~2025-31258-86 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you email donate@wikimedia.org where our donor relations team will make sure that our records for you are correct and unsubscribe you if this is your preferred choice? Best wishes, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

2025: was record, then a relative slump

I'm a bit worried about fundraising over the past week. We had record donations until a couple days ago, when the usual end of November/Giving Tuesday surge did not materialize. Data / Code. Splargle (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's unrealistic to try to exceed the 2020 and 2021 numbers. We are well above the 2024 numbers and should be thankful for that. ~2025-41974-76 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It turned out great; 2nd highest of all time, surpassing 2021 by $1.2 million:

• Total for 2020 at January 14, 2021: $126.7 million.
• Total for 2021 at January 14, 2022: $119.9 million....
• Total for 2024 at January 14, 2025: $118.2 million.
• Total for 2025 at January 14, 2026: $121.1 million.

(graph), (code for roll-into next Januaries). ~2026-31020-6 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we expect a 2024-25 fiscal year fundraising report to be published here in the near future?

@EHughes (WMF): I was looking for the most recent fundraising report, but only found old reports. Here are the publishing dates for the six latest reports and the person who did the publishing:

• 2018-19 September 30, 2019 SPatton (WMF)
• 2019-20 October 4, 2020 TSkaff (WMF)
• 2020-21 October 4, 2021 TSkaff (WMF)
• 2021-22 November 14, 2022 Pcoombe (WMF)
• 2022-23 November 8, 2023 EHughes (WMF)
• 2023-24 October 21, 2024 EHughes (WMF)

Is there any planned publishing date for the 2024-25 fundraising report? Larske (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Larske,

We have shifted the publication of the fundraising report to Q3 this year and it will be published in our Q3 from now going forward. We did publish some high level stats here in the meanwhile. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): Thanks for your prompt answer including a link to further information. However, I find it rather odd to place such important information as the change in the publishing ambition for the annual fundraising report hidden in a subpage titled "2025 banners" among the "ocean" of banner layout ideas and opinions and not closer to where the previous fundraising reports have been published.

Maybe you can add the currently planned release date for the report, preferably with a better precision than just "Q3", in a more relevant context, maybe under "Reports and Documents" on this Fundraising page.

You could also add a (red) link to the planned fundraising report for 2024-25 fiscal year to the Reports section of the template Template:Foundraising navigation/Content with an indication of the planned publishing date.

Like this: 2024-25 fiscal year (to be published on February 16, 2026) or whatever date that is in your current planning.

-- Larske (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion @Larske. I will add more information on this meta page early in the new year once we have a clearer idea about the exact publication date. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Larske,

Just a quick FYI, the fundraising report for 2024/25 is now published. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 Thanks! Larske (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

English campaign content feedback

Hi, maybe the text on the banners could be slightly changed. I think that the message "only 2% of readers donate, but we need the money" works against Wikipedia. It suggests that the majority of people do not donate and that this is therefore acceptable behaviour.

What about: "8 million people donate to Wikipedia, and they are becoming more numerous each year. Be one of them, and help us keep Wikipedia alive!" (feel free to adapt the wording and insert whatever numbers are accurate here)

With this, donors should feel encouraged that many people are donating, and that this is a desirable thing to do.

The idea is not out of the blue but based on simple behavioural psychology. I got it from the end of the chapter "Social Proof" in Robert Cialdini's masterpiece work "Influence". I for one would wager good money that this simple change could lift contributions measurably. Sommersdal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Messaging to Build Donor Trust

Hello all - I’m a regular Wikipedia user and small recurring donor (typically ~$25/year). I’m posting here to share my perspectives on fundraising messaging tone/tactics.

To be clear, this is not a complaint; I want fundraising drives to continue to succeed.

I’m also aware that the Wikimedia Foundation’s official fundraising principles now live as archived internal policy. This post is not an attempt to revise or replace those principles, but rather to offer a non-binding, community-authored perspective on public-facing messaging.

Context and Motivation

Wikipedia’s editorial independence is unusually rare and extraordinarily valuable. Unlike most large information platforms, it is not shaped by advertisers, shareholders, governments, or private equity. This editorial independence depends on continued public support from a large number of small donors - not because Wikipedia is currently insolvent, but because loss of broad public funding over time would eventually create incentives for concentrated funding and associated editorial pressure.

At the same time, many informed donors are aware that Wikimedia is financially stable and maintains reserves. When fundraising messaging compresses long-term structural risk into near-term urgency, some readers experience “trust dissonance” - even when the underlying concern (protecting independence) is valid and shared by donors.

My concern is not effectiveness in the short term, but credibility and trust over decades, especially with readers who value transparency and institutional resilience.

I think it is possible to improve the way that Wikipedia frames its appeals for donations by utilizing messaging meant to strengthen donor trust; in my humble opinion, this is a better way to build long-term support while also meeting the goals of fundraising communications directed at Wikipedia users.

Proposed messaging guidelines (community perspective)

The following draft guidelines are offered here as starting points for discussion, not as prescriptions.  That said, here they are:

• Be explicit that Wikimedia is financially stable today, while explaining why stability still depends on ongoing public participation.

• Describe the risk accurately as long-term capture risk, not near-term shutdown risk.

• Don't imply imminent collapse, shutdown, or desperation when none exists. Donors should never feel tricked after learning more.

• Frame the threat and timeline correctly; not insolvency tomorrow, but capture risk over time if public funding erodes and concentrated funding fills the gap.

• Appeal to stewardship and the simplicity of shared  responsibility, not panic.

• Make it clear that independence is not a one-time achievement but a condition that must be continuously maintained. Small donations matter because of how many people give, not because any one individual “saves” Wikipedia.

• Treat readers as adults capable of understanding structural risks, not as potential donors who must be emotionally cornered before they will take action. Ethical persuasion includes respect for autonomy; pressure backfires with informed audiences.

• Acknowledge that choosing not to donate is understandable; avoid guilt framing.

• Connect Wikipedia to the potential donor’s lived experience - not “support our mission,” but “support the fact that this page exists without ads, sponsors, paywalls, or agendas”.

Illustrative example (non-prescriptive)

The following is offered purely as an example of how these guidelines might manifest in a fundraising banner on a Wikipedia page:

Wikipedia is not for sale.

This page exists because millions of people like you choose to support it - not advertisers, not governments, not special interests.

Wikipedia is independent from influence because it is financially stable today. What keeps it independent tomorrow is broad public support that prevents any single interest from gaining leverage.

If you value an internet where knowledge isn’t shaped by profit or power, consider donating. Even a small contribution helps keep Wikipedia accountable only to its readers.

Donate to help keep Wikipedia independent.

That’s it. No countdowns. No guilt. No implication of imminent disaster.

Fear converts fast, but dissolves.

Trust compounds.

Invitation to discussion

I’d be genuinely interested in thoughts from fundraising staff, other donors, and community members in general.

If this perspective is useful, great. If not, ignore it. My intention is simply to contribute constructively to ongoing thinking about how the Wikimedia Foundation communicates its values to the public upon which it depends.

Thank you for reading, and for the work that goes into keeping Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation free to use, editorially independent, and agenda-free.

-An anonymous reader and donor ~2025-43807-52 (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting Wikipedia and for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback. The points you make are very much in line with our internal thinking: The Wikimedia movement is financially stable today; its editorial independence is its greatest asset; and credibility and trust over decades matter deeply. We also agree that we should never imply imminent shutdown or insolvency. The line you propose—“Wikipedia is independent from influence because it is financially stable today. What keeps it independent tomorrow is broad public support”—is a particularly clear and direct way to express this, and we are looking into testing this in our fundraising materials in the future, thank you.

On urgency and messaging tactics, we share your concern about trust dissonance, and we think carefully about how urgency is communicated. We’ve found that framing fundraising as time-bound, explaining that there is a limited window to give because we don’t fundraise all the time, and being clear that reaching a concrete goal matters, all significantly increase participation. We continue to test and iterate this approach through our testing methods across millions of interactions. One additional nuance worth clarifying is the distinction between long-term health and annual operational need. Most fundraising campaigns—especially banners and renewal emails—directly support the Wikimedia Foundation’s day-to-day work each year: hosting the servers that keep Wikipedia and its sister projects fast and reliable worldwide, investing in the technology that improves reading and editing, and responding to emerging threats. Annual fundraising is not about staving off collapse, but it is about sustaining the work that keeps Wikipedia running, reliable, and independent.

Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback. Best, ~~~~ JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)