Revenue sources

Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 10:48, 18 June 2010

I think your statement reflects an evolution in understanding that every organization can only experience by actually trying it out. In other words: we would not have known what costs and benefits are associated with different legitimate revenue sources but for actually experimenting with them. The conclusion--to emphasize on small donors in mass market--is a sound one that I strongly support. It has by far proven to be the most successful, most strongly growing, and least distorting source of revenue for Wikimedia Deutschland out there. From what I know, that experience has been shared with other chapters engaged in fundraising.

There is something inherently local about small donations though rooted in local giving culture, local laws (e.g. tax-deductibility), local expectations of disclosure, etc. A natural conclusion than is that, for this model to succeed, fundraising ought to be done on a local level, for example by the local chapter or--where chapters are not (yet) existent or able to fundraise--another local organization supporting the Wikimedia movement.

Adding the responsibility to drive revenues for the whole movement necessarily has an impact on the nature of chapters and how they are operating. With it comes much stronger pressure to professionalize as professionalization is a prerequisite to handling (substantial amounts of) money, especially if it is attached to a strong regulatory framework as non-profit status typically requires.

sebmol10:48, 18 June 2010

Well, this is of course correct that many things we can only learn by trying out, but it does not mean we should not anticipate the effect. Fro instance, we may want to try putting ads on Wikipedia articles, and this would bring a lot of revenue, but many editors (including myself) would instantly leave. I am not sure this is the best way of trying it out.

Yaroslav Blanter21:15, 20 June 2010