Talk:Other Ways to Give

Typo error

I noticed on the 'Remember us in your will' section it has the words 'leaving 10% or more of your estate to charity will also mean that our whole estate benefits from a reduced level of Inheritance Tax.', I do believe it should be 'leaving 10% or more of your estate to charity will also mean that your whole estate benefits from a reduced level of Inheritance Tax'. Difference being 'your estate' instead of 'our estate'. zachary.burrows

Good point; thanks for pointing that out. It's now fixed. Mike Peel 21:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Freudian? mE

I won't give

As an educator, I cannot wait for Wikipedia to die. I fear though, that you will be like the Circus: that's been lamenting its imminent demise for years now, and is still with us!

We're sorry you feel that way. drop me an email at info@wikimedia.org.uk and I'll see if I can allay your concerns! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? How is this comment helpful or contributory? Irrelevant and rude, this should be removed.

Response to OP - As an educator, you should understand what an invaluable tool Wikipedia is to the world and your students. You sound like your stuck in the dark ages, learn to accept that there are new ways of gaining knowledge. Sure, the information may not always be credible, but my experience with Wikipedia has shown that it's pretty damn close. Besides, it's a great way to find credible sources by looking in the references section in the bottom of the page.

To OP. As an educator you should be ashamed of your comments. I only registered to vent my disgust at your view. I am a Uni lecturer with a PhD, and really dislike this absent minded Wikipedia bashing that teachers seem hell bent on pedalling to their kids. Wikipedia is not perfect, and neither are all of its articles and I would never dream of using in as a reference source, but it is an excellent way for anyone to find there way into a new topic, especially school children. Even top level academic journals have printed bad science that they have later had to retract, does that mean we should stop relying on them as a source of knowledge. Also what about books, how many ill researched books are published by quack 'experts' that purely pulled the work out of their behinds, loads, does that mean all printed books are bad? No! What you should be doing instead of Wikipedia bashing is teaching your kids how to disseminate information properly, to check multiple sources and not just one, and here lies the problem, be it as a result of poor teaching or more likely lack of up to date learning resources (books etc). If your school cannot afford to buy the contents of the Bodleian library, Wikipedia is a cost effective alternative.

mistake

This section of text is wrong!! :P

"if you are interested in make this particularly special kind of gift to make our shared vision of free and open knowledge live on, please do get in touch with Chris Keating on chris.keating@wikimedia.org.uk."

Perhaps it could be: "If you are interested in giving this particularly special gift, to help our shared vision of free and open knowledge live on, please do get in touch with Chris Keating on chris.keating@wikimedia.org.uk."

I'll give Chris a nudge about it. Thanks for letting us know :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Donations

How about a paypal option to donate ?

Actually, all our one-off online donations come via Paypal. If you click the Donate button on our donation pages, you will get a Paypal transaction page. 86.162.98.183 18:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be made more clear as knowing this upfront would make people more likely to give. Asscott 00:18 7/12/2011 Is there an option for you must be fucking joking?

donate by text

why not set up a text-to-donate service

The past few years has seen a sharp increase in the popularity of text-to-donate services. Using mobile phones, users can text a keyword to a shortcode number in order to make a donation.

shugs

Thanks for the suggestion. We're currently looking into setting up a text-to-donate service. The reason we don't have it at the moment is because the transaction costs are so high - typically between 25 and 40% of the donation is kept by the service provider - so we're investigating options that have lower transaction costs. Mike Peel 08:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Those fees were before we had charity status. I understand charities can get deals with fees of about 3%, as possibly even without any fees. --Tango 23:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this has now been set up! Details are on the donation pages. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you need to rely on donations?

Something that I really cannot understand is why a site as popular and successful as Wikipedia is appealing for money from it's users.

You have put in the groundwork and gained a large user base, a great reputation and brand awareness. So why are you not able to find a way to monetise the site? Personally, I would far rather see a few adverts dotted around the pages than to donate money to your organisation. Hell, I might even go as far as to click on a few of them, but in all honesty I'm just too cheap to donate.

The idea of using ads on Wikimedia projects has been proposed many times. See this essay for the history, which in particular, gives the reasons why advertising has never been implemented, despite its great revenue potential. CT Cooper · talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Direct Debit

The section "Bank Transfers and Standing Order" gives bank details so that a donor can set up a standing order or direct debit. But you cannot set up a direct debit - only the payee can do that. Also, the section should probably be titled "Bank Transfers and Standing Orders".--Rpt0 11:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I've updated the section accordingly. Thanks. Mike Peel 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Other Fundraising Ideas

Wikipedia should set up a repository of IT-related information.

As an IT professional, I rely on the Internet to allow me to do my job. Without the information posted by other individuals about existing technology - SQL Server 2000, VB6, Windows XP & so on - I would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to practise my trade as an independent.

There are a million sites which collate IT problems and answers, I know. My fear is that these come and go. As technology moves forward, existing tech becomes legacy information - which is of crucial historical importance. I don't see Wikipedia as competing with those who are brave enough to try to make a commercial go of it; but rather as a fallback option which over time will retain the vital historical reference of what, and why. MS Dos, early Office, Previous Windows were vital stepping stones to where we are now and may (or may not) become of increasing interest.

I don't see this as a paid-for service at first, even though it is specifically moving the Wikipedia brand across into the commercial space. I think it should start off small and grow according to demand; it should be by donation initially - but with the caveat that users should be expecting to pay for this in the future, at some point.

Lastly, it might be a technically interesting opportunity as well. How would the information be organised? Users search by problem, or solution, not by subject, and how would these problems and solutions be related?

I would love to have a place where I could record some of the knowledge that I myself have accumulated about the core technologies of the last decade. At the moment I am frustrated in this because a) it is often not a direct answer to the question I see being asked and b) it seems like it is a different site every time I look. I'd go out of my way to use an authority like Wikipedia.