https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim ... undraising
It seems Wikipedia is (slowly) losing its traditional revenue stream, small donations raised through banner campaigns, and sending emails to past donors marks.
Despite being mature now (since they always feared donations might dry up eventually), the hopes for alternative revenue streams such as Enterprise (getting into bed with Big Tech) and Endowment (getting into bed with rich people and Wall Street) bridging the gap, seem to be misplaced. There is lots of uncertainty. You can feel the panic growing.
The future looks so bleak already, quite unbelievably, the WMF are actually making budget cuts! This is coming from the staffing budget. They're trying to make out this is about protecting the grants and other initiatives that fund volunteers, which they are actually increasing, but in reality it's because in the massively bloated WMF, staffing costs are their single biggest outgoing by a country mile.
A few things seem to be causing this slow but inevitable death......
* Young people are viewing Wikipedia less (so they don't see the begging bowl)
* Those who do see it, have less and less trust in the "brand" (lol)
* More honest wording in banners and emails mean campaigns are less effective because they're more annoying
* Killer global inflation means that just to stand still, revenues have to grow.
How ironic to think that, some way down the line, adjusting their banner wording away from transparently false claims Wikipedia needs your "cup of coffee" or it will DIE, might actually be the reason Wikipedia eventually DIES.
Worth highlighting this part....
Young people have an increasingly negative perception of Wikipedia? Google will be very alarmed to hear that. As will Amazon, and anyone else being asked to pay millions of dollars for preferential access to Wikipedia's data on the basis this is the way they can more reliably make money out of young people. The WMF might want to pay attention to it as well, In case it is precisely because of their moves to become Big Tech's favourite charity whore, that is the reason for this decreasing reputation.brand health is weak among young audiences in our key revenue countries, presenting long term fundraising challenges. 18−24-year-olds are generally less likely to consider the brand, use it, or recommend it to their friends. This is the case across all markets, with particular issues in the United States, Germany, and South Africa, where most young people wouldn't recommend the brand
Rather than addressing this alarming peek into their future, Wkipedia has a completely different strategy......
So basically Wikipedia is relying on emails to Generation Boomer asking them to remember Wikipedia in their wills. If that becomes widely known, it will obviously only further harm the "brand" among young people.A planned gift, or a legacy gift, is a contribution of any amount that is agreed to in the present and given at a future date. These gifts are often made through a will; they can also be made through life insurance policies, retirement accounts, bank or brokerage accounts. We receive, on average, 183 times more funds from donors via legacy gifts than via all the gifts those same donors contribute during their lifetimes. Planned giving is a long-term investment with a higher return on investment than any other fundraising effort. By adding new planned giving revenue streams, we can build up a pipeline of commitments that will come to fruition in stages over the coming years. By 2050, planned gifts could be the primary funding source for the Endowment.
This is all very encouraging. Persuading the mugs who donate to Wikipedia in small but sufficient numbers to stop it dying, was always going to be an uphill struggle. As we can see, these people were young and stupid. Whether it's Trump or AI or plain old Google to blame for their growing abandonment and indeed mistrust of Wikipedia, it hardly matters.
Switching to Enterprise and Endowment as their primary revenue streams, carries much bigger risk. Now you can see that it might only take one mistake by the WMF, or one decision by a Big Tech executive, to completely destroy the funding model of Wikipedia. Until now, due to the donation model, they could stumble and even make massive mistakes, without barely a ripple in the bottom line.
As we all know, the WMF lacks the professionalism to avoid these potential pitfalls. Their old plan was that the Endowment was a mere safety net. It is now already being used for strategic funding, and yet the doomsday scenario it was built for, has barely even arrived. Donations are down, but not by much. But it is clearly enough to set the alarm bells ringing. Wikipedia raised $10m less from banners and related emails in 2022. The Endowment is already paying out sums as large as $3.2m to support strategic (read: survival) spending for 2022-23.
Cutting staff, and needing more of the remainder to devote their time to fundraising by badgering Boomers for their children's inheritance or sucking Big Tech's dick, of course only increases the likelihood of a screwup. Especially since Wikipedia is facing increasing burdens that only paid staff can deal with, such as increase efforts to regulate the internet.
Barring a miracle, the death of Wikipedia (as an independent charity with lofty goals and purity of execution) now seems inevitable. If it survives at all, it will be Big Tech's BITCH, or beholden to the whims of very rich activist Americans, or both. Things that only make it even more inevitable that it's falling reputation leads to falling numbers of editors which in turn means Big Tech or Uncle Obama have even less reason to see Wikipedia as a something worth backing.
The end could be closer than they think. And certainly closer than they have planned for.
If it comes to it, and they make one last desperate plea for money, will anyone believe them?
Will anyone even notice?
