(As this email may enact changes that affect the total Wikimedia
community, please feel free to forward or post this email on any and all
applicable lists. We would like as much feedback as possible.)

Wikimedians--

In advance of our Annual Fundraiser (starting in November), Wikimedia is
undertaking a survey of donors and potential donors in order to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of fundraising efforts of the Wikimedia
Foundation. The results from this survey will help us to better
understand donors and potential donors, and ultimately, will help to
increase donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. There are several basic
questions the survey is intended to answer:

* Who donates to the Wikimedia Foundation? What characteristics do
donors to the Wikimedia Foundation share?
* Are there different types of donors that can be segmented by common
characteristics?
* What motivates individuals to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation?
* What expectations do donors have about how their donations are used?
* What would (or how can Wikimedia) motivate current donors to increase
their contributions?
* Why don't more individuals donate to the Wikimedia Foundation?
* What is likely to motivate non-donors to become donors?

You can find the survey process, timeline, methodology, & questions
here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_Survey_2009

We would appreciate your input on the questions and how to make this
survey as effective as possible.

-Rand

--
Rand Montoya
Head of Community Giving
Wikimedia Foundation
www.wikimedia.org
Email: rand at wikimedia.org
Phone: 415.839.6885 x615
Fax: 415.882.0495
Cell: 510.685.7030

What a complete mess.

I wouldn't say that community input has failed, merely that meta is a small wiki with a small community; many of whom might simply be uninterested in this topic. I'd still advise that if you think the process needs help to offer it. What's two hours in the grand scheme of the universe after all? It wouldn't be time wasted anyway; it might serve as a starting point for discussions on the next iteration of the survey. I agree that a scientific methodology would certainly lead to results that are unimpeachable. Personally, my expertise in survey design and statistics is medically based, not fund-raising. fr33kman t - c 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Brother McBride, why don't you call up one of the Golden Shower Experts
in the San Francisco office (specifically Mr. Montoya)...

A wiki is a horrible way to collaboratively design a survey questionnaire.

This weekend, Jeff Pilisuk ("Marketing guru, eco-entrepreneur, social media junkie, health fanatic, coffee addict, and all around good-guy", according to his Twitter page), using an IP address, accepted and (presumably) copied as "final" about 90% of my version of the Fundraising Survey.

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!

So, in other words, they used your valuable knowledge about marketing and business to get a professional survey for free.

Well, there's some small hope that a properly-written survey will convince them that they have to do something about the cesspit that is Wikipedia if they want to see an increase in donations.

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!

Maybe Rand Montoya would still have a job if he would have worked a little harder and listened to me a lot more.

Kind of amusing how my well-wishes for Rand didn't draw a single comment from the Hive members. I guess they're learning not to poke.

That thread is eerily quiet; there are only two replies to the announcement total. That, combined with the message of the announcement, probably says something about someone.

Except, in typical Wikimedia fashion, they gave it to an outfit that nobody's ever heard of: Tulsa-based Q2 Consulting, LLC.
Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.
Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.

Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

Gregory Kohs thekohser at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 12:18:42 UTC 2010

Philippe Beaudette recently mentioned the final report from a donors survey
recently completed by Q2 Consulting, LLC. I'd like to congratulate the
Foundation for getting this independent research project completed. (I had
participated extensively in the design of the 2009 survey that never came to
pass, prior to Rand Montoya's departure from the Foundation.)

I am wondering if Philippe could share with us the "request for proposal"
that went out to the various vendors who surely bid on this 2010 donors
survey? Also, if we could see the list of research firms that presented
proposals, and the criteria by which Q2 Consulting was selected, I would be
very pleased.

Kindly,

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
Contact: 484-NEW-WIKI

Since they wouldn't respond intelligently on the Foundation-l mailing list, the national news media had to get involved. It doesn't look very good for Mssrs. Beaudette and Montoya, as the piece pulls no punches.

Your piece in examiner.com is national news media, and the BayNewser blog is mainstream media?

Other than that, nice work.

These strike me as comments made by a consulting firm that doesn't really do a lot of population surveys.

Examiner.com is the #30 news site on the Internet, according to Alexa. It ranks higher in online reach than Business Week, Time Magazine, or CBS News. My articles have received over 3,400 page views in the less than three months since I began writing for Examiner. I don't know what more you want from me than that.

Colour me surprised. It's Alexa ranking (524) is a lot higher than I expected.

Is examiner.com solely 'citizen' contributed stories, or does it syndicate content as well?

Is 3,400 page views the combined total across all your articles, or an average for each article?

Kudos to Jayvdb... but how long before he too is "moderated" on the Foundation-l list?

Also, it looks like Geni is jealous of my role as Wikimedia critic, but John Vandy put her (?) in her place.

This is really getting out of hand.

The Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is now advising that questions about competitive bidding and possible violation of WMF's own internal policies on purchasing and disbursements should be suppressed on the Foundation's public mailing list, and shunted off to an even more inaccessible place and time, like "IRC Office Hours".

Is it just me, or have I really hit on a nerve here, that this much under-the-rug sweeping is being carried out?

One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that we do all of our work publicly and in the open. And the kinds of disagreements and tussles and struggles within the community that would normally, at The Encyclopedia Britannica, go on behind closed doors, we do in public, because that's the way we do our work.

— Jimmy Wales, “Debate : The Internet and Democracy”, Miller Center of Public Affairs, 18 May 2010.

Is there a transcript for the debate that I can cite? — I can't imagine ever having the stomach to sit through that whole video.

Jon

Okay, I found the PDF transcript.

Jimbo's remark is at the top of page 17.

Jon

Sue Gardner will take office hours on IRC tomorrow. It's at a time when I can't possibly participate, so will someone please ask her about how the Q2 Consulting research project was awarded?

Sue Gardner will take office hours on IRC tomorrow. It's at a time when I can't possibly participate, so will someone please ask her about how the Q2 Consulting research project was awarded?

Wish I could, but apparently these things are timed to exclude Americans with jobs.

And 99% of Australians.

On 13 October 2010 14:42, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:

> I find it interesting that some 18 hours after Gerard's notification (and my
> posting a comment on The Australian's page), still not a single comment has
> been approved for publication. I wonder why that is? Is there some
> official policy within the "pro-Free Culture" movement that mandates
> suppression of critical viewpoints of the movement?

The answer obviously implied by your phrasing of your question is
indeed the correct one: it's because Wikimedia controls Rupert Murdoch
and News International as well as all those other newspapers. It
couldn't possibly be that you're just a dick. After all, my comment
wasn't published either.

- d.

/join #wikimedia-office

*** sgardner [~sgardner@wikimedia/Sue-Gardner] has joined #wikimedia-office
<Thekohser> QUESTION: The recently completed 2010 Donor Survey, by Q2 Consulting... was a competitive bid put out for that work, and if not, why not? If so, by what criteria were Q2 Consulting selected? How much did the project cost the Foundation?
*** killiondude changed the topic to: Office hours with Sue Gardner (Executive Director) | See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for more info.
<killiondude> BOLD and all that.
<Nihiltres> ...
* guillom puts killiondude in /italics/
<killiondude> :-D
*** jowen [~jowen@wikimedia/James-Owen] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
*** jowen_ is now known as jowen
<guillom> Twisted.
<Jyothis> hello everyone
*** daisokawa [~disokawa@216.38.130.161] has joined #wikimedia-office
<Nihiltres> thekohser: I'm guessing on that last one that if no, it's because fair competitive bids are themselves a good deal of work
<sgardner> Okay! Good morning, folks. (Or at least, it is morning for me.)
*** mode/#wikimedia-office [+v sgardner] by ChanServ
*** bawolff [~bawolff@wikinews/bawolff] has joined #wikimedia-office
*** dphelps [~dphelps@216.38.130.166] has joined #wikimedia-office
*** mode/#wikimedia-office [+b *!*@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.68.87.42.110] by Jamesofur
*** Thekohser was kicked from #wikimedia-office by Jamesofur [Thekohser]

1.
[11:02:50] <sgardner> So I think the question is, did we run an RFP for the process of picking a firm to help us with the fundraising. And the answer is no, we did not. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have a policy for when we run RFPs versus when we have less-formal processes for selecting vendors. I think that's completely fine: there are a variety of factors that go into the decision each time, and I don't think it would be easy to write a really good,
2.
[11:02:51] <sgardner> robust policy designed to dictate the circumstances that require an RFP.
3.
[11:03:01] <sgardner> In this instance, we didn't run an RFP. We chose a firm that we thought would do a great job for Wikimedia – in part because we felt they could work well with our community, in an open setting. I don't regret that, and I don't think it was the wrong way to handle it.

<sgardner> That's the gist, on Q2.
<sgardner> (Q2 is the name of the firm.)
<sgardner> Any follow-up questions on that -- I'd be happy to answer them, if there are any.,

<Nemo_bis> Do you usually run an RFP above some spending limit?

<sgardner> No, not necessarily.
<sgardner> (Nemo_bis)


<Werespielchqrs> Do you have a policy on what size of contract can be awarded without a bidding process?

<sgardner> The thing is that dollar-amount isn't necessarily the best indicator of whether an RFP is required/helpful.

<sgardner> Same question, Werespielchqrs, and it's the same answer.

<Nemo_bis> You can have exceptions. :-)

<sgardner> I think it's possible that in the fullness of time, we will develop policy for when to run an RFP.

<Nemo_bis> Obviously we should consider that time to run an RFP is a cost.

<sgardner> For example, at the CBC we certainly did have policy on this.

<Jamesofur> FYI: The log will be posted (unedited)

<sgardner> But Nemo_bis is correct: it comes at a cost. Running an RFP is complicated and time-consuming, particularly if individual staffers need to run their own RFPs every time, rather than having support from for example a Purchasing Department.

<sgardner> In many ways, large organizations are better suited to running RFPs relative to small organizations.

<killiondude> How much did the research study cost, by chance?

<sgardner> I don't know how much it cost.
<sgardner> (Which means it was not a very, very large amount of money.)

[13:08] * Jamesofur sets mode: +v sgardner
[13:08] * Abbasjnr (c4c9daf1@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.196.201.218.241) Quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (Ping timeout)�)
[13:08] * Sky2042_afk (~Sky2042@wikipedia/Izno) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:08] <Dakdadaah> Good evening from me
[13:08] <+sgardner> It's true! Someone is always awake :-)
[13:08] <killiondude> Why was he banned? I didn't think he was being obtuse.
[13:09] <aude> good morning sgardner!
[13:09] <killiondude> He actually came in to #wikimedia asking if that was okay to ask, and a few people thought it was okay.
[13:09] <Theo10011> Hi
[13:09] <dgultekin> Hey Theo
[13:09] * dferg (d4808a82@Wikimedia/Dferg) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:09] <+sgardner> Hi Katie, Theo :-)
[13:09] <+sgardner> Dakdadaah :-)
[13:09] * michi_cc (michi@pdpc/supporter/student/michi-cc) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:10] <@StevenW> Killiondude: There is a list of exactly two people that the WMF feels obliged never to engage with.
[13:10] <+sgardner> Steven's going to answer killiondude's question about Greg Kohs.
[13:10] <+sgardner> ooh, he is answering.
[13:10] <Nihiltres> killiondude: his question isn't intrinsically bad, but it's not helpful
[13:10] <@StevenW> Kohs and an IRL stalker that the office has had.
[13:10] <killiondude> Are these office hours ever helpful, Nihiltres?
[13:10] * DiegoGrez (ElPadrino@186.20.34.121) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:10] * apergos (~ariel@wiktionary/ArielGlenn) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] * meganrhernandez (~megan@216.38.130.162) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] * erwin (~erwin85@wikimedia/erwin) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <Nihiltres> killiondude: I like to think so
[13:11] * Dragonfly6-7 (~test@bas1-montreal48-1176173479.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <+sgardner> While Steven is typing, maybe I will say some other stuff also.
[13:11] <@StevenW> We didn't answer him on the mailing list for that reason, and IRC is no different.
[13:11] <killiondude> He was told to use IRC.
[13:11] * PeterSymonds (~Peter@wikimedia/PeterSymonds) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <Dragonfly6-7> oh, but was kicked off?
[13:12] <@Jamesofur> the IRC discussion was meant for the mailing list as a whole
[13:12] <dferg> what's the topic for today's office hours, please? Thank you.
[13:12] * Abbasjnr (c4c9dafe@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.196.201.218.254) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:12] <@StevenW> Killiondude: We were responding to John Vandenberg IIRC. Who is obviously a good faith Wikimedian who deserves to be answered.
[13:12] <killiondude> w/e, i don't care too much. I just find it disappointing. :-)
[13:12] * Theo10011 waves at dgultekin
[13:12] <+sgardner> So. The board met over the weekend, and SJ has published four resolutions from the meeting: one on Movement Roles II, one on trustee term length, one on fundraising principles and one on the five-year-targets. So I am happy to talk about that, or about any other topic associated with the board meeting.
[13:13] <+sgardner> And, I am happy to talk about any other topic as well, and I'm happy to answer the Greg Kohs question if you folks want me to.