In early 2009, Wales announced that Wikipedia had received $6 million in donations in 6 months (a little over an hour), thanks to more than 125,000 backers. ( Metro )
In early 2011, a donation round already exceeded 10 million dollars, thanks to more than 500,000 donors. ( Tweakers )
“Our costs continue to rise, but fortunately so do the donations,” Gelauff said that year. ( MT )
“The organization runs on donations from readers. That amounts to around 70 million euros worldwide each year. Last year, a profit of 21 million was booked. This is used as a reserve in case of brazil whatsapp number list major expenses.” ( AD , early 2016)
“The annual collection campaign with banners at the top of Wikipedia articles may suggest otherwise, but Wikipedia is certainly not doing badly. In the past fiscal year, parent company Wikimedia received 75.8 million dollars in donations worldwide, the only source of income. Expenditures meanwhile amounted to 52.6 million dollars.” ( RTL , mid-2016)
Credibility and sympathy
“A large building requires more maintenance than an attic room.” Yes, a columnist was completely right with his Wikipedia metaphors in a contribution to Frankwatching at the beginning of 2014. At the end of that year, however, there was also criticism , with the (not even metaphorical) question whether ' golden chairs ' are also necessary. And with that, whether that annual frequency is undeniably a necessity. Or whether the pretended seriousness of the situation is not so bad and that a year can be skipped?
Pushiness
In that established question mark lies perhaps a greater danger than the misapplication of social proof: the loss of credibility and sympathy. Banners suggest that Wikipedia needs money to stay out of trouble, while at the same time there are those profits and reserves. And then there is the pushiness of the banners. Pushiness that is somewhat reminiscent of… right, advertisements .
wikipedia negative social proof
From changes to improvements
“We are not perfect and we are constantly working on improvements,” (then) Executive Director Lila Tretikov responded to that criticism. “This year we made only minor changes to the text on the banner. Next year we will try different texts, and the team is open to your suggestions.”
Small changes came, other texts not so much. The gist has been the same for years: if everyone would…, but almost no one . You don't have to change complete texts, but that gist can certainly be better.