Wrapping up an amazing 2009/2010 Annual Fundraiser

Wow!  We’ve just closed the most successful fundraiser in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation thanks to our  amazing donors. Over 230,000 people came together and showed their support for our project and mission: to provide free and open knowledge to everyone around the world. Thank you!
Again, we’re ending our annual fundraiser early due to the overwhelming and rapid support from everyone.   We’ve hit and surpassed our fundraising goal of $7.5 million, raising over $8 million in just two months.
Even more, we’re humbled by the fact that during serious global economic stress, folks were still willing to help out and contribute.  More than 230,000 donors have shown that they want Wikipedia to continue to be a place for free and open information.  More than 230,000 have joined together to keep Wikipedia free of ads.  We are extremely grateful for your generosity.
I cannot say enough about how amazing the steadfast support from everyone has been: our donors, our contributors, our chapters; everyone involved directly influenced the immense success of this year’s effort. Again, a huge thank you from me and everyone from the Wikimedia Foundation.  We look forward to sharing some more detailed findings about this year’s fundraiser in the coming weeks.
Happy New Year,
-Rand Montoya
Head of Community Giving

Archive notice: This is an archived post from blog.wikimedia.org, which operated under different editorial and content guidelines than Diff.

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] Millionen US$ von über 230.000 Einzelspendern gingen im gleichen Zeitraum ein. Mehr Infos dazu in diesem Blogbeitrag von Rand Montoya und in der Presseerklärung der […]

If the campaign brought in over “8M$”, why does the fundraiser stats page give a total of 7.84M$? Are the >10K donations counted separately? The ContributionStatistics page claims a total of 9.5M$ since July which of course is great news but I’m not sure what that number represents. Is it total revenue? Revenue from donations only? Donations + grants? (I’ve also asked this question on the fundraiser feedback page but I’m not sure the fundraising team reads it!)

addition to previous comment. Is the explanation for the 8M$ claim simply that it takes into account the Omidyar Network matching?

Yet another post scriptum: kudos to you and your team Rand.

It’s not revenue when it’s a non-profit organisation.

@Coren. Actually, it is “revenue” and this is the word you’ll find in all of the annual plans/reports and financial statements.

[…] web resources 8 Jan 2010 Wikimedia, the organization behind Wikipedia, announced the “most successful fundraiser in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation“. Raising […]

it’s so good!!

This is one of the most immoral things I have ever heard. Wikipedia is worth a fortune in advertising revenue, and out of “principle” you are refusing to use this, but you have no problem accepting donations from benefactors who otherwise most likely would use that money for causes and people who really don’t have any alternative. And you think this is “doing the right thing” ? This is the most stupid and immoral form of political correctness I have ever heard of. How about being a bit more fair, practical, less narrow minded and realy being smart about things… Read more »

[…] Wikimedia Foundation just announced successful fundraiser. In two months over 230 000 people donated money for the Foundation, resulting $US 8 million. This […]

To Jan Bollaet, I think you make your judegement too quickly. Firstly,I hate online advertisement and I believe most people do too.The idea of pulbishing free information to just lure users into advertising revenue is disgusting to me. Here we enjoy neutral knowledge without harrassment of those flahses. Secondly, the donation and the amount to donate are completely personal desicions out of your own willingness. I have happily done so within my capability. No one woud judge you if you couldn’t . Thirdly, you said yourself an artist. Have you seen any great art created out of maximizing commercial value… Read more »

I agree with Maria. I go to Wikipedia and friends to seek some sort of verifiable truth, and escape the folklorish memes, urban legends, and irritating popups and banners of the internet. I could say “Bring on the banners!” and throw a blocker at the more inane ones, but I’d rather be treated as more than a second-class “ad impression” from the start.
Bring on the pledge breaks!

Dear Maria, Please don’t misunderstand me, I think Wikepedia is brilliant and I use it frequently. So I’m as much a ‘fan’ of it as you are. Now regarding the art and the business. What you wrote gives me the chance to make a perfect analogy between my position as a professional artist and Wikepedia. If I wouldn’t maximise my income by being as commercial as I can, without compromising my artistic goals I would never be able to make a decent living out of it. In order to make it in life one should be flexible and there is… Read more »

I’m one of the contributors (with a small amount). Why did I do it? To ensure that Wikipedia remains a community based enterprise. To admit advertising, as Jan Bollaert suggsets, has one highly significant and overriding danger. It will expose Wikepedia to pressure from advertisers. And don’t imagine this is just a paranoid fantasy, it is a fact of commercial life. Advertisers with large budgets can and do influence content and editorial standards in all the media. This is exactly the kind of situation that Wikipedia or any other organization dedicated to factual and, as far as can be achieved,… Read more »

[…] what this should mean to the Wikimedia Foundation, $2 million is a big deal.  The goal of the 2009/2010 Annual Fundraiser (which ended on January 5th) was only $7.5 million, so Google has supplied enough money to cover […]