Wikipedia:Fundraising/Fundraising Hub

"WP:FUNHUB" redirects here. For a page more closely matching what this shortcut implies, see Wikipedia:Department of Fun.

Welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Hub, a place to discuss all aspects of fundraising on English Wikipedia.

The majority of the Foundation's funding comes from individual donors around the world. These donations allow the Foundation to provide the technology infrastructure that supports 22 billion monthly views to Wikipedia and its sister projects, protect free knowledge globally through legal and advocacy efforts, and support the incredible volunteer editors who have built 65+ million articles across more than 300 languages.

To fund these efforts, the Foundation's fundraising team runs its annual English fundraising campaign (for non-logged-in users) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Additionally, the Foundation also runs fundraising campaigns in over 20 other countries. You can find out more about these campaigns on the fundraising team's meta page.  Funds raised from the English campaign countries account for a sizeable portion of funds raised from banners each year and this is an important outreach to invite readers to support Wikimedia's mission.

Below you find space to discuss upcoming topics with the fundraising team as well as the general fundraising campaign on English Wikipedia. The discussions will be archived after 14 days of inactivity.

All previous discussions can be found in the archive.

We created a page for the English Current Best banners.

Discussions

The space below is for you and the fundraising team to discuss various topics, including the English Wikipedia banner fundraiser.

Donor thank-you badge: what we tested and what we found

Hi everyone,

Between June 18 and July 18, 2026, we ran a test on English and German Wikipedia that showed readers who had just donated a small thank-you badge. I’m here to share the results and what we learned.

This experiment ran on mobile web, for readers who were logged out.

People who had recently donated were split into three groups: no badge, a badge with a simple thank-you message, and a badge that scattered Wikihearts across the page when tapped. The badge appeared by default for the two test groups, and could be hidden. During this experiment, no donation amounts or personal details were used. The badge relied on a cookie set at the time of donation and was only visible to the donor. No Wikipedia account was linked or created as part of this test.

Some of our key learnings:

• Most donors didn’t tap the badge. Only around 1% of donors who saw the badge interacted with it. This is actually in line with click rates for other subtle UI elements on Wikipedia, but less than we were hoping for. We think our design was so subtle that many donors actually didn’t notice it, or didn’t know they could interact with it.
• The ones who did tap it were more likely to come back and tap again. Of the people who interacted once, 5% to 6.5% did so again on a later visit, slightly more often with the Wikihearts version.
• Very few donors chose to hide the badge; it wasn’t an intrusive addition.
• Our main question came out inconclusive. We wanted to know whether seeing this simple “thank you” element made someone more likely to return to Wikipedia over the following three weeks. All three groups landed in much the same place, and even with 453,880 donors in the test we did not have enough data to draw a conclusion either way. We would need roughly ten times as many people, or a much longer run.

This experiment supports the idea that we can add small acknowledgments to the UI for donors without intruding on the reading experience, but we need to offer compelling actions if we want to motivate further engagement. The technical work behind this test also gave us a reusable way to show donors acknowledgments like this on Wikipedia, which will make it much easier to try new ideas in future.

What other ways could we recognize donors that would give them a reason to keep coming back to Wikipedia? We'd love to hear your ideas, and any questions, below. AKanji-WMF (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Personally I hate banners (including thank you banners), so the best thing for me after donating is to not see banners anymore. I am sure many people have the same feeling. Ita140188 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Testing donor account creation

Hi everyone,

We're planning a small experiment this year aimed at improving the experience of people who donate to Wikipedia. We wanted to share our proposal and get your feedback.

The problem we're trying to solve

For years, donors have described some frustrating gaps in their experience with Wikipedia. For example, someone who already gives monthly may continue to see messages asking them to become a monthly donor, and donors have asked for better ways to understand the impact of their contributions.

At the moment, a donor's relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation and their experience as a reader on Wikipedia are largely separate. We want to test whether, with a donor's explicit permission, we can connect those experiences in a limited way and make them more useful and consistent.

What are we testing?

Over the next few months, we plan to test two ways of inviting donors to connect their donor status with a Wikipedia account:

• A small prompt on Wikipedia after a reader makes a donation
• A direct email invitation to a small group of donors

If a donor opts in but doesn't already have a Wikipedia account, they will first be invited to create one. Participation in the experiment is entirely optional.

For donors who choose to participate, we will associate a generalized donor tag with their account – for example, "new supporter," "returning supporter," or "monthly supporter."

We will not attach or expose information such as the amount someone has donated or their personal payment information, and donor status will not be publicly visible on their Wikipedia account.

What would change for participating donors?

Initially, our goal is simple: give participating donors a more gratifying reading experience.

For example, an active monthly donor could see fewer generic banners or requests to set up a recurring gift. Participating donors could also see features designed for supporters, like updates showing examples of what donations help make possible.

Over time, we're also interested in whether a better connection between donors and their Wikipedia reading experience can help inspire them to participate in the Wikimedia movement in other ways, including contributing to the projects. That is a longer-term possibility rather than the primary purpose of this experiment.

What do we want to learn?

This first experiment is deliberately limited. We want to understand whether donors see enough value in these benefits to voluntarily connect their donor status with a Wikipedia account, and whether doing so actually improves their experience.

Here's what the opt-in experience will look like:

Ilustrative example of Donor opt-in to link account

There is also a more detailed description of the initiative, including related work we're exploring.

We'd welcome questions, concerns, or suggestions about the experiment – particularly anything you think we should consider as we design the test and longer term possibilities that arise from this work.

Best, AKanji-WMF (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The test looks like it's promising features that we may not have. Is there space to get some form of the the privacy reassurance ("donor status will not be publicly visible on their Wikipedia account") in? CMD (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the experiment will be run in accordance with our Donor Privacy Policy. The "Learn More" link on the screenshot invitation links to a Donor Experiences page by our Legal Department, which affirms that "The information we collect will be private to your account and never shared externally or to other users".

By default, logged-in readers don't see regular fundraising banners, and we will use the donor tag to show these readers banners that explain the impact of giving, announce new product features, etc. AKanji-WMF (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure Learn more has more information, my suggestion was including this reassurance in the initial popup. CMD (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, we’ll note this for future iteration and I agree that it could be meaningful to make this text more visible. AKanji-WMF (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

What about just being able to opt out of donation banners? Since they are not advertisement, users should be able to hide them forever if they don't want to see them. This would be much easier to implement than this and would have the same effect Ita140188 (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Will whatever you finally roll out be opt-in or opt-out?

Will someone be able to get all of the "...aimed at improving the experience of people who donate to Wikipedia" benefits without donating? If not, exactly what will someone who pays get that is not available to someone who does not pay?

May we please have an explicit assurance that nobody on Wikipedia -- users, admins, stewards, arbcom members -- will ever be able in any way to know whether someone is or is not a donor? It would appear to me that this requires only giving donors access to extra features that are invisible to other users, such as turning off donation banners.

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

As mentioned above, the experiment is indeed limited and opt-in only. Once we have results of the experiment we will share this and our thoughts on the next steps here.

The features we are currently looking at that will be available to donors who opt-in to the experiment mainly focus on the banner experience. As mentioned earlier the donor tag will be used to show these readers banners that explain the impact of giving, announce new product features, etc.

You can see in my answer above that we will follow the Donor Privacy Policy and no one but the account holder can see the linked donor status.

Best, AKanji-WMF (talk) AKanji-WMF (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Very clear, and answers all of my questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I know some websites/forums show a "badge" next to the usernames of those who are paid subscribers/donors. Maybe once the Wikipedia donors link their donations to their Wikipedia accounts, you can give them an option to display an official "Wikipedia Donor" badge next to their username (which will appear on their user page and/or wiki signature). Some1 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose this on slippery slope / camel's nose in the tent grounds. Those who pay should be treated exactly like those who don't pay in every respect except for things that only they can see like donation banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

As long as the reading and editing experiences are the same for both 'donor' and 'non-donor' accounts, I don't care too much if the WMF wants to go down that route. Some1 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Also important: that the accounts look the same to others. You can already voluntarily reveal that you donated or that you refuse to donate but nothing is stopping you from giving a big donation while claiming that you refuse to donate. There is and should remain no official badge identifying donors. Keeping that confidential looks like the plan so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"looks like the plan so far" - right, this badge thing I'm talking about is just an idea (one that I dunno if the WMF will even like or implement). The idea is that once an individual donor links their donation to their Wikipedia account, there'll be an option for them (maybe in Special:Preferences or something) to display a donor badge on their user page (next to their username or as a top icon, etc.). The decision to publicly display the donor badge is up to the individual donor and will be voluntary, of course. The badge could look something like the little red heart in Wikipedia:Fundraising/Fundraising Hub/Archive#"Thank you" Badge for donors, which received positive feedback. Some1 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion @Some1:, it is motivating to see you remember our "Thank You” badge test. I am actually working on a writeup of the second round of that experiment that we ran a couple of months ago, and I will share it on this page next week.

That experiment did have some key differences from what you describe: the “Thank You” badge was only visible to donors in the experiment pool for a limited time, on the specific device/browser they used to donate. No account was involved and nothing appeared on their user page. A public-facing donor badge is not in our current plans, but we want to keep experimenting to see if recognition that stays private to the donor can motivate them to create an account and stay engaged. We’ll have more to share when the results are out.

Best, AKanji-WMF (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention in my comment above regarding the public-facing badge idea that the badge could be time-limited. (I know Signal donor badges expire after 45 days, for instance https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/4408365318426-Donor-Badges). Anyway, thanks for the reply, Akanji, and it'll be fun to see what other fundraising experiments y'all come up with! Some1 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The graphic states that linking an account will "unlock features". Which features are locked, or will become locked, for non-donors and donors without associated accounts? Certes (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that [A] for the experiment the only feature will be what banners you see. and [B] it is way too early to know what the final rollout -- if any -- will contain. I am sure that the WMF will keep us informed about any new features available to those who pay. They have been quite good at keeping us informed in recent years. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Certes:, to be clear, no reading or editing features are gated on donating. This line refers to the benefits of account creation more broadly, such as Reading Lists, which are only available to account holders. These are available to anyone who creates an account, whether or not they have donated. I will note your feedback on the “unlock” wording for future iterations of this experiment.

What linking donor status actually will change is the fundraising banner experience: by logging in, donors will no longer see our generic fundraising appeals, and we intend to show them occasional messages explaining the impact of giving and other ways to be involved.

Best, AKanji-WMF (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

How does this relate, or not, to the "reader accounts" that another team has been working on? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Barkeep49, thanks for the question! We won't really think of donor accounts as having separate capabilities as reader or editor accounts, but rather any Wikipedia account that has opted in to self-identity as a donor. "Donor accounts" for all intents and purposes will be able to do all the things like save pages to their reading lists, get reading recommendations, and delve into editing!

The reader account concept that we have been exploring with our Safety and Integrity team is more about moving the timing of some of our moderation checkpoints from the time when an account is first created to a later point when that account starts to edit. This allows users who only intend to do reading and saving activities on Wikipedia to create accounts and start consuming content with minimal friction, and if they start exploring the joys of editing later, we will bring them into the moderation checkpoints. Of course, for users who want to start editing right away as account holders, they will remain in the existing flow.

In short, reader and editor accounts can also be a donor account if they choose to link their status as a donor. The designation will only be visible to the user themselves, we don't plan on publicly letting users know whether other Wikipedians are donor or reader accounts.

What are your thoughts on donor and reader accounts? Any suggestions we should keep in mind as we work toward of the goal of making donors feel appreciated and acknowledged, and deepen their relationship with the movement? HFan-WMF (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on what donor accounts are. I am conceptually in favor of reader accounts and donor accounts. I think there are a lot of details to get right, but more on the reader account side than donor accounts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be "first edit outside of the user page and user talk page" instead of "first edit". A simple "Hi. I'm Carl" or saying thank you to a welcome template shouldn't count. BTW, should edits to the main sandbox count? Those get automatically deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

First quarter (July thru September) fundraising update

This quarter has marked our first months piloting our “always on” low-level model on English Wikipedia.

So far, we are on track towards our revenue targets while maintaining a steady low-level traffic allocation, a big shift from previous years where we'd have needed numerous day-long, 100% traffic test windows. The early results are encouraging, and we'll keep monitoring fundraising performance and reader signals as the year progresses.

We have also resumed testing, although at a slower rate with the lower traffic. You can see the tests that made it into our control banners on the Fundraising Hub's Banner Log. Some highlights:

• Removing references to “today's goal” in the large banners (diff): while a fundraising goal can be motivating, references to “today's goal” can create uncertainty about our overall progress without details. We are moving away from this copy.
• Dialog style form (diff): in one of our more significant recent form changes, readers now select an amount first, with the remainder of the donation form opening in a dialog. This is a more logical flow, and is inspired by user research into how donors typically fill out our donation forms.
• Monthly-specific ask amounts (diff): encouraging recurring giving is an important part of building a resilient fundraising program. Because people may reasonably choose a smaller amount for a recurring gift than for a one-time donation, we now adjust the suggested amounts when someone selects a monthly option.

As we move forward into the the next quarter, we have a few key testing priorities:

• Copy refresh: We'll continue exploring themes around AI and Wikipedia's role in the modern internet; Wikipedia's value as a source of verified, neutrally sourced information; and the resilience of a fundraising model supported primarily by individual donors.
• Recurring giving: We'll continue testing ways to make recurring giving more relevant and accessible, including clearer explanations of its value, donor benefits, additional payment options, and better-sized suggested amounts.
• Lead generation: We are beginning our first tests of offering readers a lighter-weight way to stay involved with Wikipedia (see our announcement). We plan to share a separate update once we have meaningful results.

As always, if you have any ideas for testing, please let us know! Testing may move slower, but we have the space to test your ideas. - SPatton (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I was asked in the Wikipedia Discord to bring this here. We had a spirited discussion about dark patterns in the donation banners, the suggestion the current banners read too much like begging or guilt-tripping, risks involved with diminishing returns of donations due to alienation of readers due to the aforementioned issues.

I suggested trying to re-frame the donation banner to shorten it's length, move the focus towards infra costs and the changing internet. I was asked to drop this here as a suggestion.

Support Wikipedia The internet is changing. AI and the decline of web search has meant Wikipedia has seen fewer visitors and fewer new supporters, so your visit today means a lot. It's been 25 years and Wikipedia is still free with no paywalls, ads, and is human-written. If that's valuable to you, consider donating £2.75 to help us run the infrastructure and secure free knowledge for future generations.

qcne (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @qcne, thank you for bringing your suggestion here. This is certainly the right place.

Your copy addresses several of the themes we have been integrating into our banners for the past few years, so it's great to see. We were able to get it up for testing today. We will be in touch in the next week once we have initial results to share. Warm regards - SPatton (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @SPatton (WMF). I don't think I was fully clear in my original message. I want to preface by saying I am obviously not an expert in donation campaigns, nor am I a UX/UI designer.

There is a substantial and longstanding body of pushback against the donation banners that the WMF runs. I don't think many really disagree that the current donation banners have some serious flaws:

• They start with an apology, immediately changing the tone of the banner You deserve an explanation
• They have click-bait style subheadings An important update for our readers
• They have alarmist language The internet we were promised.. is under constant threat
• They use Wiki-specific jargon ...verify...vandalism...
• They guilt trip readers Most readers don't donate

I understand that A/B testing has shown that banners designed with the above elements tend to produce more donations. But I think there is a real risk of a rate of diminishing returns. Just because it gets more clicks/donates, doesn't mean it's the right fit, culturally, for Wikipedia. There's the long term impacts that the current banners irritate readers, which lowers trust in the movement, leading to lower readership, so less editors, and then we risk a death spiral.

My original idea was to keep it short, briefly explain why donations are needed, and what the WMF does with those donations, without the guilt.

For example, a banner consisting only of the following text:

Support Wikipedia The internet is changing. AI and the decline of web search have meant Wikipedia has seen fewer visitors and fewer new supporters, so your visit today means a lot. It's been 25 years and Wikipedia is still free with no paywalls, ads, and is human-written. If that's valuable to you, consider donating £2.75 to help us run the infrastructure and secure free knowledge for future generations.

That's really the point I was trying to make: explain the situation, explain what the donation supports, make the call to action, and leave the decision to the reader. qcne (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Seconding all of this, well said. Just during my daily browsing of social media I see so many people complain about this (the comments under this video stick w me), some even feeling cheated upon learning the size of the WMF's reserves (ofc the size is entirely appropriate, but that isn't the narrative that's out there). I worry that the only metric being considered is "funds raised", when it should be a trade-off between that and inconvenience/brand management/reader retention.

I'd be interested in hearing whether there are any sticking points re missing bits that perform exceedingly well and what they are? Ofc if it's the guilt-tripping tone itself that performs well rather than any message, that might be an impasse, but if not it'd be good to see whether we can work those in? In addition, something like Qcne's version is just more self-respecting/less embarrassing for editors, though I get that financial sustainability is ofc a higher priority. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I would like to agree that we shouldn't be burning our credibility or our reputation for short-term fundraising gains, which seems to be how our banners are being perceived on social media (and I can easily see why). The apologies ("We owe you an explanation" etc.) are the worst of it. I am also appalled by the amount of empty space in the banners, like – is the WMF actively trying to push all article text off the screen? Not long ago, the banners were hardly noticeable – in fact, most CentralNotice event banners still are – and we should aim to stay close to that. I find it unacceptable that they are taking so much vertical space as to prevent readers from, well, reading Wikipedia. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Thank you for sharing your concerns and suggestions, we value your input and will incorporate it into our prioritization.

• On banner size and position: the screenshot from @Toadspike is of one of our “large” banners, a format we've used for around a decade. We deliberately limit how often these banners appear on a given device; right now, our current setting is no more than once every 30 days. These banners perform strongly, and using them occasionally allows us to significantly reduce the total number of impressions we serve.
• @Kowal2701 and @qcne, thanks for the specific suggestions on copy. We will prioritize testing more aspirational headlines and copy, like the “Wikipedia was just a dream” headline you can see in this variant. As we make adoptions, KMorrow-WMF and I will keep this page updated, and we are happy to get more ideas.
• @qcne, we also tested a version of your initial banner suggestion, with some adjustments to fit our format. This test was closest to your original suggestion and represented a substantial rewrite of our control. It resulted in about 20% fewer donations. We tried some other versions that combined your copy with other elements of ours, but saw similar losses. That said, I think there are still elements worth revisiting, including the shorter approach you suggest above.

I appreciate the feedback on our messaging, this page is exactly for these types of conversations. We are committed to finding messaging that lands the right balance between performance and brand and will stay open to any input on this. - SPatton (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the response, 20% is certainly too much. Can I ask which of the variations of Qcne's version performed the best? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @SPatton (WMF). Yeah, 20% drop is obviously terrible but I am wonder which variant text that used and if it used the why donations, what for, call to action pattern I mentioned.

The Wikipedia was just a dream banner has similar problematic issues I mentioned:

• Past tensing the Movement was just a dream
• Clickbait deserve an explanation
• Guilt tripping Please don't skip this 1-minute read

But maybe this sort of advertising genuinely does work and I am just out of touch? If so, that's very depressing. qcne (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw the banner diff with my copy. Damn shame it got 20% less. qcne (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, that variant I originally linked, which was closest to @qcne's original suggestion, actually performed the best at a 20% loss in donations. The shorter version was a 25% loss, and the longer version mixed with our messaging was a 22% loss. Since our last update, we have launched a test that incorporates some of your copy into the third paragraph of our large mobile banner, replacing the "Less than 2% of our readers donate" line. It is performing competitively so far and we will continue iterating to address the other points you detailed.

Thanks for the collaboration, and let us know if you have any other copy suggestions you'd like us to consider for testing. - SPatton (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@SPatton (WMF) My concern with the "large" banner wasn't simply that the banner is large, but that there seems to be completely unnecessary whitespace, such as above the "We owe you an explanation" header and above the Wikimedia Foundation logo. Why is this there? Additionally, there is space to the right of the gray disclaimer text and below the amount buttons that is left empty. Why not stretch the disclaimer to the right side of the screen so that it takes up less vertical space?

About this test, I find the text on the left unobjectionable, and if that performs adequately I don't see why we're using the wording we objected to on 15 September. Toadspike [Talk] 13:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Toadspike, thanks for clarifying. If you open one of our banner previews (example) and resize your browser window, you'll see the font size and overall layout shift at several breakpoints. At some screen sizes, that does result in more whitespace than at others. This is intentional: rather than allowing the message container's height to change based on the length of the copy, we use CSS media queries to keep its dimensions relatively consistent. That lets us test messages of different lengths without inadvertently also testing different banner sizes, which would affect results significantly. The tradeoff is that at some resolutions, the layout can look less space-efficient.

Thanks also for the suggestion about allowing the disclaimer text to flow underneath the form and make better use of that space. I'm happy for us to test that approach and we'll report back on what we find. - SPatton (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious if there have been experiments to expand the "where the money goes" panel beyond the the budget summary. I've seen some statements and questions on places like Reddit along the lines of "They have enough cash to run in perpetuity", "They have massive funds and could run easily run Wikipedia forever", and "Wikimedia has enough cash in the bank to fund Wikipedia forever from interest alone". If a reader heard something like that, thought "citation needed", and tried to find out for themself what the situation is with assets vs expenses, the current summary panels and annual report page don't seem to address that question very directly. It seems like a person would need to find the 2024-2025 financial report FAQ to find the key sentence of "As of June 30, 2025, the Foundation’s net assets were $296.6 million, which represents 17.1 months of operating expenses (based on the annual plan of expenses for FY 2025-2026), in-line with our target", which is perhaps not that easy to find. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the critics are talking about. Nobody is talking about how long the WMF can spend ever-increasing amounts of money on things like "Matching racial justice leaders with machine learning research engineers to develop data-based machine learning applications." voluntarily handing an ex-CEO $623,286 (over one and a half times her annual salary) after she quit for a better job, having worked for the WMF less than three years, paying to give insiders lavish trips to foreign vacation spots, and whatever the hell this is.

They are talking about how long the WMF can afford actually running an encyclopedia. Hosting, enough lawyers to handle any incoming lawsuits, enough accountants to make sure everyone gets paid and embezzlers get caught, enough developers to maintain the current software and write new software that is actually needed (not on creating a search engine) or LiquidThreads) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dreamyshade, thank you for your suggestions around our “Where your donation goes” element. We were excited to add this to all our banners in the end of year 2025 campaign and we do have plans to test this further. I appreciate your perspective on ways we could contextualize the budget figures, too, that is good food for thought.

If you have more suggestions for how to frame this content, we're happy to hear them, and we'll update this page if we make additional refinements to this element. - SPatton (WMF) (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Archived Discussions

Other discussions have been archived due to inactivity. Some topics you might want to catch up on in the archive:

• Distributing banner fundraising year round (at lower levels of traffic)
• Experimenting with email signups to build longer-term support for Wikipedia
• "Thank you" Badge for donors
• Current Best Banners - July 2026
• Retest of donation reminders