The simple story is that the Wikimedia Foundation staff has massively expanded over the past six or seven years; both the revenue and their spending have risen

The simple story is that the Wikimedia Foundation staff has massively expanded over the past six or seven years; both the revenue and their spending have risen exponentially (from 2 million in 2006/2007 to over $40 million in 2013/2014). Most of this increase in spending has funded the expansion of software engineering staff. It doesn't help that some of their flagship projects have been acknowledged failures (VisualEditor) or extremely controversial and divisive (Media Viewer, Flow). That's partly why Lila Tretikov was hired: to sort that mess out. And some spending was profligate, as Sue Gardner herself acknowledged, with gravy trains forming and supporting previously penniless Wikipedians. And as the spending increases, so of course the reserve has to increase too, to the point where there are now shooting for more than $50 million a year (compare to $5 million in 2007/2008). The Foundation feel they have to expand because Wikipedia content is free, and is increasingly hosted elsewhere. Wikipedia could survive that, but the Wikimedia Foundation could not. Damon Sicore, the new VP of Engineering Tretikov hired, said the Foundation would have to “scale to a size that enables us to compete with the engineering shops that are trying to kill us. That means we need to double down on recruiting top talent, and steal the engineers from the sources they use… because… well… they are REALLY GOOD. I want everyone to keep this in mind: If we don’t move faster and better than google, apple, and microsoft (and their ilk and kin), they will consume us and we will go away. It’s that simple.” Now he may very well be right there. The problem with the current fundraising campaign though is that it tries to manipulate donors into donating, by making it sound there is a financial emergency and the Foundation can not afford to keep Wikipedia "online and ad-free for another year" without people donating. When in fact they have just reported having more money in the bank than ever before in their entire history. That, and the obtrusiveness of the banners, is what is rubbing people the wrong way. You have long-term, committed Wikipedians now telling Wikimedia management that the campaign is deceptive, manipulative and damaging to the brand, and that they are ashamed to answer their friends and colleagues when they ask him about the financial problems of Wikipedia. That discussion is here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/532701 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/532701 Some quotes: A Wikimedia staffer: I agree that the urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my (admittedly limited) understanding of our financial situation. Could we run a survey that places the banner copy alongside a concise statement of the Foundation's financials, and which asks the respondent to indicate whether they regard the copy as misleading. An ex-staffer: The messaging being used is actively scaring people. This isn't the first person that's asked me about this. When they find out there's not a real problem, their reaction quickly changes. They become angry. They feel manipulated. A Wikipedia admin: Secondly I'm alarmed about the content. That should come to no surprise to the fundraising team, because I can't imagine this content hasn't been written to evoke the maximum amount of alarm. But it crosses the line towards dishonesty. Yes the WMF can use the donations, and yes they generally spend it well. But the lights won't go off next week if You don't donate. A Wikipedia admin, and past president of Wikimedia Australia: Lila, the concern is not that the fundraiser is working, which your soundbite confirms, but that it is deceiving people, or at least manipulating them 'too much' to be consistent with our values. Ex-Wikimedia staffer: You have a community that's upset because they believe the fundraising banners are causing long-lasting harm to Wikimedia's brand. This year I've started having people I know worry that Wikipedia is in financial trouble. It makes me feel ashamed when I have to tell them Wikipedia is in fact fine, but that the foundation uses this messaging to more effectively drive donations. It makes them angry to hear it.