Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-11/Special report
An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Lisa_Seitz-Gruwell_008_-_Wikimedia_Foundation_Oct11.jpg/450px-Lisa_Seitz-Gruwell_008_-_Wikimedia_Foundation_Oct11.jpg)
The Wikimedia Foundation gave the Signpost an advance copy of the results of a survey of English Wikipedia readers regarding Wikimedia fundraising, due for official release today, and shared details that do not appear in the final report. The survey, conducted by Lake Research Partners in February, asked a number of questions about readers' attitudes towards the WMF's fundraising to gauge the awareness and effectiveness of those efforts.
This is not the first WMF fundraising survey. After contributing to Wikipedia, donors are able to complete a survey if they wish; more than 250,000 of them did so in December 2014. Professional surveys are also done, such as the 2011 readership survey, which included questions about fundraising—but Lisa Gruwell, the Foundation's chief revenue officer, told the Signpost that "this is the first professional, randomized survey of Wikipedia fundraising to include donors and non-donors."
Methodology
Country | Number of readers surveyed (% of respondents) | % of total English Wikipedia page views, December 2014 |
---|---|---|
United States | 1000 (41.7%) | 36.4 % |
United Kingdom | 500 (20.8%) | 9.7 % |
Canada | 400 (16.7%) | 5.8 % |
India | 0 | 5.8 % |
Australia/New Zealand | 400 (16.7%) | 3.4 % |
Germany | 0 | 2.0 % |
Philippines | 0 | 1.5 % |
France | 0 | 1.2 % |
China | 0 | 1.2 % |
Ireland | 0 | 0.7 % |
The survey questioned a sample of 2,300 people who said they used Wikipedia at least once a month. They were from five primarily English-speaking countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with the last two countries combined into one sample group. Celinda Lake of Lake Research told the Signpost that "the sample was stratified geographically by region and the data were weighted by gender, age, region, and race where appropriate to reflect the population of internet users in each country."
Lake said "Respondents for the survey were drawn from an international panel of over 2 million Internet users in the target countries who have agreed to participate in online surveys, supplied by GMI", a market research company that specializes in selecting participants for surveys. The selection bias is unclear for people who apparently had previously agreed to GMI's request that they participate in unspecified online surveys.
Lake Research did not survey readers in countries where English is not the primary language, but nevertheless have significant populations of readers of the English Wikipedia, such as India, Germany, the Philippines, France, and China. Gruwell said that they chose to focus only on five English-speaking countries for a number of reasons, including making the survey more manageable and achieving more comparable results.
The 2,300 participants ranged from daily users of the encyclopedia to casual visitors, with most responding that they use the encyclopedia several times a week (27–35%, depending on the country) or several times a month (21–24%). Those who indicated they use Wikipedia less than once a month were not included in the survey.
Perceptions of Wikipedia
Surprisingly, up to 40% of people are not aware that Wikipedia is a non-profit operation. While this is an improvement on the 2011 Readership Survey – which reported that about half of Wikipedia readers were unaware of this – it is troubling given the importance attached within the community and the Foundation to its non-profit status.
Wikipedia's revenue source was similarly not well understood. UK readers were the only group in which a majority identified reader donations as Wikipedia's primary funding source. Significant numbers of respondents in all countries surveyed have no idea where the money comes from, or identified it as a mix of sources including government funding. A disturbing percentage (13–20%) thought that Wikipedia is supported by advertising.
Perhaps respondents were confusing fundraising appeals with paid advertising. Lake told the Signpost that "They may be confusing other online ads they see in close proximity to their use of Wikipedia pages. They are also possibly making an assumption that since many major websites are supported by ads, Wikipedia must be also." Lake noted the survey also asked if they had seen commercial advertising on Wikipedia. While 56–60% said no, some 20% either thought they had seen ads on the encyclopedia or were unsure.
The result may point to a lack of awareness of Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and independence. Gruwell said: "This is a fairly consistent misunderstanding about Wikipedia that we see across the board and we have seen it for years, and it's an ongoing challenge for the movement. We think it is important to communicate the non-profit or non-commercial message in banners and other communications to help better educate readers about this."
Motivations
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Fundrasing_graph_2014.png/300px-Fundrasing_graph_2014.png)
Depending on the country, 55–63% of respondents recalled seeing a fundraising appeal on Wikipedia. When asked about how many they remembered, around one-third said two or three, and slightly fewer said four to nine. Despite some vocal complaints about the frequency of the banners last year, only 4–5% regard the appeals as "too intrusive".
Perhaps the most surprising results were respondents' primary reason for donating to Wikipedia. By overwhelming numbers, they stated that their motivation was their frequent use of Wikipedia. Given that support of Wikipedia is often expressed in terms of a strong commitment towards free and open access and dissemination of knowledge, it is surprising that relatively few donors cited this. Perhaps those who have those principles are already avid users of Wikipedia, or perhaps it is indicative of the widespread use of Wikipedia – as the sixth-most-used website in the world for so long, it may have simply become part of the furniture for most people. This may be a reason for donating, but it may also lead to apathy or indifference in those who do not donate, something the survey was not designed to explore.
Targeting donors
It is important to know why readers donate to Wikipedia, but other questions need to be asked to reach people who do not donate. The survey identified about a quarter of respondents as "donor targets": people who donate elsewhere but not to the encyclopedia.
The survey examined which types of causes were favored among both donors and non-donors. In most of the countries, those who donate to Wikipedia appear to be generally more altruistic than non-donors, in that they are more likely to donate to other charitable causes too. Popular charities among those who did not donate to Wikipedia were those related to poverty, health and medicine, and, in the US, religion, causes which are generally perceived to have little to do with Wikipedia's mission of encyclopedia building and the free dissemination of knowledge.
Given the nature of these causes, specialized appeals may be needed to reach these donor target groups, as they may be unlikely to be swayed by typical fundraising banners or testimonials featuring sad-eyed Wikipedia editors. Targeted banners including statements that Wikipedia is perhaps the world's most frequently consulted medical resource or touting the ability of free access to information to help alleviate poverty may be effective. Gruwell said "It is an interesting finding and we may explore how to talk about this area of work with those who care most about certain kinds of information in Wikipedia."
Fundraising messages: responses and effectiveness
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Oversized_donation_notice.png/300px-Oversized_donation_notice.png)
The survey concludes that "Users are not turned off by Wikipedia's fundraising messages", and the survey results appear to bear that out. Despite vocal dissenters voicing criticism of the campaign, these sentiments don't appear to be shared among the respondents. More than half of respondents generally feel that Wikipedia asks for less money than other organizations and that fundraising messages do not appear "very often".
When asked about the statement "I don't mind the fundraising messages on Wikipedia because I know the fundraising is necessary", up to 70% in each country indicated agreement. The suggested cause in this statement might be considered a loaded question. When asked about whether the response would have been different had the last seven words been omitted, Gruwell replied: "It's possible. I don't think we should try to guess how readers would have answered a different question."
Similar questions worded differently yielded smaller majorities, though still indicate a generally positive attitude towards fundraising appeals. For example, 42–51% indicated they "enjoyed learning" about Wikipedia from the fundraising campaign (another potentially loaded question compared with what might have been more neutral wording – "learned" rather than "enjoyed learning"). Fundraising messages "annoyed" 19–31% of people; this might seem to conflict with the results of the "I don't mind" option, or it might indicate that while they are personally annoyed by the messages, they also saw the need for them.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Desktop_Banner_Donation_Rate.png/220px-Desktop_Banner_Donation_Rate.png)
Up to half of the respondents said the more the fundraising messages appear, the less they notice them. However, 34–46% said they pay attention to the messages. This may indicate a widespread concern among Wikipedia readers about desensitization and overexposure, even if those readers don't feel they are personally susceptible.
The size of the banner ads was the focus of some of the questions. Readers think the larger banner ads are clearer and more convincing, but only by slight margins. When asked about the intrusiveness of the different sized banners, readers rate them about the same irrespective of size.
Gruwell said: "This survey helps us understand reader's opinions of the banners. We pair this with what we know about what readers do when they see the banners through our donation rates." She pointed to results that appear in the Foundation's latest quarterly review of fundraising which indicate that in December 2014, the large banners produced a donation rate five times that of the smaller ones. Those results speak for themselves, so it appears the large banners are here to stay.
Discuss this story
I see ads on Wikipedia fairly frequent. Maybe this report supports that we need to do more about removing / preventing them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The report from the researchers is on Commons and also on the Fundraisng Meta page. Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Countries
"The survey questioned a sample of 2,300 people who said they used Wikipedia at least once a month. They were from five primarily English-speaking countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with the last two countries conflated into one sample group."
The survey is interesting from a journalistic point of view, but it's hardly statistically significant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]