Talk:Fundraising/Archive 1

message: Is there a reason that this "article" is a blatant spamvertising page for Wikipedia?  I can think of a million other charities (i.e. Red Cross) that would like a link here too.  The example of "Wikipedia's merchandise at Cafe Press" as a method of fundraising is blatant spam and in poor taste, IMHO.
*I have to disagree. I think that this page needs major work. For example, there are legitimate fundraising organizations in America and they have a specific designation: 501(c)3. There is a standard "rule of thumb" for operating expenditures such as salaries, campaigns, staff, and et.cetera versus the funds that are generated and actually do go to the sources that are pledged. I think that needs to be clarified in this entry. 
      This is NOT spamvertising at all. The category should not only includes the definition of what a fundraising organization is, but also a charitable foundation, the process of grant writing, and more. So...instead of linking the Red Cross for example, it would be just as easy to link a site that actually rates the top fundraising organizations - and what the criteria are.
      Finally...the worst of fundraising. How can you NOT consider an article on what happens when a charitable organization goes awry? There are so many examples, from the above-mentioned telemarketers, to the spate of evangelical rise and declines in the 1990's.
      in my NOT so humble opinion, this is an extraordinarily important stub that could use some very creative and careful planning to give it the justice that it deserves. Thanks, alisonsage.
**You are not viewing the same version I commented on.  Smadnani 17:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: *Revert by User:Ceyockey of 30 October: this was to drop advertising for http://myfundrazor.org.  Soliciting for enrollment is not something that should appear in an article text. Courtland 04:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on reversions 

message: Is anyone actively working on this article?  I noticed a tag at the top of the article indicating a need for cleanup.  I'm happy to contribute, but I wanted to check here first.  Uberveritas 08:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status?

message: I do agree this should be done.
200.135.33.247 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging "Fundraiser" article into this 

message: Any ideas how we could add a section about prospect research to this page? It's a vital part of the fundraising function for many organisations - see APRA. Georgethe23rd (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prospect research 

message: I'd like to see an explanation of what happens to presidential donations after the event. Will the $500 million or so sit around until the next term? What are the acceptable/allowable uses for donations? Gregmcdougall (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Donations 

message: Below is the (useful) contents of Talk:Online fundraising, which has been merged here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like it.  All edits for a long time have been trivial or addition of external links.  I've just nuked the links, since they were just lists of service providers and that is emphatically something that Wikipedia is not supposed to be, and besides it had become a spam magnet.  This leaves us with little more than a stub.   I was wondering if a merge to :Fundraising might be more appropriate. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Talk:Online fundraising 

message: A problem with finding good secondary sources is that a lot of the descriptions of fund-raising are written by the fund-raisers themselves.Oxford73 (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: At the very least, this section is too long for a subject of only marginal importance to the article. Ad Book's are not so vital to development as to warrant half the article. The section on capital campaigns (which are far more important and widespread) is roughly 1/10th of the Ad Book section. At the very least, the Ad Book section should be split off to a new article, and have a paragraph stub here linking there.  
However, the section is written in a very un-encyclopedic manner. It comes off like a (bad) advertisement for 'Ad Books' - note that it always capitalizes the phrase - if you search 'Ad Book' on google, the first commercial site dealing with this type of publication is 'adbookonline.com' which also uses the inappropriate capitalizations. The writing style is remarkably similar.  The user who added the section has only made one edit to another article. While I am assuming good faith, I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect some sort of link between the user Bafont, and the Ad Book industry.
 
The entire section has no citations, and I couldn't find any tertiary or reliable secondary sources. Because of the issues with the text's notability/importance, non-academic tone, total lack of references and a possible CoI, I don't think moving the text to its own article page is a valid solution. Therefore, I am being BOLD and removing it. Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin 01:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad Book section 

message: *This issue has been brought up before (years ago), and it seems that the decision was turned down because Wikipedia guidelines were more liberal back then. but after reading both this article and the Fundraiser article, I really don't see why they're separate. In fact, the latter article doesn't even have any sources. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: The term "fundraiser" is used in common parlance by laypersons who may not understand the entire scope of fund raising activities.    From a professional fund raising perspective, the term "fundraiser" actually refers to fund raising special events, a sub activity of the Annual Fund.    The difficulty in wide acceptance or promotion of the term "fundraiser" is just that: it refers to only one activity, and by no means the most important or most profitable.   
The second objection to the term is that it confuses the practitioner with the activity  That is to say, the professional practitioner of fund raising is known as a fund raiser.  The activities that person pursues are known as fund raising, not fund raisers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.11.178 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the two articles 

message: What this article describes sounds very chancy and difficult. Logically, there must be some way to get money that is simpler, easier, and more reliable. Therefore, I believe there is important information missing from this article. It is very biased toward doing something for your money rather than neutral point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.41.79 (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is something missing? 

message: "Traditionally, fundraising consisted mostly of asking for donations on the street or at people's doors..." Really? Is there a source for this? Fundraising methods such as direct mail, subscriptions, fundraising events, and grant requests all have a very long history, so I'm not really sure why this one method of fundraising is considered "traditional" (especially when door-to-door or street fundraising has such negative connotations for many people). Mhick (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional fundraising? 

message: I am a new user to Wikipedia. I am a fundraising consultant and I feel it is necessary to explain the terms listed below.
"The classic development program at institutions of higher learning include prospect identification, prospect research and verification of the prospect's viability, cultivation, solicitation, and finally stewardship, the latter being the process of keeping donors informed about how past support has been used."
This sentence only makes sense to a person who works in nonprofit fundraising. Wikipedia is meant to be a helpful source of information. Listing several terms that do not mean much to a layperson is not helpful. It is important to talk about these terms in a way that will help a broad audience understand how they relate to fundraising.
The prospect research process is about identifying people that have interests or values that match up with the work of an organization. In this process, we are identifying the passions of prospective donors. Once we have identified donors who have passions that match up with the work of an organization, we cultivate a relationship with them. We help them understand the impact the organization is making and how they can partner with that organization to make a difference. Solicitation is asking the donor to invest their money in an organization so that together they can impact people or a cause. Stewardship refers to how the gift is administered and how the organization continues to build a relationship with the donor and keep their trust.
Thoughtfulmissions (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining Terms 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Contributions. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hildeoc (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]