Talk:Fundraising
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
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)
- Oh. Ahem. Glad to hear it. (big blush) Thanks for the help link, btw. Very useful and appreciated! alisonsage have to figure out the date stamp thing...give me a day or two.
- and I thot this was a discussion about why fundraising and fundraiser might be merged. This IMHO is nothing but irrelevant comments. It doesn't come close to a discussion about reasons for merging two very different topics... except that whoever started the discussion doesn't appear to know very much about them or thinks that they amount to the same thing. They don't. Ask a few people in the industry.
-
- I agree - there is a lot of territory between product fundraising, fundraising suppliers, fundraising consultants, fundraising strategies, capital campaigns, tax law, I don't think you can just merge everything into one big article. I am working a little bit on the fundraiser page to add more info about product fundraising - see the fundraiser talk page for my suggestion Bryguy5 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Comments on reversions
- 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)
- I was doing some research for fundraising and starting a charity of my own.. Came across to http://www.ofundraiser.com from google.. They make nonprofit and charity related fundraising effort very affordable and easy... Thought worth of sharing.. Good luck everybody..
[edit] "National Association of Professional Group Fundraisers"
I deleted the following reference to "the National Association of Professional Group Fundraisers": Many non-profit organizations take advantage of the services of professional fundraisers. These may be paid for their services either through fees unrelated to the amounts of money to be raised, or by retaining a percentage of raised funds (percentage-based compensation). While both approaches are recognized and encouraged by the National Association Of Professional Group Fundraisers [1], the leading professional association for fundraising companies within the United States, the latter approach is expressly forbidden under the Code of Ethics of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), the profession's primary international support and regulatory body.
There is no such organization to my knowledge and nothing under a Google search, and the weblink didn't work, either. I can't imagine any legitimate association of fundraisers approving of percentage arrangements. There's a FAQ on this on the Association of Fundraising Professional's website: www.afpnet.org.
FWIW, I'm a professional with more than 20 years of experience, and I've received the CFRE accreditation. www.cfre.org.
[edit] Bikers
I removed reference to Bikers. I hope the author of this part doesn't mind too much, and I'm not sure that this is the way to do things (I'm a first-time editor on Wikipedia). It seemed to me that the paragraph was irrelevant to the overall discussion about fund raising, which is supposed to be an encyclopedic expose on the subject. One could just as easily have talked about fun running or parish fetes as the activities of 'bikers'. It seems to me that people should keep their own hobbies and interests out of what is supposed to be an informative forum/media for the education of people on specific topics. ..
[edit] Too much
This is a Wikipedia, not an encyclopedia. It's an open source model of audience contribution and if someone wants to include a paragraph about biking, they should be allowed to do so. Don't destroy this beautiful world of blurred ownership by turning back the clock 10 years or else before you know it "they" will be charging us for every email we send. I'm editing this page for the simple fact that someone editted out a link to a fundraising agency and then someone else put another one right back in. I love it...and hope it was done sarcastically. Cheers.
[edit] Status?
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)
[edit] Merging "Fundraiser" article into this
I do agree this should be done.
200.135.33.247 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see a benefit in keeping two separate articles, but it would probably be the better practice to have this information in one of the sub areas of the fundraising article, the part where product fundraising is discussed.
I think the articles should be kept separate, but at the top there should be a {{distinguish|Fundraiser}} at the top of the article.
Adabow (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There is definately a lot of overlap. For now I added a product fundraisers section to the fundraisers page and included a wiki link on this one. Not sure how to sort this mess out - fundraisers can refer to a product, an event, or a person ("professional fundraiser, volunteer fundraiser"). Fundraising is more of a verb or adjective refering to the action or process of raising money. Maybe we could reorganize fundraisers page to be Product, Event, Person in seperate sections and make this page more of an overview of the whole process. Disclaimer - i maintian an online fundraising product store - iLoveFundraising.com [2], don't worry I'm not going to spam the page it just makes me an interested party.Bryguy5 (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Prospect research
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)
