Talk:Donation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Effective Altruism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Donating to Wikimedia[edit]

GaylordBumBum 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Do we have to have the reference to Wikimedia donating at the top?[reply]

Perhaps not at the top, but maybe at the bottom, or at least a link to this. I am googling right now to find that dam* wikipedia donation page.... was hoping to find it here too, but didnt so far... 80.108.103.172 (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to leave it where it is now (since April 22 2009), at the top of the article... does not "To donate to the Wikimedia Foundation..." appear as the second line of the article in your browser? Thanks in advance for the new server! --CliffC (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overheads[edit]

SiobhanHansa wants a source for the claim that "donating to smaller charities, often tends to reduce expenditure on overheads". Is this really contentious? It seems obvious and well known that large organisations often have higher overheads than small ones, which often run entirely or mostly on volunteer labour, have no need for multiple levels of management, and pay little or no rent. Zsero 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size of an organization does not dictate the percentage that is spent on "overhead", a term that itself is not uniformly defined across organizations, and is dificult to measure. Your argument here that it is obvious and well known that larger organizations have higher overheads than smaller ones does not support the assertion that by donating to smaller organizations you cut overhead (you merely make a smaller organization somewhat larger, which would, according to the assertion, increase its overhead). Also the piece you have replaced (still without a citation) "Donating directly to a charity (rather than through solicitation)" is not obvious. Donating directly to a charity does not reduce business process overhead. It may reduce some fundraising expenses, but it may not. The fact that an individual donation did not rely on or use a particular fundraising process does not necessarily mean expenses were not incurred by the organization. Organizations tend to have their fundraising plans set in advance of any particular gift and will incur costs regardless of how the actual money comes in. Only donations that by-pass a process where costs are directly related to money received will actually result in lower expenses for the organization.

But more than the lack of a citation I think the thrust of the assertion is inappropriate. It seems to simply highlight overhead as an unacceptable expense rather than balancing the need for good controls to ensure organizations are run properly with the benefits of nimble and lean organizations (none of which is guaranteed by the size of the organization). It might be better here to discuss, for instance, the difficulty in measuring the impact of a donation, rather than putting in a normative and controversial statement. -- SiobhanHansa 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a clear separation of the spirit of donation (of giving freely) and the legalities of donation (which are excruciatingly intricate and vary from country to country. That's actually what brought me to this page because I was hoping for some US leads/references for correctly identifying the legal donor and preparing properly addressed correspondence when there is a corporate/foundation/organization donor involved (I edited the page - adding two words - to acknowledge that an institution may be a donor) H 1/4/2008```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.5.51.64 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

including, but not limited to[edit]

"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. --Unimath (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are associated with the following...[edit]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=earmarked+fund&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Talk:Red Cross (disambiguation)#A call for harmonization of the societies for the standardization....

--222.67.207.200 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write the article instead of just letting the red link hang there? --CliffC (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 62.143.225.227, 2 June 2011[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please include a link to http://www.poverty-action.org/provenimpact/fund -- this is the only scientific evaluation of donations' effectiveness around. Thank you!

New donation web site https://www.mydonations.online/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Уровнитель (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

62.143.225.227 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wikipedia is not a directory or forum or place where people can advertise about things. It is an encyclopedia. GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a donation be made for a consideration?[edit]

I just want to clarify whether a payment made by an institution to an organisation of charitable nature on the condition that the charitable organisation would make a cultural performance at the function of the institution. What is generally thought a donation can not be for a consideration, if a consideration exists for making a donation then such transaction can not be termed as donation.117.194.195.49 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of donating statistics outside the U.S.[edit]

As of May 3, 2013, there is no such data. Please add in. Thanks, New worl (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is data, for example Giving Trends in the UK http://www.acf.org.uk/policy-practice/research-publications/foundation-giving-trends-2017 Morchickit (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries[edit]

Just a quick note about edits summaries. They are useful in many ways Thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this article at...[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#gift_.2F_donor_.2F_donee. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The data about US household giving is 10 years olf[edit]

The data about US giving trends in households is a decade old, and pre the 2008 financial crisis. I could not find newer data. Does anyone know a newer dataset? Morchickit (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donation[edit]

How much donations are you getting? Leekielou (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing donations heading[edit]

Dear reviewers, I kindly request your consideration in adding a new heading to the main article titled "Clothing Donations." This section will cover the topic of donating clothing, a common practice aimed at giving back to communities and helping those in need. The proposed text for this section will provide valuable information and insights into the different methods of clothing donation, including the pros and cons of textile banks and home collection services. Suggest taxt is here:

"Clothing donation is a common practice worldwide, as it enables individuals to give back to their communities while also helping those in need. Two common options for donating clothing are textile banks and home collection services. Textile banks are collection points where people can deposit their used clothes, and these banks are usually located in public places such as car parks, shopping centers, and recycling centers. On the other hand, home collection services involve charities or non-profit organizations that provide door-to-door collection services, where they pick up the donated clothes from the donor's doorstep."

Suggest references: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please let me know if there are any concerns or questions regarding this proposal. ZMB2224 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On every topic you should add a “donate to Wikipedia and we’ll give you more information of this topic , bla bla bla”[edit]

You should do this to make people rethink about how hard the members of wikipedia have to work to earn their salary 2607:FEA8:4E64:5F00:40E9:641F:1845:EE87 (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]