Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write an article. If the majority of sources were to claim X came from Y, then yes, but without that, we can't state it as fact.
At some point the message has to change. It has to become something a little more like: Look, so far we've done this which you thought was cool. Now we want to do X, Y and Z. Will you support us?
I think this is a perfectly valid idea and would encourage you to lead with this sort of approach in trying to get the Foundation to change strategy. It's straightforward and constructive. Pointing out all the ways the fundraising is bad is not nearly as useful as suggesting ways to approach it differently and improve it.
(I normally don't talk about Fundraising stuff as a volunteer, but the Meta thread where I was pinged led me here).
True, but would you agree that the number of editors who take umbrage with the wording is a small minority of the tens of thousands who edit and thousands (hundreds?) who are aware of the fundraising messages?
It is worth noting that three of the six community-and-affiliate candidates currently standing for the Wikimedia Foundation board support the following statement:
"WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever"
(Two candidates "supported" the statement; one "strongly supported" it. A fourth opposed the statement, but added: "I do feel that the online campaign can be improved. See videos for more." In the videos, she said: "The one thing that I think we can improve is our on-wiki campaign. It is sometimes too aggressive to my taste.")
>they have never written a Wikipedia article. Some can't even figure out how to leave a talk page message, and they couldn't tell you which side of a diff shows the new version of an article and which the old.
None of those things are necessary qualities of an organizational leader. This is like saying the CEO of Adobe should be competent in how to use Photoshop.
This criticism, like much of yours over the years, attempts to simplify a complex situation, of which you know very little given your limited perspective, into a soundbite to get attention and garner community affectation. Wikimedia needs better critics.
But _were_ they? (That's rhetorical, they were not.)