In line with my earlier opinion about exhibit labels, I disagree
somewhat with Lucy Skjelstad. I'm not convinced that history and natural
history museums are fundamentally different from art museums in their
need or lack of need for donor credit labels. I agree, however, that it
is not reasonable to clutter an exhibit with individual credit labels
when many objects are shown in groups. But I do think that if you can
provide an individual label identifying and/or interpreting an
object--whatever it is--you should be able to add a donor credit. When
you show groups of objects which are not individually identified, you
might consider a credit panel listing donors' names without specifying
which item each gave. If the list really is too long and unwieldy, you
might give a brief explanation to the effect that the museum thanks all
the donors of objects in the exhibition whose names are "too numerous to
mention."

I think donor credits serve a useful public relations function. Whether
or not an individual donor's name is meaningful to a stranger is beside
the point. Identifying donors indicates the institution's gratitude and
is an appropriate gesture which can help generate additional gifts and
general good will toward the institution. Even if a donor's name means
nothing to most people, the gesture may. If a donor really prefers
anonymity for privacy or security, that wish should be respected, as I
indicated previously. Many donors, who understand that most museumgoers
don't know/care who they are, still appreciate gratitude and small
strokes. Most museums depend upon the generosity of donors of all types.
Saying "thank you" publicly is just good manners. An ironclad policy
against donor credits could be a bad idea and might discourage some
potential donors.

--David Haberstich