Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
First of all I totally agree that the endowment should function as a
guarantee that material donated to Commons by people and organisations
effectively guarantees its future existence and availability. With the
United States destabilised by fracturing democratic institutes, it follows
that at least one data centre outside of the United States has become more
and more a necessity. What the future brings for the USA has never been
this unpredictable.

The point of a repository like Commons is that it is to be used and usable.
For many years I have argued that Commons is effectively English only (my
most recent blogpost [1]).. Obviously the number of images at Commons that
include "Depicts" is far from complete but it DOES provide a gateway for
the public that uses a Wikimedia resource not in English (+50% of Wikimedia
traffic). At this moment Hay Kranen's tool provides the best service [2],
it used to be the native "Special:MediaSearch" until they merged it with
text search resulting in flooding the results with English results.

The effort needed to restore a dedicated search function based on the
"Depicts" statements is minor. It will open up Commons to a different
public. Having a wide and dispersed public is with ample funding the best
guarantee that Commons as a repository will persist.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/04/how-to-find-pictures-of-it-means-beaver.html
[2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q81091

On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 16:10, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> I have a slightly different take on the current purposes of the endowment.
>
> When the community was discussing the setting up of an endowment several
> years ago, I was one of those involved in our GLAM outreach who saw a big
> opportunity. At some point the endowment would be big enough that the WMF
> would be able to promise the cultural sector that Wikimedia Commons and or
> WikiSource would be around for the foreseeable future.
>
> For those of us who talk to museums, archives, libraries and anyone else
> in the cultural sector who has invested in digitising content, one of the
> big issues is future proofing. How can I deposit a digital copy of this
> material in such a way that it is likely to survive for the use of future
> generations. Whether or not an individual cultural organisation survives in
> the longterm, the ability to upload a copy of their digital collection to
> an institution that does have a credible plan for being around for the
> foreseeable future should be a huge positive.
>
> This is not a new issue. It wasn't a new issue over 800 years ago when
> multiple copies were made of the Magna Carta and deposited with different
> institutions. Four of those copies survive today. Handwritten copies on the
> finest sheepskin parchment are very different things to digital copies with
> an institution that has multiple servers in multiple locations, and an
> endowment that should be able to fund migrating that information to
> whatever the internet becomes in future centuries. But the principle is a
> good one, and a role that I think the WMF could usefully step into.
>
> If the endowment has grown to the point where the WMF could now announce
> that it can be confident of financing Wikimedia Commons and WikiSource for
> the foreseeable future, that doesn't mean that one penny need be tapped
> from that endowment while other fundraising is healthy. A guarantee can be
> issued on the understanding that it is unlikely to need to be redeemed for
> some years. Hopefully in those years the endowment could grow to the point
> where the guarantee could be extended to other projects such as Wikidata,
> WikiVoyage, Wiktionary and Wikipedia. But there is a case for prioritising
> Wikimedia Commons and WikiSource for such a guarantee, it would open more
> doors in the cultural sector and attract uploads of materials that could be
> used to improve Wikipedia and other projects..
>
> I suspect that the endowment is already big enough to issue such a
> commitment, if not, at the least the WMF should be able to set a target for
> how big the endowment needs to be for this to be possible.
>
> As for the more topical question of current fundraising and fundraising
> for the endowment, I for one would be happy with a compromise whereby in
> future donations would only be added to the endowment if they were
> specifically given for the endowment, and each years fundraising would stop
> when it had raised enough money to cover the following year's budgeted
> expenditure.
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>>
>> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[WereSpielChequers]

I have a slightly different take on the current purposes of the endowment.

When the community was discussing the setting up of an endowment several
years ago, I was one of those involved in our GLAM outreach who saw a big
opportunity. At some point the endowment would be big enough that the WMF
would be able to promise the cultural sector that Wikimedia Commons and or
WikiSource would be around for the foreseeable future.

For those of us who talk to museums, archives, libraries and anyone else in
the cultural sector who has invested in digitising content, one of the big
issues is future proofing. How can I deposit a digital copy of this
material in such a way that it is likely to survive for the use of future
generations. Whether or not an individual cultural organisation survives in
the longterm, the ability to upload a copy of their digital collection to
an institution that does have a credible plan for being around for the
foreseeable future should be a huge positive.

This is not a new issue. It wasn't a new issue over 800 years ago when
multiple copies were made of the Magna Carta and deposited with different
institutions. Four of those copies survive today. Handwritten copies on the
finest sheepskin parchment are very different things to digital copies with
an institution that has multiple servers in multiple locations, and an
endowment that should be able to fund migrating that information to
whatever the internet becomes in future centuries. But the principle is a
good one, and a role that I think the WMF could usefully step into.

If the endowment has grown to the point where the WMF could now announce
that it can be confident of financing Wikimedia Commons and WikiSource for
the foreseeable future, that doesn't mean that one penny need be tapped
from that endowment while other fundraising is healthy. A guarantee can be
issued on the understanding that it is unlikely to need to be redeemed for
some years. Hopefully in those years the endowment could grow to the point
where the guarantee could be extended to other projects such as Wikidata,
WikiVoyage, Wiktionary and Wikipedia. But there is a case for prioritising
Wikimedia Commons and WikiSource for such a guarantee, it would open more
doors in the cultural sector and attract uploads of materials that could be
used to improve Wikipedia and other projects..

I suspect that the endowment is already big enough to issue such a
commitment, if not, at the least the WMF should be able to set a target for
how big the endowment needs to be for this to be possible.

As for the more topical question of current fundraising and fundraising for
the endowment, I for one would be happy with a compromise whereby in future
donations would only be added to the endowment if they were specifically
given for the endowment, and each years fundraising would stop when it had
raised enough money to cover the following year's budgeted expenditure.


Regards

WereSpielChequers

>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Julia Brungs]

Dear all,

We investigated the question you raised about separating the endowment gift
from other grants. Separating the endowment gift from other grants is not
an audit (GAAP) requirement. But due to the nature of the expenses and our
principle of transparency, we do disclose the purpose of the Endowment Fund
and the amounts funded both in the fiscal year of the report as well as
cumulative to-date in Footnote 6 of the audit report [1]. We can certainly
add this to the FAQs going forward.

Just as a reminder, many of the questions raised here have been discussed
on talk:fundraising [2] and talk:endowment [3]

Best wishes,
Julia

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_Enterprise_discussion)
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_Enterprise_discussion)
-- 
*Julia Brungs*
Senior Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation 

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:39 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:19 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
>> Including the $100 million endowment, the WMF will now have investments
>>> of around $200 million (excluding cash and cash equivalents), for an annual
>>> investment income of over $10 million. That is already enough to run core
>>> services. Wikimedia posted total expenses of $3.5 million in 2007/2008, a
>>> year after Wikipedia became a global top-ten website.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it's not 2007 anymore. Just because it cost $3.5 million in 2007
>> doesn't mean it'd cost $3.5 million now. I don't know enough about the
>> current financial situation, staff, data centre expenditure, hardware, etc.
>> to state whether $10 million is actually enough to continue to maintain the
>> infrastructure required for the project. Could you share your breakdown and
>> financial analysis?
>>
>
>
> I recall Erik (Möller) saying[1] here on this list, around the time the
> idea of an endowment took shape:
>
>
>
> WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal
>
> staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on
>
> an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to
>
> actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base
>
> level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of
>
> magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual
>
> sustainability of Wikimedia's mission. The "what's the level required
>
> for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,
>
> because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,
>
> to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.
>
>
>
> Now the annual $10M+ of operating expenses Erik spoke of were already for
> more than bare survival – they were for what he called "actual
> sustainability of Wikimedia's mission."
>
>
>
> Right now, the WMF collects about 15 times as much, while still pretending
> to the public that Wikipedia "really needs" their money "this Friday" to
> "stay online", "to protect Wikipedia's independence," etc. What does that
> last phrase even mean, given that the WMF is by any definition bigger and
> wealthier than ever?
>
>
>
> The WMF is $200 million richer today than it was in 2015, when the
> Washington Post asked, "Wikipedia has a ton of money, so why is it begging
> you to donate yours?[2] (At the time I actually thought we had turned a
> corner, hence I am the only one quoted in that article as saying the
> problem had been satisfactorily addressed. More fool me!)
>
>
>
> Latin America is currently being treated to fundraising banners telling
> the public to give the WMF more money to "show the volunteers that their
> work matters" – the same wording the WMF just withdrew after two weeks or
> so when the Brazilians complained[3]. That wording runs along with the
> other familiar banner messages, like "humbly" asking people to donate "to
> defend Wikipedia's independence", etc.
>
>
>
> At least this year's India fundraising drive has been cancelled (for now,
> who knows ...).
>
> I  think this is why we need more cohesion between language communities.
> When the English fundraising banners run, there is the annual moan about
> how the banners are misleading, annoying, too big, too persistent, too
> dishonest, not classy, manipulative, etc. And then January comes, everyone
> breathes a sigh of relief, and forgets ... until next November.
>
> Meanwhile, though, the exact same banners start running somewhere else on
> the globe. And when the Brazilians get rid of one banner, the same banner
> starts running a couple of weeks later in neighbouring Argentina. Even if
> an objectionable wording is dropped to placate one subset of the community,
> the objection is *never really taken on board* – the WMF just moves to a
> new target unaware of the previous controversy, and carries on as before. I
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Dan,


On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:19 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> Including the $100 million endowment, the WMF will now have investments of
>> around $200 million (excluding cash and cash equivalents), for an annual
>> investment income of over $10 million. That is already enough to run core
>> services. Wikimedia posted total expenses of $3.5 million in 2007/2008, a
>> year after Wikipedia became a global top-ten website.
>>
>
> Well, it's not 2007 anymore. Just because it cost $3.5 million in 2007
> doesn't mean it'd cost $3.5 million now. I don't know enough about the
> current financial situation, staff, data centre expenditure, hardware, etc.
> to state whether $10 million is actually enough to continue to maintain the
> infrastructure required for the project. Could you share your breakdown and
> financial analysis?
>


I recall Erik (Möller) saying[1] here on this list, around the time the
idea of an endowment took shape:



WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal

staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on

an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to

actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base

level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of

magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual

sustainability of Wikimedia's mission. The "what's the level required

for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,

because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,

to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.



Now the annual $10M+ of operating expenses Erik spoke of were already for
more than bare survival – they were for what he called "actual
sustainability of Wikimedia's mission."



Right now, the WMF collects about 15 times as much, while still pretending
to the public that Wikipedia "really needs" their money "this Friday" to
"stay online", "to protect Wikipedia's independence," etc. What does that
last phrase even mean, given that the WMF is by any definition bigger and
wealthier than ever?



The WMF is $200 million richer today than it was in 2015, when the
Washington Post asked, "Wikipedia has a ton of money, so why is it begging
you to donate yours?[2] (At the time I actually thought we had turned a
corner, hence I am the only one quoted in that article as saying the
problem had been satisfactorily addressed. More fool me!)



Latin America is currently being treated to fundraising banners telling the
public to give the WMF more money to "show the volunteers that their work
matters" – the same wording the WMF just withdrew after two weeks or so
when the Brazilians complained[3]. That wording runs along with the other
familiar banner messages, like "humbly" asking people to donate "to defend
Wikipedia's independence", etc.



At least this year's India fundraising drive has been cancelled (for now,
who knows ...).

I  think this is why we need more cohesion between language communities.
When the English fundraising banners run, there is the annual moan about
how the banners are misleading, annoying, too big, too persistent, too
dishonest, not classy, manipulative, etc. And then January comes, everyone
breathes a sigh of relief, and forgets ... until next November.

Meanwhile, though, the exact same banners start running somewhere else on
the globe. And when the Brazilians get rid of one banner, the same banner
starts running a couple of weeks later in neighbouring Argentina. Even if
an objectionable wording is dropped to placate one subset of the community,
the objection is *never really taken on board* – the WMF just moves to a
new target unaware of the previous controversy, and carries on as before. I
can't think of a better definition of "Divide et impera".

Let's just note: with $100m in the Endowment and another $100m in
short-term investments (not to mention another $70m in cash and cash
equivalents, per the 2019/2020 audit report), the WMF has got to the point
Erik envisaged above. It's able to ensure the "actual sustainability of
Wikimedia's mission" just from the interest its investments accrue, and has
got there in half the time anticipated.



> The problem for me – and many other rank-and-file volunteers – is not the
>> idea of an endowment as such, but fundraising messages saying "Wikipedia
>> really needs you this Tuesday" to donate money so Wikipedia can "stay
>> online", "protect its independence", etc., or "to show the volunteers their
>> work matters".
>>
>> The WMF creates the impression that it struggles to keep Wikipedia up and
>> running; people then feel scared or guilty, think Wikipedia is struggling,
>> or dying, or will soon put up a paywall;[2] and the WMF does little to
>> correct that mistaken impression, even when directly asked about it as in
>> Katherine's recent The Daily Show interview[3]. One is left with the
>> uncomfortable conclusion that the WMF creates and fails 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 15:02, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> The Wikimedia Endowment page on Meta[1] actually states very clearly in
> its lead paragraph who benefits from the Endowment. It says,
>
> "The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia
> Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia
> Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission."
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation alone controls how the funds are used (limited
> only by whatever UPMIFA or donor-specific constraints apply).
>

The Wikimedia Foundation legally controlling the funds, and the endowment's
purpose being to protect the project moving forwards, are not mutually
exclusive. Legally, yes, the Wikimedia Foundation controls the funds, so
for the page to say otherwise would be misleading. Unless some other entity
can somehow direct Tides to transfer the money, then the page shouldn't say
that.


Including the $100 million endowment, the WMF will now have investments of
> around $200 million (excluding cash and cash equivalents), for an annual
> investment income of over $10 million. That is already enough to run core
> services. Wikimedia posted total expenses of $3.5 million in 2007/2008, a
> year after Wikipedia became a global top-ten website.
>

Well, it's not 2007 anymore. Just because it cost $3.5 million in 2007
doesn't mean it'd cost $3.5 million now. I don't know enough about the
current financial situation, staff, data centre expenditure, hardware, etc.
to state whether $10 million is actually enough to continue to maintain the
infrastructure required for the project. Could you share your breakdown and
financial analysis?



> The problem for me – and many other rank-and-file volunteers – is not the
> idea of an endowment as such, but fundraising messages saying "Wikipedia
> really needs you this Tuesday" to donate money so Wikipedia can "stay
> online", "protect its independence", etc., or "to show the volunteers their
> work matters".
>
> The WMF creates the impression that it struggles to keep Wikipedia up and
> running; people then feel scared or guilty, think Wikipedia is struggling,
> or dying, or will soon put up a paywall;[2] and the WMF does little to
> correct that mistaken impression, even when directly asked about it as in
> Katherine's recent The Daily Show interview[3]. One is left with the
> uncomfortable conclusion that the WMF creates and fails to correct that
> false impression because it benefits financially from it.
>

Indeed, as the endowment grows I would expect our fundraising messaging to
change, from talking about donations being required to maintain the
projects, to instead highlighting the new developments that donations
enable. As mentioned before, I don't know if we're there yet. I look
forward to us getting there.

(I'll ignore your nonsenscial remark about the WMF somehow profiting from
this.)


I disagree, SJ. The Meta page[1] has a blue progress bar showing how much
> money is in the Endowment. To me it is incompatible with the idea of a wiki
> – a website designed to support continuous updates – for such a progress
> bar to be up to a year out of date. It's not what a reasonable reader of
> that page would expect.
>

"People expect wikis to be updated, and information on the endowment is on
a wiki, therefore we should have monthly updates on the endowment" isn't a
very compelling argument. I don't see why the reporting cadence should go
beyond what is typically expected of endowments in the nonprofit space.

If you have a problem with that particular bar on that page on Meta for
some reason, perhaps a disclaimer about the last time it was updated could
be added. That seems like a much simpler solution than drastically
increasing the financial auditing and reporting overhead.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Vi to]

Sooner or later the increasing uneasiness with the continous call for
donations, even if we really don't know how to properly spend them, should
be tackled.

I think this is probably due to the idea of measuring the performance of
people working on this in terms of collected money growth, I feel like
we're cutting the branch we're sitting on.

Vito

Il giorno ven 30 apr 2021 alle ore 16:03 Andreas Kolbe 
ha scritto:

> Hi SJ,
>
> Long time no speak. :)
>
>
>
> As explained on Meta, it is inaccurate to think of the endowment as "an
>> investment that the WMF is the beneficiary of". The endowment is there to
>> support the Projects, rain or shine.
>>
>
>
>
> I don't think you can separate the WMF from its projects, which are the
> WMF's wholly owned property and its whole raison d'être.
>
> The Wikimedia Endowment page on Meta[1] actually states very clearly in
> its lead paragraph who benefits from the Endowment. It says,
>
> "The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia
> Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia
> Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission."
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation alone controls how the funds are used (limited
> only by whatever UPMIFA or donor-specific constraints apply).
>
> Moreover, as I'm sure you know, the Endowment is actually about to be
> returned in full to the WMF, to be placed into a new 501(c)(3) organisation
> the WMF will set up. If anyone familiar with the matter could outline the
> envisaged legal structure of that future organisation, that would be great.
>
>
>
>
>> To quote from my initial proposal
>>  (*NB: past proposals
>> may not reflect current or future endowment goals; among other things I
>> don't know that we've ever tried to narrowly define and optimize core
>> services ;*) :
>>
>> "The endowment should be large enough to sustainably support the basic
>> operation of the Projects (see iii. below), able to grow with inflation
>> while supporting any needed central server farms and technical support with
>> its interest, and of a size that we can raise."
>>
>>
>
>
> Including the $100 million endowment, the WMF will now have investments of
> around $200 million (excluding cash and cash equivalents), for an annual
> investment income of over $10 million. That is already enough to run core
> services. Wikimedia posted total expenses of $3.5 million in 2007/2008, a
> year after Wikipedia became a global top-ten website.
>
> The problem for me – and many other rank-and-file volunteers – is not the
> idea of an endowment as such, but fundraising messages saying "Wikipedia
> really needs you this Tuesday" to donate money so Wikipedia can "stay
> online", "protect its independence", etc., or "to show the volunteers their
> work matters".
>
> The WMF creates the impression that it struggles to keep Wikipedia up and
> running; people then feel scared or guilty, think Wikipedia is struggling,
> or dying, or will soon put up a paywall;[2] and the WMF does little to
> correct that mistaken impression, even when directly asked about it as in
> Katherine's recent The Daily Show interview[3]. One is left with the
> uncomfortable conclusion that the WMF creates and fails to correct that
> false impression because it benefits financially from it.
>
> If tens of millions of dollars of the money collected under that false
> premise, that Wikipedia is struggling, then end up in an endowment grown to
> $100 million in half the time originally planned for, that is unseemly. No
> one should beg for money claiming to be penniless if what they're actually
> doing is building up a $100 million investment portfolio in record time.
>
> The last phrase ("show the volunteers their work matters") is
> objectionable for a different reason, and people at the WMF I think are
> well aware that volunteers object to it. Nevertheless, it just ran again on
> fundraising banners in Brazil, only to be withdrawn after complaints from
> the pt.WP community.[4] I would love it if this one could really be phased
> out now!
>
>
>
>
>> 2. Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the
>>> Endowment on Meta?
>>>
>>
>> Once a year is standard and would suffice here, I should think.
>>
>
>
>
> I disagree, SJ. The Meta page[1] has a blue progress bar showing how much
> money is in the Endowment. To me it is incompatible with the idea of a wiki
> – a website designed to support continuous updates – for such a progress
> bar to be up to a year out of date. It's not what a reasonable reader of
> that page would expect.
>
>
>
>
>> 3. Could a mention of the Endowment, and the fact that the posted
>>> expenses include $5 million paid to the endowment, be added to the FAQ?
>>>
>>> (The FAQ refers to the most recent audited accounts, and thus is still a
>>> live document. For Awards and grants, which includes the $5 million paid to
>>> the endowment, the FAQ summary is: "We increased our awards 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi SJ,

Long time no speak. :)



As explained on Meta, it is inaccurate to think of the endowment as "an
> investment that the WMF is the beneficiary of". The endowment is there to
> support the Projects, rain or shine.
>



I don't think you can separate the WMF from its projects, which are the
WMF's wholly owned property and its whole raison d'être.

The Wikimedia Endowment page on Meta[1] actually states very clearly in its
lead paragraph who benefits from the Endowment. It says,

"The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation
or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation
to further the Wikimedia mission."

The Wikimedia Foundation alone controls how the funds are used (limited
only by whatever UPMIFA or donor-specific constraints apply).

Moreover, as I'm sure you know, the Endowment is actually about to be
returned in full to the WMF, to be placed into a new 501(c)(3) organisation
the WMF will set up. If anyone familiar with the matter could outline the
envisaged legal structure of that future organisation, that would be great.




> To quote from my initial proposal
>  (*NB: past proposals
> may not reflect current or future endowment goals; among other things I
> don't know that we've ever tried to narrowly define and optimize core
> services ;*) :
>
> "The endowment should be large enough to sustainably support the basic
> operation of the Projects (see iii. below), able to grow with inflation
> while supporting any needed central server farms and technical support with
> its interest, and of a size that we can raise."
>
>


Including the $100 million endowment, the WMF will now have investments of
around $200 million (excluding cash and cash equivalents), for an annual
investment income of over $10 million. That is already enough to run core
services. Wikimedia posted total expenses of $3.5 million in 2007/2008, a
year after Wikipedia became a global top-ten website.

The problem for me – and many other rank-and-file volunteers – is not the
idea of an endowment as such, but fundraising messages saying "Wikipedia
really needs you this Tuesday" to donate money so Wikipedia can "stay
online", "protect its independence", etc., or "to show the volunteers their
work matters".

The WMF creates the impression that it struggles to keep Wikipedia up and
running; people then feel scared or guilty, think Wikipedia is struggling,
or dying, or will soon put up a paywall;[2] and the WMF does little to
correct that mistaken impression, even when directly asked about it as in
Katherine's recent The Daily Show interview[3]. One is left with the
uncomfortable conclusion that the WMF creates and fails to correct that
false impression because it benefits financially from it.

If tens of millions of dollars of the money collected under that false
premise, that Wikipedia is struggling, then end up in an endowment grown to
$100 million in half the time originally planned for, that is unseemly. No
one should beg for money claiming to be penniless if what they're actually
doing is building up a $100 million investment portfolio in record time.

The last phrase ("show the volunteers their work matters") is objectionable
for a different reason, and people at the WMF I think are well aware that
volunteers object to it. Nevertheless, it just ran again on fundraising
banners in Brazil, only to be withdrawn after complaints from the pt.WP
community.[4] I would love it if this one could really be phased out now!




> 2. Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment
>> on Meta?
>>
>
> Once a year is standard and would suffice here, I should think.
>



I disagree, SJ. The Meta page[1] has a blue progress bar showing how much
money is in the Endowment. To me it is incompatible with the idea of a wiki
– a website designed to support continuous updates – for such a progress
bar to be up to a year out of date. It's not what a reasonable reader of
that page would expect.




> 3. Could a mention of the Endowment, and the fact that the posted expenses
>> include $5 million paid to the endowment, be added to the FAQ?
>>
>> (The FAQ refers to the most recent audited accounts, and thus is still a
>> live document. For Awards and grants, which includes the $5 million paid to
>> the endowment, the FAQ summary is: "We increased our awards and grants as
>> we continue our commitment to support our Affiliates, Organized Groups, and
>> Community Members."
>>
>
> I agree with clarifying the 'Awards and grants' category.  I try to keep
> track of the % of total global donations that are redistributed as awards
> and APG or other grants (*current guess: 9%
> ?*),
> and must remember to subtract the endowment transfer each year.  It would
> be excellent if that were called out as its own line item.
>



I am very happy that we agree 

[Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Samuel Klein]

(Retitling this thread, which is now focused on the endowment)

As a meta note, it is a true delight that our primary concerns surrounding
the endowment, 5 years in, are that it is flourishing well beyond
expectations*.  An extremely warm *thank you* to everyone who has made that
possible, it sets an anxious part of my mind at ease :)

Andreas writes:

> So according to the financial statements for the last five years, the WMF
>>> had a revenue surplus of over $100 million over that time period (measured
>>> as increase in net assets, from $77.8 million to $180.3 million). But over
>>> the same period, the Foundation also accumulated $100 million in Tides
>>> Foundation funds (i.e. the Endowment, reported[6] to have passed $90
>>> million in early February, and the $8.7 million in Tides Advocacy).
>>>
>>> This means that the Foundation has actually had a revenue surplus of
>>> more than $200 million over the past five years, averaging over $40 million
>>> per annum.
>>>
>>
That's not usually what revenue surplus means!

A key reason for a strong endowment, and the primary one that many of us
have wanted one, is as a source of long-term support (specifically: for
critical operations) that is managed independently, and can not be simply
used as a cash reserve.

As explained on Meta, it is inaccurate to think of the endowment as "an
investment that the WMF is the beneficiary of". The endowment is there to
support the Projects, rain or shine.

To quote from my initial proposal
 (*NB: past proposals
may not reflect current or future endowment goals; among other things I
don't know that we've ever tried to narrowly define and optimize core
services ;*) :

"The endowment should be large enough to sustainably support the basic
operation of the Projects (see iii. below), able to grow with inflation
while supporting any needed central server farms and technical support with
its interest, and of a size that we can raise."

2. Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment
> on Meta?
>

Once a year is standard and would suffice here, I should think.

3. Could a mention of the Endowment, and the fact that the posted expenses
> include $5 million paid to the endowment, be added to the FAQ?
>
> (The FAQ refers to the most recent audited accounts, and thus is still a
> live document. For Awards and grants, which includes the $5 million paid to
> the endowment, the FAQ summary is: "We increased our awards and grants as
> we continue our commitment to support our Affiliates, Organized Groups, and
> Community Members."
>

I agree with clarifying the 'Awards and grants' category.  I try to keep
track of the % of total global donations that are redistributed as awards
and APG or other grants (*current guess: 9%
?*),
and must remember to subtract the endowment transfer each year.  It would
be excellent if that were called out as its own line item.

Wikilove,
SJ.

* I remain of the opinion that the endowment should be doing even better,
as a hedge against the growth in complexity and maintenance cost of our
toolchains and services -- that we should implement a policy assigning a
minimum % of all windfall gifts or donations over the expected target to
the endowment.  But it may make sense to revisit that in earnest once the
Endowment org & what it supports are more crisply defined.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,