[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Peter Southwood]

This would be more convincing if our house was in order. It is not. Cheers, 
Peter

 

From: Nathan [mailto:nawr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 18 August 2023 12:24
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation 
Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

 

Steven,

 

I've been thinking about your points here and I wonder if it's worth zooming 
out a little bit on what Wikimedia is trying to achieve. The classic slogan of 
making the sum of all human knowledge accessible to all is an incredibly broad 
and ambitious goal. Since the WMF was founded, the primary implementation of 
that goal has been the various projects (anchored by Wikipedia's, the initial 
innovation). But how convinced are we that this is and will always remain the 
best way to achieve WMF's actual mission? 

 

If we're completely sure that any distraction away from the WMF projects, and 
the model of collecting and distributing knowledge that they represent, would 
be harmful to that goal... then I would agree that the approach taken by 
funding these grants is taking us down the wrong road.

 

If we admit to ourselves instead that Wikimedia's projects represent a great 
model now, and hopefully for many years to come, but that more or better ways 
of achieving the mission may surface... Then perhaps its worthwhile to invest 
persistently in supporting other approaches, to create opportunities for the 
same innovation and discovery behind Wikipedia to uncover what model may best 
meet future moments in delivering knowledge to all. 


~Nate

 

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 1:08 PM Steven Walling  wrote:

 

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34 AM Christophe Henner 
 wrote:

Hi Steven,

 

If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic 
because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and 
with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation 
empowering marginalised communities is critical.

 

If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the 
project we would actually be missing so much.

 

I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement.

 

As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, 
what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and 
encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia Organisations. 

@Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund 
project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with 
us?

 

Thanks a lot :)

 

Christophe

 

Christophe, 

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate the 
Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the boundary 
of acceptable initiatives end? 

For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight 
climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of the 
projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time. Solving world 
hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of potential 
volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to Starlink, to 
increase global Internet access to make it possible for more people to edit the 
projects. 

 

The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are 
funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to support 
the projects. 

 





On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling  wrote:

?

This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog post 
totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected to 
Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via committees or 
visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no demonstrable impact on 
Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want the projects to be more 
equitable when it comes to representing knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with 
the Wikimedia mission. This program is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish 
that.

 

If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on 
underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when they've 
bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons? Or fund a 
huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics? 

 

If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic 
privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is 
something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to generic 
lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice and 
inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in fact our 
organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when they give us 
money. 

 

A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each 
grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedi

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Peter Southwood]

This is fair comment, but the lack of transparency makes it impossible to make 
a fair judgement. These things are not sufficiently obvious to just do them 
without adequate explanation. Cheers, Peter

 

From: effe iets anders [mailto:effeietsand...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 August 2023 05:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation 
Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

 

I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some of the 
tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that we can't 
fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own work, and yet 
fund projects that don't feel like they directly support other activities our 
movement is deploying. 

 

There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it is, 
but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century, there 
was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific progress. Some 
of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to support also more 
fundamental research that did not necessarily always have a direct feed into 
their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program has the same vibe to me: 
we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to develop areas that we know 
are underserved (which may well be an understatement), without always having a 
direct connection to how that will feed into our projects, into our activities 
or communities. There is little doubt in my mind though, that in the long run 
the ecosystem will benefit from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our 
work in turn. 

 

So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to help 
society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the ecosystem 
that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors donating for' is 
equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate to us to help achieve 
the mission and trust us to make the choices that best serve this big picture. 

 

We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best 
situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're 
dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to worry 
about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we may be 
reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most important funder, 
but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am however convinced that 
where it comes to climate change there are many other organizations that are 
much better positioned. Of course, this is likely very subjective :)

 

Warmly,

Lodewijk

 

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner  
wrote:

That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.

 

But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you were 
saying ?we all should want?.

 

I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity and 
that probably require outside of the projects programs.

 

As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic discussion but 
I don?t find where we had it.

Sent from my iPhone





On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling  wrote:

?

 

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner 
 wrote:

Hi Steven,

 

If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic 
because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and 
with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation 
empowering marginalised communities is critical.

 

If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the 
project we would actually be missing so much.

 

I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement.

 

As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, 
what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and 
encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia Organisations. 

@Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund 
project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with 
us?

 

Thanks a lot :)

 

Christophe

 

Christophe, 

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate the 
Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the boundary 
of acceptable initiatives end? 

For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight 
climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of the 
projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time. Solving world 
hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of potential 
volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to Starlink, to 
increase global Internet access to make it possible for more people to edit the 
projects. 

 

The problem is that none of th

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

There is something that had slipped my mind ... Victoria Doronina said

in
November last year, on-wiki:

"Equity Grants were an idea of the previous CEO who is no longer with the
Foundation so there isn't a chance of them recurring. The Board has done
its main job - changed the CEO."

I thought at the time, with the money having been returned to the WMF, that
the Knowledge Equity Fund had been discontinued. So what happened?

Andreas



On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 5:05 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

> Biyanto,
>
> Thanks for your reply on this, very much appreciate the context and more
> information.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:
>
>
>> From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was designed as an
>> experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge resources on
>> underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen content on the
>> Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a limited pool of
>> funds, our intention is to experiment with different approaches, and see
>> where we can learn what works. The size of the initial Equity Fund, $4.5
>> million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year operating budget,
>> when the Foundation had a budget underrun
>> 
>> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
>> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
>> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>>  for community members and
>> Wikimedia groups.
>>
>
> This budget context is pretty critical context, and as far as I can tell
> isn't clearly communicated on Meta or in the blog posts about the program
> anywhere. Is it somewhere already and I have missed it? I would suggest
> putting something almost exactly like this in an FAQ, because your
> statement here is the clearest thing I've read to date on it.
>
> Ultimately I think to the community of editors and donors it isn't super
> convincing to say "we allocated this $4.5 million (which, to the average
> person who doesn't read our global movement budget and grant reports,
> sounds like an enormous sum of money) and therefore we have to stick to
> that plan despite the fact that we can't measure the impact of this work at
> all". In any healthy functioning organization, if you couldn't get results
> from investing a few million dollars, you'd change the plan and consider
> moving the funds elsewhere after a year.
>
>
>> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
>> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
>> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
>> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
>> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
>> institutions working to create knowledge.
>>
>> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
>> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
>> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
>> . I am coming from Indonesia where
>> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
>> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
>> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
>> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
>> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
>> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
>> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
>> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
>> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
>> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
>> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
>> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
>> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
>> journalists.
>>
>
> It would help if the blog post about learnings from the first year (
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/04/12/what-weve-learned-from-the-equity-funds-first-round/)
> and a first year report on Meta acknowledged the major gap in ability to
> measure impact.
>
> None of the previous communication really acknowledged this issue in any
> serious way. If the folks working on this at the WMF and the committee do
> agree it is an area for improvement, we should have said that in the
> communication about evaluating the first year and talked openly 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

Biyanto,

Thanks for your reply on this, very much appreciate the context and more
information.

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:


> From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was designed as an
> experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge resources on
> underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen content on the
> Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a limited pool of
> funds, our intention is to experiment with different approaches, and see
> where we can learn what works. The size of the initial Equity Fund, $4.5
> million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year operating budget,
> when the Foundation had a budget underrun
> 
> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>  for community members and
> Wikimedia groups.
>

This budget context is pretty critical context, and as far as I can tell
isn't clearly communicated on Meta or in the blog posts about the program
anywhere. Is it somewhere already and I have missed it? I would suggest
putting something almost exactly like this in an FAQ, because your
statement here is the clearest thing I've read to date on it.

Ultimately I think to the community of editors and donors it isn't super
convincing to say "we allocated this $4.5 million (which, to the average
person who doesn't read our global movement budget and grant reports,
sounds like an enormous sum of money) and therefore we have to stick to
that plan despite the fact that we can't measure the impact of this work at
all". In any healthy functioning organization, if you couldn't get results
from investing a few million dollars, you'd change the plan and consider
moving the funds elsewhere after a year.


> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
> institutions working to create knowledge.
>
> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
> . I am coming from Indonesia where
> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
> journalists.
>

It would help if the blog post about learnings from the first year (
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/04/12/what-weve-learned-from-the-equity-funds-first-round/)
and a first year report on Meta acknowledged the major gap in ability to
measure impact.

None of the previous communication really acknowledged this issue in any
serious way. If the folks working on this at the WMF and the committee do
agree it is an area for improvement, we should have said that in the
communication about evaluating the first year and talked openly with the
community (i.e. on wiki ideally) about potential strategies for improving
the measurability of the program. Instead the blog post pretty much ignored
any objections about the effectiveness and impact of the program, and just
talked about visibility into the work.

Examples like the one you gave really help, because it points to a clear
theory of change (we fund investment in potential source material on
underrepresented topics, Wikipedians use those sources eventually) that
could actually be measurable. Today the time horizon might be very long,
but maybe that's okay.

I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in the
> movement with some of our other new 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Andreas Kolbe]

I confess I am feeling a little conflicted. For example, I find it hard to
begrudge kids in Dominica the chance to develop some digital skills. If the
money were used effectively to that end, I would be very happy to see that.

The US and UK projects I'm struggling more with. You are telling users in
places like South Africa, India and Brazil that their money "keeps
Wikipedia operational" and are then spending well over a million of it on
first-world projects that have absolutely nothing to do with that (not to
mention spending almost a million on just *two* executives' severance).

Almost any charitable educational use in India or South Africa would serve
a more pressing need than the projects the Knowledge Equity Fund has funded
to date
 in
the US.

Of course you can argue that the WMF is a US "citizen", and a good
corporate citizen should do good in its own society. However, given the
difference in living standards, and the urgency with which money is
demanded in countries vastly poorer than the US or UK, I find this argument
inufficient to dispel my concern.

Andreas

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:59 AM The Cunctator  wrote:

> This is all extremely helpful information. I am grateful for the with you
> have done and I think this is an excellent project.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 6:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is
>> part of the Knowledge Equity Fund Committee. I joined the Equity Fund
>> Committee last year because I believe that our movement needs support from
>> other groups and organizations who are working on free knowledge to make
>> sure that we can address knowledge equity, which is stated in the movement
>> strategy.
>>
>> The grants support those groups that are being left behind or
>> under-resourced, as we believe that supporting those particular entities
>> will increase the quality of knowledge overall and contents on the
>> Wikimedia projects in the future.
>>
>> It is not true that these grants are completely unrelated to Wikimedia
>> or the Wikimedia projects. From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> was designed as an experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of
>> knowledge resources on underrepresented topics that can then be used to
>> strengthen content on the Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project
>> with a limited pool of funds, our intention is to experiment with different
>> approaches, and see where we can learn what works. The size of the initial
>> Equity Fund, $4.5 million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year
>> operating budget, when the Foundation had a budget underrun
>> 
>> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
>> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
>> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>>  for community members and
>> Wikimedia groups.
>>
>> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
>> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
>> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
>> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
>> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
>> institutions working to create knowledge.
>>
>> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
>> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
>> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
>> . I am coming from Indonesia where
>> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
>> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
>> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
>> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
>> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
>> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
>> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
>> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
>> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
>> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
>> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
>> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
>> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
>> journalists.
>>
>> I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in
>> the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[The Cunctator]

This is all extremely helpful information. I am grateful for the with you
have done and I think this is an excellent project.

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 6:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is
> part of the Knowledge Equity Fund Committee. I joined the Equity Fund
> Committee last year because I believe that our movement needs support from
> other groups and organizations who are working on free knowledge to make
> sure that we can address knowledge equity, which is stated in the movement
> strategy.
>
> The grants support those groups that are being left behind or
> under-resourced, as we believe that supporting those particular entities
> will increase the quality of knowledge overall and contents on the
> Wikimedia projects in the future.
>
> It is not true that these grants are completely unrelated to Wikimedia or
> the Wikimedia projects. From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was
> designed as an experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge
> resources on underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen
> content on the Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a
> limited pool of funds, our intention is to experiment with different
> approaches, and see where we can learn what works. The size of the initial
> Equity Fund, $4.5 million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year
> operating budget, when the Foundation had a budget underrun
> 
> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>  for community members and
> Wikimedia groups.
>
> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
> institutions working to create knowledge.
>
> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
> . I am coming from Indonesia where
> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
> journalists.
>
> I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in
> the movement with some of our other new grantee.
>
> Black Cultural Archives : Given BCA’s
> focus, we have connected them with Wikimedia UK, Wiki Library User Group
> and Whose Knowledge to help them better understand how to connect their
> work and archives with the Wikimedia projects.
>
> Create Caribbean Research Institute :
> As the first digital humanities centre in the Caribbean, Create Caribbean
> has natural alignment with Wiki Cari UG, as well as Noircir, Whose
> Knowledge, Projet:Université de Guyane, and WikiMujeres. We also plan to
> connect them to present or speak at Wiki Con North America.
>
> Criola 
>
> Criola is a civil society organization dedicated to advocating for the
> rights of Black women in Brazilian society. We have connected them with Whose
> Knowledge, WikiMujeres, Mujeres (mulheres) latino americanas in Wikimedia,
> and we will be connecting them with Mais_Teoria_da_Historia Na Brasil.
>
> Data for Black Lives 
>
> Given D4BL’s focus in the US, we have connected them with AfroCROWD and
> Black Lunch Table.
>
> Filipino American National Historical Society
> : FANHS is focused on Filipino American

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Biyanto]

Hi all,

My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is part
of the Knowledge Equity Fund Committee. I joined the Equity Fund Committee
last year because I believe that our movement needs support from other
groups and organizations who are working on free knowledge to make sure
that we can address knowledge equity, which is stated in the movement
strategy.

The grants support those groups that are being left behind or
under-resourced, as we believe that supporting those particular entities
will increase the quality of knowledge overall and contents on the
Wikimedia projects in the future.

It is not true that these grants are completely unrelated to Wikimedia or
the Wikimedia projects. From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was
designed as an experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge
resources on underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen
content on the Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a
limited pool of funds, our intention is to experiment with different
approaches, and see where we can learn what works. The size of the initial
Equity Fund, $4.5 million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year
operating budget, when the Foundation had a budget underrun

due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
 for community members and
Wikimedia groups.

I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
institutions working to create knowledge.

One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees: AMAN
 and Project Multatuli
. I am coming from Indonesia where
indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
journalists.

I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in the
movement with some of our other new grantee.

Black Cultural Archives : Given BCA’s
focus, we have connected them with Wikimedia UK, Wiki Library User Group
and Whose Knowledge to help them better understand how to connect their
work and archives with the Wikimedia projects.

Create Caribbean Research Institute :
As the first digital humanities centre in the Caribbean, Create Caribbean
has natural alignment with Wiki Cari UG, as well as Noircir, Whose
Knowledge, Projet:Université de Guyane, and WikiMujeres. We also plan to
connect them to present or speak at Wiki Con North America.

Criola 

Criola is a civil society organization dedicated to advocating for the
rights of Black women in Brazilian society. We have connected them with Whose
Knowledge, WikiMujeres, Mujeres (mulheres) latino americanas in Wikimedia,
and we will be connecting them with Mais_Teoria_da_Historia Na Brasil.

Data for Black Lives 

Given D4BL’s focus in the US, we have connected them with AfroCROWD and
Black Lunch Table.

Filipino American National Historical Society
: FANHS is focused on Filipino American
heritage, and as members of the diaspora we are connecting them with the
PhilWiki Community, Wiki Advocates of Philippines and Wiki Libraries User
Group.

If you have other ideas for how we can improve, please reach out and let us
know. Our email is equityf...@wikimedia.org.

Best,

Biyanto Rebin

(committee member, Knowledge 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Nathan]

Steven,

I've been thinking about your points here and I wonder if it's worth
zooming out a little bit on what Wikimedia is trying to achieve. The
classic slogan of making the sum of all human knowledge accessible to all
is an incredibly broad and ambitious goal. Since the WMF was founded, the
primary implementation of that goal has been the various projects (anchored
by Wikipedia's, the initial innovation). But how convinced are we that this
is and will always remain the best way to achieve WMF's actual mission?

If we're completely sure that any distraction away from the WMF projects,
and the model of collecting and distributing knowledge that they represent,
would be harmful to that goal... then I would agree that the approach
taken by funding these grants is taking us down the wrong road.

If we admit to ourselves instead that Wikimedia's projects represent a
great model now, and hopefully for many years to come, but that more or
better ways of achieving the mission may surface... Then perhaps its
worthwhile to invest persistently in supporting other approaches, to create
opportunities for the same innovation and discovery behind Wikipedia to
uncover what model may best meet future moments in delivering knowledge to
all.

~Nate

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 1:08 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34 AM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
>> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
>> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
>> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>>
>> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges
>> into the project we would actually be missing so much.
>>
>> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
>> Movement.
>>
>> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
>> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are
>> supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia
>> Organisations.
>>
>> @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships
>> with us?
>>
>> Thanks a lot :)
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>
> Christophe,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate
> the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the
> boundary of acceptable initiatives end?
>
> For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to
> fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the
> stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering
> their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase
> the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit
> alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it
> possible for more people to edit the projects.
>
> The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are
> funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to
> support the projects.
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>> This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
>> post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected
>> to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via
>> committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no
>> demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want
>> the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing
>> knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program
>> is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.
>>
>> If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on
>> underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when
>> they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons?
>> Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics?
>>
>> If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic
>> privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is
>> something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to
>> generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice
>> and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in
>> fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when
>> they give us money.
>>
>> A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how
>> each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish
>> our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the
>> community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully
>> agree that we should find ways 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Samuel Klein]

++.  Anything we can learn + apply from Outreachy (and their own community
of mentors, alums, and practitioners!) would be wonderful.
Their impact per unit of funding seems, at very casual inspection, well
ahead of all comparable initiatives.  And we could even fund them directly,
who have often helped us in turn. ;)

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:13 AM Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:23 PM Steven Walling
>  wrote:
>
> > With the money allocated to Knowledge Equity in the last couple years,
> we could have hired
> > at least a couple more software engineers to do work like fulfill
> community wishlist requests.
>
> I disagree with that framing. Wikimedia Foundation, even with reduced
> fundraising goals, is a very well-endowed organization that can easily
> shift more of its existing effort towards community wishlist requests.
> _All_ areas in which it spends money are deserving of healthy
> scrutiny, not just this new program. I feel it's best to evaluate this
> program on its own merits -- and to make a separate argument regarding
> the community wishlist & prioritization of software engineering
> ventures.
>
> To me, the question with these grants is whether there's a plausible
> theory of change that ties them back to the Wikimedia mission and
> movement. I share some skepticism about broad objectives around
> "improving quality of sources about X" without any _obvious and
> direct_ connection to the movement's work (i.e. concrete commitments
> about licensing and availability of information, or collaboration with
> Wikimedians). The Borealis Journalism Fund grant report [1] explicitly
> states:
>
> # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages: 0
> # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects: 0
> Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects: 0
>
> (There are qualifiers in the report, but frankly, they're not very
> plausible ones.)
>
> I see a lot of value in WMF having new connections with these grantees
> -- these are organizations Wikimedia _should_ have a relationship
> with. But do we best accomplish that by directly funding their
> operations? This statement from the latest announcement stands out to
> me:
>
> > The Equity Fund Committee [...] have also connected each of these
> grantees with regional
> > and relevant partners in the Wikimedia movement, including local and
> established
> > movement affiliates who can support knowledge equity work and help
> grantees learn about
> > how to connect back to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia
> projects.
>
> That's great, and I look forward to hearing what comes from these
> connections. I do worry a bit about slipping into a transactional
> framework -- "we give you support for your core mission, and to
> maintain good relations with us, you have some meetings with friendly
> Wikimedians in your area". Many grant-giving organizations tend to
> adopt transactional frameworks, sometimes overtly, sometimes without
> even realizing it. In the worst case, the grantee experiences it as a
> chore -- a checklist item to complete to apply for the next round of
> funding. Not saying that's where this program is at, just that it's
> something I would suggest watching out for.
>
> Personally, I see potential in the direction of well-scoped
> fellowships/residencies/internships paid by WMF, where both parties
> understand fully that engagement with the Wikimedia movement is part
> of what they're signing up for. There are pitfalls here as well:
> avoiding paid editing; making sure that the fellows themselves are
> diverse, etc. But these issues seem "closer to the metal" of
> Wikimedia's work, i.e. "the right kinds of of problems".
>
> There's a lot of institutional history to look back on & learn from,
> from GLAM residencies to WMF's internal fellowship program which you,
> Steven, went through so many years ago. I'd also encourage a close
> look at Outreachy, who have done amazing work getting diverse new
> contributors to join open source & open science projects. And that may
> be what you mean with "try less controversial methods to improve
> knowledge equity", but I feel this should be entirely about
> effectiveness and mission alignment, not about avoiding controversy.
>
> In general, I'd love to hear more from both the staff and community
> members on the committee how they came to their funding decisions
> (i.e. what set the successful grantees apart from the unsuccessful
> ones, and what theory of change animated the decisions), and where
> they'd like to see the program go in future.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> [1]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Knowledge_Equity_Fund_%28Round_1%29_-_Borealis_philanthropy_report.pdf
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:23 PM Steven Walling
 wrote:

> With the money allocated to Knowledge Equity in the last couple years, we 
> could have hired
> at least a couple more software engineers to do work like fulfill community 
> wishlist requests.

I disagree with that framing. Wikimedia Foundation, even with reduced
fundraising goals, is a very well-endowed organization that can easily
shift more of its existing effort towards community wishlist requests.
_All_ areas in which it spends money are deserving of healthy
scrutiny, not just this new program. I feel it's best to evaluate this
program on its own merits -- and to make a separate argument regarding
the community wishlist & prioritization of software engineering
ventures.

To me, the question with these grants is whether there's a plausible
theory of change that ties them back to the Wikimedia mission and
movement. I share some skepticism about broad objectives around
"improving quality of sources about X" without any _obvious and
direct_ connection to the movement's work (i.e. concrete commitments
about licensing and availability of information, or collaboration with
Wikimedians). The Borealis Journalism Fund grant report [1] explicitly
states:

# of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages: 0
# of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects: 0
Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects: 0

(There are qualifiers in the report, but frankly, they're not very
plausible ones.)

I see a lot of value in WMF having new connections with these grantees
-- these are organizations Wikimedia _should_ have a relationship
with. But do we best accomplish that by directly funding their
operations? This statement from the latest announcement stands out to
me:

> The Equity Fund Committee [...] have also connected each of these grantees 
> with regional
> and relevant partners in the Wikimedia movement, including local and 
> established
> movement affiliates who can support knowledge equity work and help grantees 
> learn about
> how to connect back to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.

That's great, and I look forward to hearing what comes from these
connections. I do worry a bit about slipping into a transactional
framework -- "we give you support for your core mission, and to
maintain good relations with us, you have some meetings with friendly
Wikimedians in your area". Many grant-giving organizations tend to
adopt transactional frameworks, sometimes overtly, sometimes without
even realizing it. In the worst case, the grantee experiences it as a
chore -- a checklist item to complete to apply for the next round of
funding. Not saying that's where this program is at, just that it's
something I would suggest watching out for.

Personally, I see potential in the direction of well-scoped
fellowships/residencies/internships paid by WMF, where both parties
understand fully that engagement with the Wikimedia movement is part
of what they're signing up for. There are pitfalls here as well:
avoiding paid editing; making sure that the fellows themselves are
diverse, etc. But these issues seem "closer to the metal" of
Wikimedia's work, i.e. "the right kinds of of problems".

There's a lot of institutional history to look back on & learn from,
from GLAM residencies to WMF's internal fellowship program which you,
Steven, went through so many years ago. I'd also encourage a close
look at Outreachy, who have done amazing work getting diverse new
contributors to join open source & open science projects. And that may
be what you mean with "try less controversial methods to improve
knowledge equity", but I feel this should be entirely about
effectiveness and mission alignment, not about avoiding controversy.

In general, I'd love to hear more from both the staff and community
members on the committee how they came to their funding decisions
(i.e. what set the successful grantees apart from the unsuccessful
ones, and what theory of change animated the decisions), and where
they'd like to see the program go in future.

Warmly,
Erik

[1] 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Knowledge_Equity_Fund_%28Round_1%29_-_Borealis_philanthropy_report.pdf
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6654SWPDLQMI5SLKSWMSJB5YNIBOGTEC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:44 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some
> of the tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that
> we can't fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own
> work, and yet fund projects that don't feel like they directly support
> other activities our movement is deploying.
>

This last point—that we can’t fund everything we directly need but are
giving funds to only tangentially related special interest groups—hits home
for me.

With the money allocated to Knowledge Equity in the last couple years, we
could have hired at least a couple more software engineers to do work like
fulfill community wishlist requests. Especially in the context that we have
had to slow growth in the overall WMF budget and hiring, this program feels
particularly absurd.

The simple fact is that this program is being pointed to within the
community (at least on English Wikipedia) as a key example of how some
believe the annual fundraising campaigns are misleading to donors and
collecting funds that go to waste. There are editors gearing up yet again
to potentially run RFCs and pick a fight, despite thoughtful, diligent work
by the fundraising team to do outreach early and work collaboratively with
the community.

It will be sad if we end up having to scale back our primary fundraising
campaign a second year in a row, particularly if it’s over one relatively
small grant program. We should have just stopped this after a first pilot
year and moved on to try less controversial methods to improve knowledge
equity.

There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it
> is, but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century,
> there was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific
> progress. Some of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to
> support also more fundamental research that did not necessarily always have
> a direct feed into their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program
> has the same vibe to me: we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to
> develop areas that we know are underserved (which may well be an
> understatement), without always having a direct connection to how that will
> feed into our projects, into our activities or communities. There is little
> doubt in my mind though, that in the long run the ecosystem will benefit
> from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our work in turn.
>
> So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to
> help society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the
> ecosystem that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors
> donating for' is equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate
> to us to help achieve the mission and trust us to make the choices that
> best serve this big picture.
>
> We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best
> situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're
> dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to
> worry about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we
> may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most
> important funder, but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am
> however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are many
> other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this is
> likely very subjective :)
>
> Warmly,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.
>>
>> But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where
>> you were saying ?we all should want?.
>>
>> I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity
>> and that probably require outside of the projects programs.
>>
>> As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic
>> discussion but I don?t find where we had it.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner <
>> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Steven,
>>>
>>> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
>>> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
>>> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
>>> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>>>
>>> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges
>>> into the project we would actually be missing so much.
>>>
>>> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
>>> Movement.
>>>
>>> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
>>> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Nadee and all, thanks for this update.

I appreciate the trend towards supporting Wikimedia fellows with this
program -- who could help their host organizations learn how to make their
work compatible with free knowledge projects.  They could also bridge our
current wikimedia communities + the sources we draw on, with the
communities working with and through these hosts.  It seems a step in that
direction to ensure that each recipient has some champions within the
current movement, through the updated selection + nomination process.

Lodewijk writes:

> given the large backlog that we're dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm
not very afraid that we'll have to worry about overcrowding in this space
for a while.
> I personally think we may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not
to be the most important funder, but we will have the chance to make a
difference.
> I am however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are
many other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this
is likely very subjective :)

This!  Also, to one of Steven's points, people working on underserved
languages and topics should certainly be able to get sources or equipment
to create media for Commons.  And direct grants in the form of modest
[student] scholarships can be beloved and culturally impactful programs for
building communities of people advancing shared goals. These are not
mutually exclusive.  I'd love to see a portfolio model of ecosystem support
where it is available at every scale from $100- to $100K+.  At which point
we could see where we feel best located to make a difference.

Humidly, SJ
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QGXXYZU46E2LDJUD4H72LBZUK4VS5WM7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[effe iets anders]

I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some of
the tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that we
can't fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own work,
and yet fund projects that don't feel like they directly support other
activities our movement is deploying.

There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it
is, but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century,
there was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific
progress. Some of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to
support also more fundamental research that did not necessarily always have
a direct feed into their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program
has the same vibe to me: we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to
develop areas that we know are underserved (which may well be an
understatement), without always having a direct connection to how that will
feed into our projects, into our activities or communities. There is little
doubt in my mind though, that in the long run the ecosystem will benefit
from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our work in turn.

So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to
help society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the
ecosystem that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors
donating for' is equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate
to us to help achieve the mission and trust us to make the choices that
best serve this big picture.

We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best
situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're
dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to
worry about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we
may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most
important funder, but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am
however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are many
other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this is
likely very subjective :)

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.
>
> But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you
> were saying ?we all should want?.
>
> I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity
> and that probably require outside of the projects programs.
>
> As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic
> discussion but I don?t find where we had it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
>> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
>> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
>> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>>
>> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges
>> into the project we would actually be missing so much.
>>
>> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
>> Movement.
>>
>> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
>> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are
>> supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia
>> Organisations.
>>
>> @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships
>> with us?
>>
>> Thanks a lot :)
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>
> Christophe,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate
> the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the
> boundary of acceptable initiatives end?
>
> For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to
> fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the
> stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering
> their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase
> the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit
> alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it
> possible for more people to edit the projects.
>
> The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are
> funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to
> support the projects.
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>> This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
>> post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Christophe Henner]

That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you were saying ?we all should want?.I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity and that probably require outside of the projects programs.As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic discussion but I don?t find where we had it.Sent from my iPhoneOn Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling  wrote:?On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner  wrote:Hi Steven,If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the project we would actually be missing so much.I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement.As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic 
 Wikimedia Organisations. @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with us?Thanks a lot :)ChristopheChristophe, Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the boundary of acceptable initiatives end? For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to m
 ake it possible for more people to edit the projects. The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to support the projects.  On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling  wrote:?This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no de
 monstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons? Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics? If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are no
 t in fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when they give us money. A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but this is not the way. On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena  wrote:Hi all,As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan goal around supporting knowledge equity by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund. Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibilit
 y into the work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the s
 econd round of 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34 AM Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>
> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into
> the project we would actually be missing so much.
>
> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
> Movement.
>
> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are
> supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia
> Organisations.
>
> @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund
> project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships
> with us?
>
> Thanks a lot :)
>
> Christophe
>

Christophe,

Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate
the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the
boundary of acceptable initiatives end?

For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight
climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of
the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time.
Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of
potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to
Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it possible for more
people to edit the projects.

The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are
funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to
support the projects.


>
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> ?
> This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
> post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected
> to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via
> committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no
> demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want
> the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing
> knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program
> is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.
>
> If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on
> underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when
> they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons?
> Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics?
>
> If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic
> privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is
> something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to
> generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice
> and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in
> fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when
> they give us money.
>
> A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how
> each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish
> our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the
> community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully
> agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia
> content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want
> the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money
> and privilege, but this is not the way.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan goal around supporting
>> knowledge equity
>> 
>> by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close
>> knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund.
>> Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year
>> 
>> of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year
>> grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the
>> work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and
>> local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work
>> of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the second round
>> of grantees
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Christophe Henner]

Hi Steven,If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the project we would actually be missing so much.I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement.As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia Organisations. @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fun
 d project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with us?Thanks a lot :)ChristopheOn Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling  wrote:?This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.If w
 e want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons? Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics? If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when they give us money. A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our mission 
 is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but this is not the way. On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena  wrote:Hi all,As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan goal around supporting knowledge equit
 y by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund. Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the second round of grantees from the Knowledge Equity Fund. This second round includes seven grantees that span fiv
 e regions, including the Fund?s first-ever grantees in Asia. This diverse group of grantees was chosen from an initial pool of 42 nominations, which were received from across the Wikimedia movement through an open survey in 2022 and 2023. Each grantee aligns with one of Fund?s five focus areas, identified to address persistent structural barriers experienced by communities of color that pre
 vent equitable access and participation in open knowledge. They are also recognized nonprofits with a proven track record of impact in their region. The grantees include:Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, Indonesia: The Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, or the Alliance of the Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN for short), is a non-profit organization based in Indonesia that works on human rights, journalism, and advocacy issues for indigenous people. Black Cultural Archives, United Kingdom: Black Cultural Archives is a Black-led archive and heritage center that preserves and gives access to the histories of African and Caribbean people in the UK. Create Caribbean Res
 earch Institute, Commonwealth of Dominica: Create Caribbean Research Institute is the first digital humanities center in the Caribbean. Criola, Brazil: Criola is a civil society organization, based in Rio de Janeiro, dedicated to advocating for 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected
to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via
committees or visibility into the work. It’s that the work had no
demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want
the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing
knowledge—it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program
is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.

If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on
underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when
they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons?
Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics?

If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic
privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is
something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to
generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice
and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in
fact our organization’s mission and what donors think they are funding when
they give us money.

A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each
grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our
mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community
and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we
should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to
reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all*
knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but
this is not the way.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As part of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Annual Plan goal around supporting
> knowledge equity
> 
> by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close
> knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund.
> Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year
> 
> of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year
> grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the
> work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and
> local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work
> of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.
>
> With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the second round of
> grantees
> 
> from the Knowledge Equity Fund. This second round includes seven grantees
> that span five regions, including the Fund’s first-ever grantees in Asia.
> This diverse group of grantees was chosen from an initial pool of 42
> nominations, which were received from across the Wikimedia movement through
> an open survey in 2022 and 2023. Each grantee aligns with one of Fund’s five
> focus areas
> ,
> identified to address persistent structural barriers experienced by
> communities of color that prevent equitable access and participation in
> open knowledge. They are also recognized nonprofits with a proven track
> record of impact in their region. The grantees include:
>
> Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, Indonesia: The Aliansi Masyarakat Adat
> Nusantara , or the Alliance of the Indigenous
> Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN for short), is a non-profit organization
> based in Indonesia that works on human rights, journalism, and advocacy
> issues for indigenous people.
>
> Black Cultural Archives, United Kingdom: Black Cultural Archives
>  is a Black-led archive and heritage
> center that preserves and gives access to the histories of African and
> Caribbean people in the UK.
>
> Create Caribbean Research Institute, Commonwealth of Dominica: Create
> Caribbean Research Institute is the
> first digital humanities center in the Caribbean.
>
> Criola, Brazil: Criola  is a civil society
> organization, based in Rio de Janeiro, dedicated to advocating for the
> rights of Black women in Brazilian society.
>
> Data for Black Lives, United States: Data for Black Lives
>  is a movement of activists, organizers, and
> scientists committed to the mission of using data to create concrete and
> measurable change in the lives of Black people.
>
> Filipino American National Historical Society,