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 <jayen...@gmail.com> 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 >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/endowment> (*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% >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/wikilibrium#Timeline_of_funds_distribution>?*), >> 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 on this, at least, SJ! It's not right to > pay millions into a Collective Action Fund set up for your own benefit, and > then declare it to the public as an expense – without so much as an > explanation in the FAQ. > > If you could help to make that FAQ update (and change to the format of > future financial statements) happen, that would be great! > > Wikilove, > Andreas > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment > [2] > https://www.freepressjournal.in/technology/is-wikipedia-dying-the-online-encyclopedia-seeks-donation-from-users > [3] https://youtu.be/MKdn1s9Sjfo?t=270 > [4] > https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Banner_solicitando_doações_(20abr2021) > > >> >> 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >
_______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
