Hoi,
I respectfully totally disagree.
My response you find on my blog..
Thanks,
GerardM
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/05/wikimedia-needs-your-support-because.html
On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 16:49, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi again, Julia and Pats,
>
> I've written an article for The Daily Dot, based on our conversations on
> Meta. You can find the article here:
>
> https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/
>
> In response to my questions on Talk:Wikimedia Endowment, Pats pointed me
> to the FAQ at
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions#Why_is_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_increasing_its_cash_and_investment_balance
> ?
>
> and a link to that FAQ is included in the article's penultimate paragraph
> ("official answer"). If you would like to add any further comment to the
> article, please let us know, and we'll be happy to add it!
>
> To anyone who thinks the article raises an important issue about Wikimedia
> fundraising, I'd be grateful if you shared it online.
>
> Best wishes,
> Andreas Kolbe
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 8:30 PM Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Julia,
>>
>> That's great. One other question:
>>
>> Looking at the first quarter Advancement tuning session[1], the July 2020
>> – June 2021 fiscal year started out with a WMF fundraising year goal of
>> $108 million (+$5 million for the Endowment).
>>
>> $108 million is also the total Expense figure in the 2020/2021 annual
>> plan.[2]
>>
>> By the time of the second quarter tuning session[3], the WMF year goal
>> had increased by $17 million to $125 million.
>>
>> And according to that same page[3] the WMF had almost met that goal at
>> the end of the second quarter, standing at $124 million (a little over,
>> actually, summing the component amounts).
>>
>> The Endowment had taken $17.5 million by the end of the second quarter,
>> $12.5 million above its $5 million target.[3]
>>
>> I am reading this correctly, aren't I?
>>
>> Now, according to the public fundraising data Excel file[4], the WMF has
>> taken $11.5 million in the calendar year to date (i.e. in the fiscal year's
>> third and fourth quarters running from January to June 2021).
>>
>> So, if you were at $124 million by the end of December, and have taken
>> another $11.5 million since, would it be correct to conclude that the WMF
>> (excluding the endowment) is now at $135.5 million, i.e. $27.5 million
>> above the expense figure in the annual plan, and $10.5 million above the
>> revised, higher year goal?
>>
>> If so, why are you currently fundraising in pandemic-stricken Latin
>> America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay)?
>>
>> The WMF is a Foundation staffed by people living for the most part in the
>> world's richest countries. For example, it takes 200,000 people in India
>> donating the suggested 150 Rupees ($2) just to pay the annual compensation
>> of the WMF CEO.
>>
>> Based on the above figures, it seems the WMF has already taken tens of
>> millions more this fiscal year than it spent. And yet it's still
>> fundraising in countries that have been hit far worse by the pandemic than
>> the US and Europe. In Brazil the pandemic has been a disaster. Uruguay
>> currently has coronavirus case rates that are nearly 7 times higher per
>> capita than in the US.[5] In Argentina, they are 4 times higher than in the
>> US. In Brazil, Colombia and Chile, 2 to 3 times higher. In Peru, 1.5 times
>> higher.
>>
>> These are countries with weak economies that have suffered enormously,
>> whose social security systems are far less well equipped to help people
>> deal with this tragedy.
>>
>> And we're asking them for money? Is this really who we want to be?
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_first_quarter_2020-2021_tuning_session_-_Advancement.pdf&page=9
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2020-2021
>> [3]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_second_quarter_2020-2021_tuning_session_-_Advancement.pdf&page=11
>> [4] https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv
>> [5]
>> https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/
>>
>> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:52 AM Julia Brungs <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:39 AM Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:19 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) <[email protected]>
>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have "been there" for a long time. I pray that one day I will see a
>>>> WMF fundraising banner that does not threaten that the lights will go out,
>>>> or Wikipedia will lose its independence and be taken over by ... who
>>>> exactly?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (I'll ignore your nonsenscial remark about the WMF somehow profiting
>>>>> from this.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, let's look at the video[4] and let's see what's missing. In the
>>>> video, Noah comments on the fundraising banners which he says used to
>>>> irritate him much. But then, reflecting on the cost of a traditional
>>>> encyclopaedia set, he adds,
>>>>
>>>> "I wonder if that has been part of the reason you’ve been so successful
>>>> in remaining neutral. When you don’t have profits, you are now in a space
>>>> where you don’t try to generate profits. The downside of it means you often
>>>> struggle to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running. So, two
>>>> parts. One, is that true and how does it affect you, and then two, Why
>>>> would you make this thing if it’s not going to make you money, why, if it’s
>>>> going to be a non-profit?"
>>>>
>>>> Katherine[5] makes no effort to dispel the idea that the WMF "often
>>>> struggles to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running", but talks
>>>> at length about how the WMF doesn't try to sell you anything and doesn't
>>>> have ads.
>>>>
>>>> I am reminded of a Middle Eastern parable:[6]
>>>>
>>>> *Nasrudin used to take his donkey across a frontier every day, with the
>>>> panniers loaded with straw. Since he admitted to being a smuggler when he
>>>> trudged home every night, the frontier guards searched him again and again.
>>>> They searched his person, sifted the straw, steeped it in water, even
>>>> burned it from time to time. Meanwhile he was becoming visibly more and
>>>> more prosperous. *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Then he retired and went to live in another country. Here one of the
>>>> customs offices met him, years later. *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *“You can tell me now, Nasrudin,” he said. “Whatever *was* it that you
>>>> were smuggling, when we could never catch you out?” *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *“Donkeys,” said Nasrudin.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you think it involves a drastic increase in financial and auditing
>>>> overhead for the WMF to know how much money it has in its Endowment?
>>>> Surely, the Tides Foundation knows how much money enters its accounts, just
>>>> like any bank can give you the balance of your account any day.
>>>>
>>>> This said, your suggestion to note on the page when the blue bar was
>>>> last updated is a practical and sensible one, regardless of how often the
>>>> bar is updated.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124621.html
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Banner_solicitando_doações_(20abr2021)
>>>>
>>>> [4] https://youtu.be/MKdn1s9Sjfo?t=270
>>>> [5] Katherine's annual compensation alone was about $400,000,
>>>> equivalent to 200,000 Indian readers donating the suggested 150 Rupees
>>>> [6] Idries Shah, The Sufis, p. 59
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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: [email protected]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
