On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs <[email protected]>: >> Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two >> stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Charity Navigator as >> "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities >> in its Cause". The Charity Navigator site further states: > > The WMF is unique in being so massively volunteer driven. The WMF > exists to run the servers and handle the admin, almost everything else > is done by volunteers and doesn't appear on the income statement. It's > inevitable that the WMF will spend a lot of its money on admin. If you > include volunteer time on the income statement, even at a nominal rate > of $1/hr or something, then we would be spending almost all our > resources on programmes.
The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross). However, the "Foundation as professionally organized core around which a much larger volunteer activity rotates" is fairly rare. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
