Oh. I can speak to this, at least a little. The Wikimedia Foundation has a policy of publishing our grant applications when the grantmaking institution is okay with it. We don't do a lot of grant applications, and of the ones we do, I am guesstimating that two-thirds of the grantmakers have said it's fine with them for us to publish, and about a third have asked us not to. Some grantmaking institutions are very happy to publish, because they believe the sector as a whole benefits from transparency about how things work. (IIRC Hewlett is an example of that.)
I do not know where they get published: I'll ask. But, some of the grant we receive are unsolicited gifts, in which case there is no application, and nothing to publish. I think for example that our recent grant from the Indigo Trust in the UK is an example of that. I assume, MZ, that you're mostly interested in the Stanton grant, and I don't remember their position on this issue. I do know they're not publicity-seeking, and they don't welcome grant applications that they haven't solicited. So they might be an example of a foundation that doesn't want its agreements publicized: I don't remember. We can find out :-) Thanks, Sue On Oct 14, 2011 5:41 PM, "MZMcBride" <[email protected]> wrote: > Philippe Beaudette wrote: > > Point of clarification (and this is to help someone else answer, because > i > > don't know)... MZ, are you talking about grants such as Stanton, where > the > > WMF is the recipient, or grants such as to the chapters, where the WMF is > > the granting partner? > > I was talking about Stanton-type grants. Sorry for the confusion. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
