[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members
The other source of income for the endowment is investment earnings. On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:03 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Dear Lisa and all, > > According to Meta and the just-released WMF Advancement fourth-quarter > tuning session deck, the Endowment actually passed the $100-million mark > not this month, but three months ago – in June, before the start of this > current financial year. The Meta page e.g. says: > > The Endowment reached our initial $100 million goal in June 2021. The goal > was set as part of a ten-year plan from 2016-2026. > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment=22056029=21872920 > > This means the Endowment grew by around $40 million in the 2020/2021 > financial year alone – about as much as in the three previous years > together – based on this Meta edit by Endowment Director Amy Parker, who > stated that on June 30, 2020, the Endowment stood at $62.9 million: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment=next=20308708 > > I say "around $40 million" because if the Endowment grew from $62.9 > million on June 30, 2020, to over $100 million sometime during June, 2021, > at least $37.1 million (and probably a little more) must have been added to > it in the 2020/2021 financial year. > > Now, according to the just-released WMF Advancement fourth-quarter tuning > session deck, in the 2020/2021 financial year the Foundation raised ... > > – $154 million for the Foundation (vs. an initial target of $108 million) > – $18.9 million (vs. a target of $5 million) for the Endowment > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_fourth_quarter_2020-2021_tuning_session_-_Advancement.pdf=12 > > I've been told by WMF staff that the WMF receives two kinds of moneys for > the Endowment: > > – Some are "pass-through" donations to the Endowment. These are moneys > received by the Foundation that are passed straight on. They enter the > Endowment directly and do not appear in the Foundation's Revenue, Assets or > Expenses figures. > – Some are ordinary WMF revenue, reflected in WMF Support and Revenue > totals, which is then used to make a Foundation grant to the Endowment. > Such WMF grants to the Wikimedia Endowment are included in the Foundation's > expenses total, under Awards and Grants. My understanding was that this has > been $5 million per annum (equalling the target mentioned in the above > slide), for the past six years. > > So what are the $18.9 million for the Endowment in the tuning session > deck? Does that mean that the WMF, in the last financial year, took $172.9 > million in revenue ($154M + $18.9M) and made an $18.9 million grant to the > Endowment? > > Or are these $18.9 million pass-through gifts to the Endowment, which > won't show up in the Foundation's financial statements at all, and the > annual $5 million came on top of that, out of the $154 million? > > At any rate, given that the Endowment evidently grew by at least $37.1 > million in the last financial year, the $18.9 million mentioned in the > tuning session deck are about $20 million short. Where did the other money > come from, given that it seems to have been so much more than in previous > years? > > Were there any particularly large gifts from companies or foundations? The > only major gift mentioned on the Meta page is a $1 million gift from Amazon. > > I am sorry for the many questions, and apologise in advance for any errors > or misunderstandings on my part, but I find the Endowment set-up completely > impenetrable and non-transparent. > > There is no Form 990 documentation, because the Foundation says on the > Form 990 it does not have any Endowment assets, and there are no timely > updates or audited financial statements about money going into the > Endowment or coming out of it. I wish this were different. > > I will copy these questions to the Endowment talk page as well. > > Regards, > Andreas > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:58 PM Lisa Gruwell > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Today I am very happy to announce the Wikimedia Endowment [1] has reached >> its initial $100 million goal. The Endowment was started in 2016 as a >> permanent >> fund to support the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity [2]. >> >> My deep gratitude goes out to our generous donors, the Endowment board, >> Foundation staff, and volunteers who made this possible. I am grateful >> to the future-focused community members who began considering the idea of >> an endowment years ago, to those who participated in community >> conversations on Meta [3] to help us think through initial decisions >> regarding its launch, and to all contributors whose work creating >> Wikimedia content has brought free knowledge to the world. >> >> As part of this milestone, the Wikimedia Endowment Board has also >> welcomed three new members: Phoebe Ayers, Patricio Lorente, and Doron >> Weber, bringing in important expertise of the Wikimedia movement and >> priorities as well as in
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members
Dear Lisa and all, According to Meta and the just-released WMF Advancement fourth-quarter tuning session deck, the Endowment actually passed the $100-million mark not this month, but three months ago – in June, before the start of this current financial year. The Meta page e.g. says: The Endowment reached our initial $100 million goal in June 2021. The goal was set as part of a ten-year plan from 2016-2026. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment=22056029=21872920 This means the Endowment grew by around $40 million in the 2020/2021 financial year alone – about as much as in the three previous years together – based on this Meta edit by Endowment Director Amy Parker, who stated that on June 30, 2020, the Endowment stood at $62.9 million: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment=next=20308708 I say "around $40 million" because if the Endowment grew from $62.9 million on June 30, 2020, to over $100 million sometime during June, 2021, at least $37.1 million (and probably a little more) must have been added to it in the 2020/2021 financial year. Now, according to the just-released WMF Advancement fourth-quarter tuning session deck, in the 2020/2021 financial year the Foundation raised ... – $154 million for the Foundation (vs. an initial target of $108 million) – $18.9 million (vs. a target of $5 million) for the Endowment https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_fourth_quarter_2020-2021_tuning_session_-_Advancement.pdf=12 I've been told by WMF staff that the WMF receives two kinds of moneys for the Endowment: – Some are "pass-through" donations to the Endowment. These are moneys received by the Foundation that are passed straight on. They enter the Endowment directly and do not appear in the Foundation's Revenue, Assets or Expenses figures. – Some are ordinary WMF revenue, reflected in WMF Support and Revenue totals, which is then used to make a Foundation grant to the Endowment. Such WMF grants to the Wikimedia Endowment are included in the Foundation's expenses total, under Awards and Grants. My understanding was that this has been $5 million per annum (equalling the target mentioned in the above slide), for the past six years. So what are the $18.9 million for the Endowment in the tuning session deck? Does that mean that the WMF, in the last financial year, took $172.9 million in revenue ($154M + $18.9M) and made an $18.9 million grant to the Endowment? Or are these $18.9 million pass-through gifts to the Endowment, which won't show up in the Foundation's financial statements at all, and the annual $5 million came on top of that, out of the $154 million? At any rate, given that the Endowment evidently grew by at least $37.1 million in the last financial year, the $18.9 million mentioned in the tuning session deck are about $20 million short. Where did the other money come from, given that it seems to have been so much more than in previous years? Were there any particularly large gifts from companies or foundations? The only major gift mentioned on the Meta page is a $1 million gift from Amazon. I am sorry for the many questions, and apologise in advance for any errors or misunderstandings on my part, but I find the Endowment set-up completely impenetrable and non-transparent. There is no Form 990 documentation, because the Foundation says on the Form 990 it does not have any Endowment assets, and there are no timely updates or audited financial statements about money going into the Endowment or coming out of it. I wish this were different. I will copy these questions to the Endowment talk page as well. Regards, Andreas On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:58 PM Lisa Gruwell wrote: > Dear all, > > Today I am very happy to announce the Wikimedia Endowment [1] has reached > its initial $100 million goal. The Endowment was started in 2016 as a > permanent > fund to support the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity [2]. > > My deep gratitude goes out to our generous donors, the Endowment board, > Foundation staff, and volunteers who made this possible. I am grateful to > the future-focused community members who began considering the idea of an > endowment years ago, to those who participated in community conversations > on Meta [3] to help us think through initial decisions regarding its > launch, and to all contributors whose work creating Wikimedia content has > brought free knowledge to the world. > > As part of this milestone, the Wikimedia Endowment Board has also welcomed > three new members: Phoebe Ayers, Patricio Lorente, and Doron Weber, > bringing in important expertise of the Wikimedia movement and priorities as > well as in nonprofit management. > > You can read more about this milestone, what it means for the movement, > and what comes next for the Endowment on Diff [4] and the Endowment Meta > page [5]. We invite you to share any questions or feedback on the Endowment > talk page [6]. > > Thank you to
[Wikimedia-l] Re: calculating autoconfirmed age and edit count
As a long-time cross-platform user, I have been checking user rights for years. These flag systems have strong differences among platforms. They originate from lack of perspective, sometimes.. some long-time users have no interest in analyzing them, there is a lack of literacy about flag systems that is quite critical due to language barrier or limited interest in metrics. Such users often do not grasp differences of similar names in different scenarios. I have witnessed long-time users who "dominate" many of these local discussions mixing up concepts... when you have no strong clue how validation of whole page version, single edit or users' edit actually work, or can work... and how different or specific namespaces can also exist with different protection rights, you just follow some long-term local "prejudice" that are more or less different among platforms. Or simply, that some very active users like or dislike. Personally, I am in favor of a standard universal autoconfirmed flag and more flexible project-oriented autopatrolled flag (that is, mostly manually given) or "extended autoconfirmed" flag (that is, mostly based on automatic metrics) adapted to a specific platform. Please notice how I am trying to use reasonable definitions from different local scenarios, but they are not really defined anywhere IMHO. For the universal autoconfirmed flag, the 4 days and 10 edits threshold are IMHO correct for a "limbo" before getting some basic user right. it's practical to have them always like that by default. I enter with the SUL system with my account on a new platform, and by default I know to get that metric for some basic functionalities. 4 days is "a little bit more than a week end" or "half a week" for example, not too long or not too short. A. Il lunedì 4 ottobre 2021, 18:11:03 CEST, Risker ha scritto: There's no evidence behind the majority of policies of any Wikimedia project, so I don't think that's really an expectation. As to enwiki, it appears that the 4-day threshold was in place well before 2008, but the 10-edit threshold was added in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_Proposal/Poll The related "bugzilla" (now phabricator) ticket is here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T16191 It was pretty clearly the position of Brion, the lead developer at the time, that even making the change from 0 to 10 edits would be essentially inconsequential; however, he did make that change. (Most of that ticket is an argument that the Enwiki community wanted a 7 day/20 edit threshold, and complaining that it wasn't applied.) My sense is that adding the edit requirements actually did make a difference, although not really because it resulted in vandalism/trolling accounts being left unused. It made them easier to spot. I believe they also reduced the move vandalism that we were experiencing at a ridiculous rate at the time. I'm sure you'd be able to find similar discussions at other projects; I just remember this one because I participated in it. Risker/Anne On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 06:19, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: I've been involved in this lengthy circular debate: What should be the autoconfirmed age and article count in the Hebrew Wikipedia? See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T243076 if you curious about this particular one, but I'd love to ask a more global question: How were these numbers calculated originally? For the account age, the default is four days, or five or seven days for a few wikis. For the edit count, the default is zero, but several wikis have 5, 10, 25, or 50. (See https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for "wgAutoConfirmAge" and "wgAutoConfirmCount".) Some wikis have groups, usually called "extended confirmed", and with higher counts; for example, 500 edits in English and some other languages (search for wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit on the same page). So, how did the people arrive at these numbers? Why is it four days by default? Is it all just intuition and guesses, or was there any research behind it? Is it *good* that four days is the default for everyone, until someone bothers to update it (most wikis don't)? Or is it just a coincidence that was defined for a certain wiki and applied elsewhere? And when it's updated, why is it updated to one number and not some other? While I am an ardent supporter of the "anyone can edit" principle, it makes general sense to have some restrictions based on edit count, account age, and perhaps other parameters. But HOW are they calculated? Would it make sense to anyone to start making some calculations around it and optimize the number for wikis of different sizes? I'd imagine that there could be a calculation that says "in a given wiki, the chance of being reverted or blocked goes down after X days and X edits", and this number is probably different for every wiki (maybe there already is such a
[Wikimedia-l] Re: calculating autoconfirmed age and edit count
There's no evidence behind the majority of policies of any Wikimedia project, so I don't think that's really an expectation. As to enwiki, it appears that the 4-day threshold was in place well before 2008, but the 10-edit threshold was added in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_Proposal/Poll The related "bugzilla" (now phabricator) ticket is here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T16191 It was pretty clearly the position of Brion, the lead developer at the time, that even making the change from 0 to 10 edits would be essentially inconsequential; however, he did make that change. (Most of that ticket is an argument that the Enwiki community wanted a 7 day/20 edit threshold, and complaining that it wasn't applied.) My sense is that adding the edit requirements actually did make a difference, although not really because it resulted in vandalism/trolling accounts being left unused. It made them easier to spot. I believe they also reduced the move vandalism that we were experiencing at a ridiculous rate at the time. I'm sure you'd be able to find similar discussions at other projects; I just remember this one because I participated in it. Risker/Anne On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 06:19, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > I've been involved in this lengthy circular debate: What should be the > autoconfirmed age and article count in the Hebrew Wikipedia? See > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T243076 if you curious about this > particular one, but I'd love to ask a more global question: > > How were these numbers calculated originally? > > For the account age, the default is four days, or five or seven days for a > few wikis. > > For the edit count, the default is zero, but several wikis have 5, 10, 25, > or 50. > > (See > https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php > and search for "wgAutoConfirmAge" and "wgAutoConfirmCount".) > > Some wikis have groups, usually called "extended confirmed", and with > higher counts; for example, 500 edits in English and some other languages > (search for wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit on the same page). > > So, how did the people arrive at these numbers? Why is it four days by > default? Is it all just intuition and guesses, or was there any research > behind it? > > Is it *good* that four days is the default for everyone, until someone > bothers to update it (most wikis don't)? Or is it just a coincidence that > was defined for a certain wiki and applied elsewhere? And when it's > updated, why is it updated to one number and not some other? > > While I am an ardent supporter of the "anyone can edit" principle, it > makes general sense to have some restrictions based on edit count, account > age, and perhaps other parameters. But HOW are they calculated? Would it > make sense to anyone to start making some calculations around it and > optimize the number for wikis of different sizes? > > I'd imagine that there could be a calculation that says "in a given wiki, > the chance of being reverted or blocked goes down after X days and X > edits", and this number is probably different for every wiki (maybe there > already is such a calculation somewhere). This could possibly be a starting > point for a good calculation of a threshold; it wouldn't be perfect, > because in some wikis it can perpetuate community practices which may be > biased against new editors, but at least it's based on data and not on > guesses. > > In the English Wikipedia 2016 discussion[1] about adding the "extended > confirmed" group, I found one comment, by User:Opabinia regalis, which > corresponds to my thinking on the topic: "The thresholds being used for > these restrictions are essentially arbitrary, and we don't have a strong > evidence base yet that they are well-chosen." > > Perhaps after twenty years we could start actually calculating these > thresholds, and not just come up with arbitrary numbers? Or is there really > no demand for smart and research-based decisions about these thresholds? > > [1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_129#New_usergroup_with_autopromotion_to_implement_arbitration_%2230-500%22_bans_as_a_page_protection > > -- > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > “We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore > ___ > 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/ONYNFNACK34LQLTBRHI6M56LBJHFBSKW/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
[Wikimedia-l] calculating autoconfirmed age and edit count
I've been involved in this lengthy circular debate: What should be the autoconfirmed age and article count in the Hebrew Wikipedia? See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T243076 if you curious about this particular one, but I'd love to ask a more global question: How were these numbers calculated originally? For the account age, the default is four days, or five or seven days for a few wikis. For the edit count, the default is zero, but several wikis have 5, 10, 25, or 50. (See https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for "wgAutoConfirmAge" and "wgAutoConfirmCount".) Some wikis have groups, usually called "extended confirmed", and with higher counts; for example, 500 edits in English and some other languages (search for wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit on the same page). So, how did the people arrive at these numbers? Why is it four days by default? Is it all just intuition and guesses, or was there any research behind it? Is it *good* that four days is the default for everyone, until someone bothers to update it (most wikis don't)? Or is it just a coincidence that was defined for a certain wiki and applied elsewhere? And when it's updated, why is it updated to one number and not some other? While I am an ardent supporter of the "anyone can edit" principle, it makes general sense to have some restrictions based on edit count, account age, and perhaps other parameters. But HOW are they calculated? Would it make sense to anyone to start making some calculations around it and optimize the number for wikis of different sizes? I'd imagine that there could be a calculation that says "in a given wiki, the chance of being reverted or blocked goes down after X days and X edits", and this number is probably different for every wiki (maybe there already is such a calculation somewhere). This could possibly be a starting point for a good calculation of a threshold; it wouldn't be perfect, because in some wikis it can perpetuate community practices which may be biased against new editors, but at least it's based on data and not on guesses. In the English Wikipedia 2016 discussion[1] about adding the "extended confirmed" group, I found one comment, by User:Opabinia regalis, which corresponds to my thinking on the topic: "The thresholds being used for these restrictions are essentially arbitrary, and we don't have a strong evidence base yet that they are well-chosen." Perhaps after twenty years we could start actually calculating these thresholds, and not just come up with arbitrary numbers? Or is there really no demand for smart and research-based decisions about these thresholds? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_129#New_usergroup_with_autopromotion_to_implement_arbitration_%2230-500%22_bans_as_a_page_protection -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore ___ 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/ONYNFNACK34LQLTBRHI6M56LBJHFBSKW/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
