[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The lack of transparency around the Wikimedia Endowment is reaching new
levels. A week ago, Jayde Antonio posted the minutes for the January 2023
Endowment board meeting on Meta:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment/Meetings/January_19,_2023

These minutes are an exercise in non-communication. You will look in vain
for any *information* in these minutes telling you anything you didn't know
before. For example, we were already told back in February 2023

that
the meeting covered the following agenda items:

6:25 - 6:55 pm UTC: Fundraising Update (Board Chair, Jimmy Wales and
Endowment Director, Amy Parker)

   - FY22-23 year to date update
   - Campaign strategy


So, what do we know now that the actual board-approved minutes have been
posted? All the minutes now say is this:


   - *Fundraising Update* (Amy Parker)
  - FY22-23 year to date update
  - Presentation of campaign strategy


This is actually *less* information than we were given in February. In
February we were at least told at what *time* these dicussions were held:
from "6:25 - 6:55 pm UTC".

As for what Amy actually said: nothing.

The Endowment was set up in early 2016. The community and the wider public
have never seen an audited financial statement. The last time we were told
anything at all about the status of the Endowment was in the January 2022
meeting minutes

.

Could we please have an explanation for this complete lack of transparency?

Regards,
Andreas

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:39 PM Jaime Villagomez 
wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> We have posted an update on the Endowment talk page [
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Response_to_off-wiki_question_on_mailing_list_about_timeline_for_the_move_of_Endowment_assets_out_of_Tides
> ].
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jaime
>
> Jaime Villagomez
>
> Chief Financial Officer
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
> *
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 8:59 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its
>> new, transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
>> Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]
>>
>> Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
>> 2021:[2]
>>
>> "We are in the process of establishing a new home for the endowment in a
>> stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity. *We will move the endowment in its
>> entirety to this new entity once the new charity receives its IRS 501(c)(3)
>> determination letter.*"
>>
>> Said determination letter was received[3] in late June 2022 and
>> announced[4] in late October 2022.
>>
>> Today, more than a year on, the Wikimedia Endowment website still says[5]
>> that the money – an undisclosed nine-figure sum – is with the Tides
>> Foundation. Unlike a standalone 501(c)(3), Tides publishes no audited
>> accounts for the Endowment and releases no figures for the Endowment fund's
>> revenue and expenses.
>>
>> The WMF has been talking[6] about this move to a transparent standalone
>> 501(c)(3) since 2017.
>>
>> When will the move take place?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes
>> and
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
>> [3]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
>> [4]
>> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/
>> [5] https://wikimediaendowment.org/#contact and https://archive.ph/CjcvW
>> [6]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment=16507295=16503857
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:12 PM Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> > It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
>>> deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
>>> > Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
>>> their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
>>> either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
>>> years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
>>> obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
>>> and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
>>> aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
>>> "non-accountability".
>>>
>>> The facts are public, the failure 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Jaime for this response and for the commitment on making a
further update next quarter.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 9:39 AM Jaime Villagomez 
wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> We have posted an update on the Endowment talk page [
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Response_to_off-wiki_question_on_mailing_list_about_timeline_for_the_move_of_Endowment_assets_out_of_Tides
> ].
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jaime
>
> Jaime Villagomez
>
> Chief Financial Officer
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
> *
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 8:59 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its
>> new, transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
>> Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]
>>
>> Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
>> 2021:[2]
>>
>> "We are in the process of establishing a new home for the endowment in a
>> stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity. *We will move the endowment in its
>> entirety to this new entity once the new charity receives its IRS 501(c)(3)
>> determination letter.*"
>>
>> Said determination letter was received[3] in late June 2022 and
>> announced[4] in late October 2022.
>>
>> Today, more than a year on, the Wikimedia Endowment website still says[5]
>> that the money – an undisclosed nine-figure sum – is with the Tides
>> Foundation. Unlike a standalone 501(c)(3), Tides publishes no audited
>> accounts for the Endowment and releases no figures for the Endowment fund's
>> revenue and expenses.
>>
>> The WMF has been talking[6] about this move to a transparent standalone
>> 501(c)(3) since 2017.
>>
>> When will the move take place?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes
>> and
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
>> [3]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
>> [4]
>> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/
>> [5] https://wikimediaendowment.org/#contact and https://archive.ph/CjcvW
>> [6]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment=16507295=16503857
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:12 PM Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> > It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
>>> deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
>>> > Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
>>> their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
>>> either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
>>> years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
>>> obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
>>> and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
>>> aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
>>> "non-accountability".
>>>
>>> The facts are public, the failure to be transparent or accountable
>>> with many millions of dollars is a public failure. The WMF has damaged
>>> the reputation of the "Endowment Fund" within its own community of
>>> volunteers* and employees, and now risks a loss of public trust in its
>>> own claims to its donors and in the media for a declared value of
>>> transparency. Let's debunk the myth, as this is now playing pass the
>>> parcel with millions of dollars of donated charitable funds, the WMF
>>> can no longer have any credible claim to be transparent. This does not
>>> pass the sniff test, it wouldn't for any other not for profit or
>>> organization that claims to have charitable values or world leading
>>> ethics but chooses to hide millions of dollars from correct scrutiny.
>>>
>>> * Really, do volunteers believe the Endowment Fund is or has done the
>>> things it was set up to do? Do we volunteers have reason to be
>>> confident that in 10 or 30 years time, these monies will be spent on
>>> the original objectives that were claimed for it by Jimmy Wales and
>>> others? I no longer have reason to be confidence in these purposes or
>>> that this very large sum of money will not be chipped away by "agents"
>>> or the careful re-spinning of what the words in the Endowment
>>> incorporation mean by the unelected board of trustees that are
>>> responsible for it.
>>>
>>> As a polite observation on "take a deep breath", I would never say
>>> that to any member of my staff or a customer with a complaint unless I
>>> wanted them to walk out or put the phone down 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Jaime Villagomez]

Hello Everyone,

We have posted an update on the Endowment talk page [
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Response_to_off-wiki_question_on_mailing_list_about_timeline_for_the_move_of_Endowment_assets_out_of_Tides
].

Best Regards,

Jaime

Jaime Villagomez

Chief Financial Officer

Wikimedia Foundation 

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
*


On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 8:59 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its
> new, transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
> Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]
>
> Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
> 2021:[2]
>
> "We are in the process of establishing a new home for the endowment in a
> stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity. *We will move the endowment in its
> entirety to this new entity once the new charity receives its IRS 501(c)(3)
> determination letter.*"
>
> Said determination letter was received[3] in late June 2022 and
> announced[4] in late October 2022.
>
> Today, more than a year on, the Wikimedia Endowment website still says[5]
> that the money – an undisclosed nine-figure sum – is with the Tides
> Foundation. Unlike a standalone 501(c)(3), Tides publishes no audited
> accounts for the Endowment and releases no figures for the Endowment fund's
> revenue and expenses.
>
> The WMF has been talking[6] about this move to a transparent standalone
> 501(c)(3) since 2017.
>
> When will the move take place?
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes
> and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
> [4]
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/
> [5] https://wikimediaendowment.org/#contact and https://archive.ph/CjcvW
> [6]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment=16507295=16503857
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:12 PM Lane Chance  wrote:
>
>> ...
>> > It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
>> deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
>> > Risker/Anne
>>
>> The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
>> their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
>> either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
>> years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
>> obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
>> and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
>> aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
>> "non-accountability".
>>
>> The facts are public, the failure to be transparent or accountable
>> with many millions of dollars is a public failure. The WMF has damaged
>> the reputation of the "Endowment Fund" within its own community of
>> volunteers* and employees, and now risks a loss of public trust in its
>> own claims to its donors and in the media for a declared value of
>> transparency. Let's debunk the myth, as this is now playing pass the
>> parcel with millions of dollars of donated charitable funds, the WMF
>> can no longer have any credible claim to be transparent. This does not
>> pass the sniff test, it wouldn't for any other not for profit or
>> organization that claims to have charitable values or world leading
>> ethics but chooses to hide millions of dollars from correct scrutiny.
>>
>> * Really, do volunteers believe the Endowment Fund is or has done the
>> things it was set up to do? Do we volunteers have reason to be
>> confident that in 10 or 30 years time, these monies will be spent on
>> the original objectives that were claimed for it by Jimmy Wales and
>> others? I no longer have reason to be confidence in these purposes or
>> that this very large sum of money will not be chipped away by "agents"
>> or the careful re-spinning of what the words in the Endowment
>> incorporation mean by the unelected board of trustees that are
>> responsible for it.
>>
>> As a polite observation on "take a deep breath", I would never say
>> that to any member of my staff or a customer with a complaint unless I
>> wanted them to walk out or put the phone down on me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lane
>> ___
>> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its new,
transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]

Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
2021:[2]

"We are in the process of establishing a new home for the endowment in a
stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity. *We will move the endowment in its
entirety to this new entity once the new charity receives its IRS 501(c)(3)
determination letter.*"

Said determination letter was received[3] in late June 2022 and
announced[4] in late October 2022.

Today, more than a year on, the Wikimedia Endowment website still says[5]
that the money – an undisclosed nine-figure sum – is with the Tides
Foundation. Unlike a standalone 501(c)(3), Tides publishes no audited
accounts for the Endowment and releases no figures for the Endowment fund's
revenue and expenses.

The WMF has been talking[6] about this move to a transparent standalone
501(c)(3) since 2017.

When will the move take place?

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
[4]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/
[5] https://wikimediaendowment.org/#contact and https://archive.ph/CjcvW
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment=16507295=16503857


On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:12 PM Lane Chance  wrote:

> ...
> > It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
> deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
> > Risker/Anne
>
> The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
> their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
> either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
> years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
> obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
> and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
> aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
> "non-accountability".
>
> The facts are public, the failure to be transparent or accountable
> with many millions of dollars is a public failure. The WMF has damaged
> the reputation of the "Endowment Fund" within its own community of
> volunteers* and employees, and now risks a loss of public trust in its
> own claims to its donors and in the media for a declared value of
> transparency. Let's debunk the myth, as this is now playing pass the
> parcel with millions of dollars of donated charitable funds, the WMF
> can no longer have any credible claim to be transparent. This does not
> pass the sniff test, it wouldn't for any other not for profit or
> organization that claims to have charitable values or world leading
> ethics but chooses to hide millions of dollars from correct scrutiny.
>
> * Really, do volunteers believe the Endowment Fund is or has done the
> things it was set up to do? Do we volunteers have reason to be
> confident that in 10 or 30 years time, these monies will be spent on
> the original objectives that were claimed for it by Jimmy Wales and
> others? I no longer have reason to be confidence in these purposes or
> that this very large sum of money will not be chipped away by "agents"
> or the careful re-spinning of what the words in the Endowment
> incorporation mean by the unelected board of trustees that are
> responsible for it.
>
> As a polite observation on "take a deep breath", I would never say
> that to any member of my staff or a customer with a complaint unless I
> wanted them to walk out or put the phone down on me.
>
> Thanks,
> Lane
> ___
> 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/M7NFIYBISPN54CF4CZ5QYKBSIONZ3PKR/
> 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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AYE7FIW6HSZI4H4QDUO5GN4X6V4RSMIY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Lane Chance]

...
> It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a deliberate 
> and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
> Risker/Anne

The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
"non-accountability".

The facts are public, the failure to be transparent or accountable
with many millions of dollars is a public failure. The WMF has damaged
the reputation of the "Endowment Fund" within its own community of
volunteers* and employees, and now risks a loss of public trust in its
own claims to its donors and in the media for a declared value of
transparency. Let's debunk the myth, as this is now playing pass the
parcel with millions of dollars of donated charitable funds, the WMF
can no longer have any credible claim to be transparent. This does not
pass the sniff test, it wouldn't for any other not for profit or
organization that claims to have charitable values or world leading
ethics but chooses to hide millions of dollars from correct scrutiny.

* Really, do volunteers believe the Endowment Fund is or has done the
things it was set up to do? Do we volunteers have reason to be
confident that in 10 or 30 years time, these monies will be spent on
the original objectives that were claimed for it by Jimmy Wales and
others? I no longer have reason to be confidence in these purposes or
that this very large sum of money will not be chipped away by "agents"
or the careful re-spinning of what the words in the Endowment
incorporation mean by the unelected board of trustees that are
responsible for it.

As a polite observation on "take a deep breath", I would never say
that to any member of my staff or a customer with a complaint unless I
wanted them to walk out or put the phone down on me.

Thanks,
Lane
___
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/M7NFIYBISPN54CF4CZ5QYKBSIONZ3PKR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Anne,

It's now transpired that the WMF actually received IRS approval for the new
non-profit organisation intended to take over the Endowment over eight
months ago, in June 2022.[1] The October 2022 announcement that approval
had been received was made four months after the fact.

Two years ago, in April 2021, we were told that the Foundation would "move
the endowment in its entirety to this new entity once the new charity
receives its IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter".[2] Yet even with the
letter received last summer we still seem to be no nearer to having our
$100 million Endowment in the hands of a transparent organisation that
publishes audited statements of the Endowment's assets, revenue and
expenditure, along with a Form 990. We still don't have a date for when the
money will be transferred from Tides. We're merely told it will still take
"months".

So it looks like we will have had another full year of millions of dollars
of donations bypassing the Wikimedia Foundation's books.

None of this would be an issue if the Foundation had released audited
financial statements for the Endowment during the past seven years. But all
we've ever had is promises of transparency in the future, and requests for
more money now.

Remember, Anne, all donations to the Endowment are treated as a
"pass-through", so "they are not reflected on the Wikimedia Foundation's
financials as revenue or net assets".[2] That means they're essentially
invisible to us, because the Tides Foundation doesn't publish separate
financial statements for the Wikimedia Endowment showing us how much money
has come in and how much has gone out.

Moreover, all planned gifts willed to the Wikimedia Foundation have also
been going to the Endowment for some time now, wherever the terms of the
will allow.[3] I am not sure whether that means that these planned gifts
are now also processed as "pass-throughs". I suspect they are. If so, that
means that these amounts flowing into the Endowment have also become
invisible.

Am I mistaken on any of the above? If not, are you really satisfied with
that degree of transparency over a fund reportedly holding more than 100
million dollars of donations? Would you accept such conduct from any
Wikimedia chapter?

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
[3]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Remit_of_Planned_Gifts_to_the_Wikimedia_Endowment



On Thursday, March 2, 2023, Risker  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 09:26,  wrote:
>>
>> Why didn't WMF do the groundwork for transferring the endowment funds
from Tides to a WMF 501(c)3 given that there were over SIX long years to
make such plans?
>>
>> Why does WMF STILL not know how to effect this transfer or when it will
be completed, despite the passage of six months?
>
> The timeline of when the IRS would grant 501(c)3 status was completely
out of the control of the WMF; they could make the application in a timely
way, but they could not be certain at what point this status would be
granted.  I think we all recognize this; the IRS is a governmental
organization whose decision-making process and timeline are completely
outside of the control of the WMF, Wikipedia, or any other third party.
While the WMF could reasonably expect a positive decision, it had no way of
being certain when that decision would come.
> I have little doubt that many of the same people complaining of how long
it is taking to move things around *now* would also complain if staff had
been hired for an entity that didn't yet exist, based on the prospect that
it would eventually exist. Since the 501(c)3 didn't yet exist, all of its
staffing costs would have come out of the WMF budget at the same time that
other areas were being cut back in relation to lower-than-expected
fundraising.  I've got a lot more liberal a view of WMF spending than many
others in this thread, and even I think that would have been a really poor
use of limited resources.
>
> It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
___
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/IL3765TO7GJWAFJO6RLHHHLI5Z5H7BPQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Risker]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 09:26,  wrote:

>
> Why didn't WMF do the groundwork for transferring the endowment funds from
> Tides to a WMF 501(c)3 given that there were over SIX long years to make
> such plans?
>
> Why does WMF STILL not know how to effect this transfer or when it will be
> completed, despite the passage of six months?
>

The timeline of when the IRS would grant 501(c)3 status was completely out
of the control of the WMF; they could make the application in a timely way,
but they could not be certain at what point this status would be granted.
I think we all recognize this; the IRS is a governmental organization whose
decision-making process and timeline are completely outside of the control
of the WMF, Wikipedia, or any other third party.  While the WMF could
reasonably expect a positive decision, it had no way of being certain when
that decision would come.

I have little doubt that many of the same people complaining of how long it
is taking to move things around *now* would also complain if staff had been
hired for an entity that didn't yet exist, based on the prospect that it
would eventually exist. Since the 501(c)3 didn't yet exist, all of its
staffing costs would have come out of the WMF budget at the same time that
other areas were being cut back in relation to lower-than-expected
fundraising.  I've got a lot more liberal a view of WMF spending than many
others in this thread, and even I think that would have been a really poor
use of limited resources.

It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.

Risker/Anne
___
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/ZB3WIMPAN7UFNHJU5ZBQOVYHAEE6GKTG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[myindigolife]

Hello, Lodewijk (Anders).  

Let me preface this by saying that I am responding to you with the benefit of 
years of IRL experience and education in the area of financial due diligence. I 
am aware of the "fallacy of appeal to authority". I am not doing that. In this 
case, "authority" would be mandatory reporting requirements as mentioned by SJ 
aka Samuel Klein in his remarks of 10 Jan 2023 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2JBV2WWRWVS5FOXRG4NZYKAOJK6X3XCX/
  I am confident in his oversight of mandatory reporting, given my interactions 
with him as a Wikipedia editor. I am not an attorney. This is me in IRL 
https://linkedin.com/in/4lisa I know about ethical and defensible asset 
management. I'm not referring to ESG, but rather, to fair disclosure and 
adherence to investment guidelines. 

My tone is harsher than is my want due to your response to Andreas of 19 Jan 
2023 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IC32GRFZPR5JRJ43S2GPETUTNZP3JWQW/
 challenging whether his questions were constructive. Andreas is unfailingly 
polite and courteous, far more so than necessary by U.S. standards for 
expressions of fiduciary and custodial concern. Since the WMF and Endowment 
funds are domiciled in the U.S., our local customs should be followed. Dan 
Szymborski 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/STYZAODTWAI2VUR73ZB23LNKQKP2Y2JA/
 and The Cuncator 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NWN67V2UCH4NXZ7QNFLM6DNBO6QAUOKK/
 both addressed this already, but in cordial terms. I am accustomed to speaking 
in the voice of governance and compliance IRL, thus wish to reinforce their 
defense of Andreas.

Yes, you are correct in your reply to Lane Chance: 
>we are in the process" typically means "no, not yet. But we are going towards 
>that new situation"

The problem here is this: That response is insufficient because of the time 
value of money. 

Inquiries about the status of assets under beneficial ownership--whether held 
by a charitable organization or other entity--require a response that includes 
both magnitude AND control. In other words, we need to know the dollar amount 
AND a projected time frame associated with a change in control of these assets. 
(Note too that the trustees of these funds must be held accountable for both 
magnitude and time.)

I will make an engineering math analogy. A vector requires two values in order 
to completely describe it: Magnitude and Direction. The Magnitude of the 
Endowment is approximately $100 million. The Form 990s provide additional 
details of magnitude (although that isn't easily accessible to the Movement). 
Instead of Direction, given that this is an Endowment not a vector, we need to 
know where the funds are held, (i.e. by whom they are controlled) and how they 
are invested.

WMF has informed us that U.S. Internal Revenue Service granted a non-profit 
501(c)3 organizational status to the Endowment no later than October 2022. 
Many, many inquiries, by Andreas and others, were required to obtain this 
information. Even the news media (in Italy) were unable to get a meaningful 
response. A meaningful response as of October 2022 would have been:

Yes, the Endowment has been granted non-profit 501(c)3 status as of  and we anticipate transfer of control from Tides to a WMF controlled 
entity no later than . Any delays and the reasons for those 
delays will be communicated to the public and the Wikimedia movement via our 
periodic WMF blog posts at . 

It is now March 1, 2023. We still do not know what  is. 

Why didn't WMF do the groundwork for transferring the endowment funds from 
Tides to a WMF 501(c)3 given that there were over SIX long years to make such 
plans? 

Why does WMF STILL not know how to effect this transfer or when it will be 
completed, despite the passage of six months? 

My greater concern is based on what SJ said, and the quotes provided by Lane 
Chance. These suggest that WMF does not intend to transfer the Endowment away 
from the Tides Foundation, despite achieving 501(c)3 status. That means the WMF 
Endowment would remain under the control of Tides as a Tides Collective Action 
Fund. Based on Tides FAQ for Collective Action Funds 
https://www.tides.org/faq/what-are-collective-action-funds-cafs/ Tides has the 
authority to disburse WMF Endowment funds in support of Tides Foundation’s 
charitable purposes. These are NOT the same as Wikimedia's charitable purposes.
___
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/SB672G25XY55ZOBLJ2ZASO43DAU3EOJ5/
To unsubscribe send an email to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Camelia Boban]

Thank you Catlin,
yours and Julia's explanations here and on Meta are enough for me.

The Rai Tre broadcast program mentioned in the previous discussion talked
not only about money, and given that tomorrow is the last day to vote on
the strengthened guidelines of the UCoC and in some local communities I
have noticed deserted discussions, allow me to express - with no polemical
intention - the desire that the community devote at least as much passion
and time to improving the health of its internal dynamics as it does to
overseeing WMF's financial reports. It's not as secondary as it might seem,
because the entire movement and projects and their philosophy depend on the
community, the content it manages to generate in a serene environment, the
welcome it offers to new users who allow us to make the generational change
we need.

Camelia
--
*Camelia Boban (she/her)*

*| Java EE Developer |*

M. +39 3383385545
camelia.bo...@gmail.com
WikiDonne Chair & Co-founder | Wikimedia Diversity Ambassador
*Wikipedia  **| **WikiDonne
Project  *| *WikiDonne UG
* | *WikiDonne APS
*
WMIT - WMSE - WMAR - WMCH - WMNY - WMDC - WMBE Member


On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 3:41 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I've been asked to explain what the issue with the Endowment is. Here is a
> recap:
>
> Over the past seven years, WMF staff have collected donations from the
> public to build an Endowment that stood at $113.4 million a year ago (the
> most recent update available).
>
> The important thing that I and, I suspect, most of us didn't realise for
> many years is this:[1]
>
> 1. The money held in the Endowment is not included in the net assets of
> the Wikimedia Foundation, as those funds are held by the Tides Foundation.
>
> 2. Donations to the Endowment that are received by the Wikimedia
> Foundation as a pass-through are redirected and sent to the Tides
> Foundation. Therefore, they are not reflected on the Wikimedia Foundation's
> financials as revenue or net assets.
>
> 3. When the Wikimedia Foundation makes special grants to the Endowment
> Fund, those are reflected as "Awards and Grants" expenses on the Wikimedia
> Foundation's Annual Independent Auditors' Report.
>
> This means that under the past and present arrangement, all the auditors
> at KPMG have ever included in their annual audit reports were the annual $5
> million+ grants sent to Tides, recorded as an expense. Any money people
> donated to the WMF specifically for the Endowment bypassed the audited
> financial statements.
>
> In addition, for the past two years, all the money people have willed to
> the Wikimedia Foundation has been redirected to the Wikimedia Endowment
> instead (except in cases where the terms of the will prevent that), adding
> to these tens of millions of dollars of pass-through amounts that bypass
> the Foundation's audited financial statements.[2]
>
> As a result, there is a significant lack of of transparency and public
> oversight in the past and present arrangement with Tides. Over $100 million
> in donations and planned gifts collected from the public is too significant
> an amount to say, "It's alright. We don't need to see any paperwork. We
> know you are good people."
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
> [2]
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Remit_of_Planned_Gifts_to_the_Wikimedia_Endowment?tableofcontents=0
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:08 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Caitlin,
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification. Is there any chance we might see audited
>> financial statements covering the Endowment's past seven years, in a format
>> comparable to the annually published, audited financial statements
>> detailing the revenue and expenses of the Foundation,[1] and delivering the
>> same level of transparency?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:19 PM Caitlin Virtue 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christophe,
>>>
>>> This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
>>> around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.
>>>
>>> The question of transparency has also become conflated with the
>>> mechanism of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working
>>> to transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3) entity
>>> that is already registered
>>> 
>>> and the transition process will soon be underway.
>>>
>>> Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly:
>>>
>>> Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.
>>>
>>> Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.
>>>
>>> Will the money transition out of Tides to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

I've been asked to explain what the issue with the Endowment is. Here is a
recap:

Over the past seven years, WMF staff have collected donations from the
public to build an Endowment that stood at $113.4 million a year ago (the
most recent update available).

The important thing that I and, I suspect, most of us didn't realise for
many years is this:[1]

1. The money held in the Endowment is not included in the net assets of the
Wikimedia Foundation, as those funds are held by the Tides Foundation.

2. Donations to the Endowment that are received by the Wikimedia Foundation
as a pass-through are redirected and sent to the Tides Foundation.
Therefore, they are not reflected on the Wikimedia Foundation's financials
as revenue or net assets.

3. When the Wikimedia Foundation makes special grants to the Endowment
Fund, those are reflected as "Awards and Grants" expenses on the Wikimedia
Foundation's Annual Independent Auditors' Report.

This means that under the past and present arrangement, all the auditors at
KPMG have ever included in their annual audit reports were the annual $5
million+ grants sent to Tides, recorded as an expense. Any money people
donated to the WMF specifically for the Endowment bypassed the audited
financial statements.

In addition, for the past two years, all the money people have willed to
the Wikimedia Foundation has been redirected to the Wikimedia Endowment
instead (except in cases where the terms of the will prevent that), adding
to these tens of millions of dollars of pass-through amounts that bypass
the Foundation's audited financial statements.[2]

As a result, there is a significant lack of of transparency and public
oversight in the past and present arrangement with Tides. Over $100 million
in donations and planned gifts collected from the public is too significant
an amount to say, "It's alright. We don't need to see any paperwork. We
know you are good people."

Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
[2]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Remit_of_Planned_Gifts_to_the_Wikimedia_Endowment?tableofcontents=0

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:08 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Caitlin,
>
> Thank you for the clarification. Is there any chance we might see audited
> financial statements covering the Endowment's past seven years, in a format
> comparable to the annually published, audited financial statements
> detailing the revenue and expenses of the Foundation,[1] and delivering the
> same level of transparency?
>
> If not, why not?
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:19 PM Caitlin Virtue 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
>> around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.
>>
>> The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism
>> of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to
>> transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3) entity
>> that is already registered
>> 
>> and the transition process will soon be underway.
>>
>> Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly:
>>
>> Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.
>>
>> Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.
>>
>> Will the money transition out of Tides to the new 501(c)(3)? Yes.
>>
>> You can also find a similar reply that we gave earlier, on meta
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Caitlin Virtue
>>
>> Senior Director of Development
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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/3AMQSLJN2B76KSDVL2VBDD33E4MQE7PG/
>> 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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WMVL7GQ4KZPRCU73LSNWS7RDSOE32G7C/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Caitlin,

Thank you for the clarification. Is there any chance we might see audited
financial statements covering the Endowment's past seven years, in a format
comparable to the annually published, audited financial statements
detailing the revenue and expenses of the Foundation,[1] and delivering the
same level of transparency?

If not, why not?

Best,
Andreas

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:19 PM Caitlin Virtue 
wrote:

> Hi Christophe,
>
> This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
> around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.
>
> The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism
> of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to
> transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3) entity
> that is already registered
> 
> and the transition process will soon be underway.
>
> Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly:
>
> Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.
>
> Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.
>
> Will the money transition out of Tides to the new 501(c)(3)? Yes.
>
> You can also find a similar reply that we gave earlier, on meta
> 
> .
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Caitlin Virtue
>
> Senior Director of Development
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> ___
> 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/3AMQSLJN2B76KSDVL2VBDD33E4MQE7PG/
> 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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YD4DFL5H5KK363PPIBNHABAJWMUUJR42/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[The Cunctator]

Thank you!!

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 5:55 PM Christophe Henner 
wrote:

> Thanks Caitlin!!!
>
> Sounds like that answers perfectly the original questions and things are
> going the way we were told, it just takes times :)
>
> Thanks again and have a good day!
>
> Christophe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 27, 2023, at 10:19 PM, Caitlin Virtue 
> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
> around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.
>
> The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism
> of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to
> transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3) entity
> that is already registered
> 
> and the transition process will soon be underway.
>
> Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly:
>
> Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.
>
> Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.
>
> Will the money transition out of Tides to the new 501(c)(3)? Yes.
>
> You can also find a similar reply that we gave earlier, on meta
> 
> .
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Caitlin Virtue
>
> Senior Director of Development
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> ___
> 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/3AMQSLJN2B76KSDVL2VBDD33E4MQE7PG/
> 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
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NISBXF5MYS22CZSX4I5QXKWVON53BHXZ/
> 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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZYCVEZPGJN5SZQZWWADWRUTPAKTB3MFM/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Christophe Henner]

Thanks Caitlin!!!Sounds like that answers perfectly the original questions and things are going the way we were told, it just takes times :)Thanks again and have a good day!ChristopheSent from my iPhoneOn Jan 27, 2023, at 10:19 PM, Caitlin Virtue  wrote:?Hi Christophe,This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3)
  entity that is already registered and the transition process will soon be underway. Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly: Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.Will the money transition out of Tides to the new 501(c)(3)? Yes.You can also find a similar reply that we gave earlier, on meta. Regards,Caitlin VirtueSenior Director of DevelopmentWikimedia Foundation
___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-lPublic archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3AMQSLJN2B76KSDVL2VBDD33E4MQE7PG/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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NISBXF5MYS22CZSX4I5QXKWVON53BHXZ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Caitlin Virtue]

Hi Christophe,

This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.

The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism
of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to
transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3) entity
that is already registered

and the transition process will soon be underway.

Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly:

Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.

Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.

Will the money transition out of Tides to the new 501(c)(3)? Yes.

You can also find a similar reply that we gave earlier, on meta

.


Regards,

Caitlin Virtue

Senior Director of Development

Wikimedia Foundation
___
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/3AMQSLJN2B76KSDVL2VBDD33E4MQE7PG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[The Cunctator]

In this case, it does.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 3:34 AM Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Yes, but sometimes a yes/no answer does not reasonably represent reality.
>
> Cheers, Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* The Cunctator [mailto:cuncta...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 25 January 2023 17:26
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again
>
>
>
> It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically)
> confusing response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith)
> misreported.
>
>
>
> Wikimedia communications would benefit from a willingness to answer yes/no
> questions with a yes or no, imho.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 7:24 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> Lodewijk,
>
>
>
> The question at the top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is:
>
>
>
> "Is the money still with Tides?"
>
>
>
> The answer seems to be "Yes".
>
>
>
> If so, then the next question is:
>
>
>
> If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian
> journalists that their information was incorrect and the Endowment had
> already been moved to the 501(c)(3)?
>
>
>
> It seems like another case of paltering.[2] The bigger issue is that this
> sort of thing *undermines community trust in everything the WMF says*,
> especially about money.[3] Why didn't the WMF simply tell the journalists,
> as you just put it, Lodewijk, "No, not yet. But we are going towards that
> new situation"?
>
>
>
> We had two high-profile community RfCs on the English Wikipedia's Vilage
> Pump last year that came to the conclusion that the WMF puts out misleading
> or deceptive communications.[4] Half the shortlisted board candidates in
> last year's board election endorsed that view during their campaigns.[5]
>
>
>
> We have a longstanding and, I believe, popular (his talk page has 670
> watchers) English Wikipedia administrator, a former member of the
> Arbitration Committee, saying things like the following on his talk page[6]
> (last year, in a different context):
>
>
>
> *"I don't doubt that the WMF is lying here—when it comes to where the
> money comes from, where it goes, and who is taking a cut along the way, it
> would be more unusual to find them being honest". *
>
>
>
> *"What's particularly irritating is that there's no need for the WMF to
> equivocate here and they're just doing it out of habit."*
>
>
>
> I believe those are fairly mainstream views in the community, based on
> close observation of the WMF's conduct. It's not healthy, and I believe the
> WMF should look at its paltering habit.
>
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
> ?
>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering
>
> [3] See also ongoing discussions here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Additional_members_of_the_LLC_besides_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
>
> [4]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_193#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emails
> and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign
>
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers
>
> [6]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent=1124517409
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:18 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Lane,
>
>
>
> maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the
> process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new
> situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be
> beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the
> statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his
> question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's
> response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you)
> to achieve just that: clarification.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance  wrote:
>
> Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
> Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
> not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.
>
> A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
> any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
> controlled by Tides or i

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Christophe Henner]

Hi, I have no idea how things are structured right now, but from the different FAQ and Foundation?s staff comments I read it as the endowment could be an independent org and the money managed by Tide.Which would mean:* Is the endowment an independent organisation? Yes.* Is the money managed by Tides? Yes.Perhaps someone from the team could confirm/infirm my reading of the situation :)Christophe Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 27, 2023, at 9:34 AM, Peter Southwood  wrote:?Yes, but sometimes a yes/no answer does not reasonably represent reality. Cheers, Peter From: The Cunctator [mailto:cuncta...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 January 2023 17:26To: Wikimedia Mailing ListSubject: [Wikimedia-
 l] Re: The Endowment, again It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically) confusing response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith) misreported. Wikimedia communications would benefit from a willingness to answer yes/no questions with a yes or no, imho. On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 7:24 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:Lodewijk, The question at the
  top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is:  "Is the money still with Tides?" The answer seems to be "Yes".  If so, then the next question is:  If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian journalists that their information was incorrect and the Endowment had already been moved to the 501(c)(3)? It seems like another case of paltering.[2] The bigger issue is that this sort of thing undermines community trust in everything the WMF says, especially about 
 money.[3] Why didn't the WMF simply tell the journalists, as you just put it, Lodewijk, "No, not yet. But we are going towards that new situation"?  We had two high-profile community RfCs on the English Wikipedia's Vilage Pump last year that came to the conclusion that the WMF puts out misleading or deceptive communications.[4] Half the shortlisted board candidates in last year's board election endorsed that view during their campaigns.[5] We have a longstanding and, I believe, popular (his talk page has 670 watchers) English Wikipedia administrator, a former member of the Arbitration Committee, saying things like the following on his talk page[6] (last year, in a different context):  "I don't doubt that the WMF is lying here?when it comes to where the money comes from, where it goes, and who is taking a cut along the way, it would be more unusual to find them being honest".  "What's particularly irritating is that there's no need for the WMF to equivocate here and they're just doing it out of habit." I believe those are fairly mainstream views in the community, based on close observation of the WMF's conduct. It's not healthy, and I believe the WMF should look at its paltering habit. Andreas [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides?[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering[3] See also ongoing discussions here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Additional_members_of_the_LLC_besides_the_Wikimedia_Foundation[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_193#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emai
 ls and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent=1124517409  On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:18 PM effe iets anders <effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Lane, maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you) to achieve just that: clarification. 
  Best,Lodewijk On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance <zinkl...@gmail.com> wrote:Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question onMeta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they havenot answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags forany logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is eithercontrolled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded theyes/no question several t
 imes indicates there is a problem here thatthey are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim"holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader mightthink the answer was "yes", it d

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Peter Southwood]

Yes, but sometimes a yes/no answer does not reasonably represent reality. 

Cheers, Peter

 

From: The Cunctator [mailto:cuncta...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 25 January 2023 17:26
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

 

It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically) confusing 
response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith) misreported.

 

Wikimedia communications would benefit from a willingness to answer yes/no 
questions with a yes or no, imho.

 

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 7:24 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

Lodewijk,

 

The question at the top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is: 

 

"Is the money still with Tides?"

 

The answer seems to be "Yes". 

 

If so, then the next question is: 

 

If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian 
journalists that their information was incorrect and the Endowment had already 
been moved to the 501(c)(3)?

 

It seems like another case of paltering.[2] The bigger issue is that this sort 
of thing undermines community trust in everything the WMF says, especially 
about money.[3] Why didn't the WMF simply tell the journalists, as you just put 
it, Lodewijk, "No, not yet. But we are going towards that new situation"? 

 

We had two high-profile community RfCs on the English Wikipedia's Vilage Pump 
last year that came to the conclusion that the WMF puts out misleading or 
deceptive communications.[4] Half the shortlisted board candidates in last 
year's board election endorsed that view during their campaigns.[5]

 

We have a longstanding and, I believe, popular (his talk page has 670 watchers) 
English Wikipedia administrator, a former member of the Arbitration Committee, 
saying things like the following on his talk page[6] (last year, in a different 
context): 

 

"I don't doubt that the WMF is lying here—when it comes to where the money 
comes from, where it goes, and who is taking a cut along the way, it would be 
more unusual to find them being honest". 

 

"What's particularly irritating is that there's no need for the WMF to 
equivocate here and they're just doing it out of habit."

 

I believe those are fairly mainstream views in the community, based on close 
observation of the WMF's conduct. It's not healthy, and I believe the WMF 
should look at its paltering habit.

 

Andreas

 

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides?

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering

[3] See also ongoing discussions here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Additional_members_of_the_LLC_besides_the_Wikimedia_Foundation

[4] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_193#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emails
 and 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign

[5] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent=1124517409>
 =1124517409

 

 

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:18 PM effe iets anders  
wrote:

Hi Lane,

 

maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the process" 
typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new situation"? If 
you don't feel this answers your question, it might be beneficial to spell out 
the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the statement of Andreas, I 
mostly see a statement that he is confused and his question is "could someone 
please clarify this please". In Julia's response, I read a good faith effort 
(but apparently insufficient for you) to achieve just that: clarification. 

 

Best,

Lodewijk

 

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance  wrote:

Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.

A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the
yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that
they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim
"holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might
think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does
it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like
for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of
February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable.

Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[The Cunctator]

It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically) confusing
response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith) misreported.

Wikimedia communications would benefit from a willingness to answer yes/no
questions with a yes or no, imho.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 7:24 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Lodewijk,
>
> The question at the top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is:
>
> "Is the money still with Tides?"
>
> The answer seems to be "Yes".
>
> If so, then the next question is:
>
> If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian
> journalists that their information was incorrect and the Endowment had
> already been moved to the 501(c)(3)?
>
> It seems like another case of paltering.[2] The bigger issue is that this
> sort of thing *undermines community trust in everything the WMF says*,
> especially about money.[3] Why didn't the WMF simply tell the journalists,
> as you just put it, Lodewijk, "No, not yet. But we are going towards that
> new situation"?
>
> We had two high-profile community RfCs on the English Wikipedia's Vilage
> Pump last year that came to the conclusion that the WMF puts out misleading
> or deceptive communications.[4] Half the shortlisted board candidates in
> last year's board election endorsed that view during their campaigns.[5]
>
> We have a longstanding and, I believe, popular (his talk page has 670
> watchers) English Wikipedia administrator, a former member of the
> Arbitration Committee, saying things like the following on his talk page[6]
> (last year, in a different context):
>
> *"I don't doubt that the WMF is lying here—when it comes to where the
> money comes from, where it goes, and who is taking a cut along the way, it
> would be more unusual to find them being honest". *
>
> *"What's particularly irritating is that there's no need for the WMF to
> equivocate here and they're just doing it out of habit."*
>
> I believe those are fairly mainstream views in the community, based on
> close observation of the WMF's conduct. It's not healthy, and I believe the
> WMF should look at its paltering habit.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
> ?
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering
> [3] See also ongoing discussions here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Additional_members_of_the_LLC_besides_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
> [4]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_193#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emails
> and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers
> [6]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent=1124517409
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:18 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lane,
>>
>> maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the
>> process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new
>> situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be
>> beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the
>> statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his
>> question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's
>> response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you)
>> to achieve just that: clarification.
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>>> Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
>>> Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
>>> not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.
>>>
>>> A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
>>> any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
>>> controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the
>>> yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that
>>> they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim
>>> "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might
>>> think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does
>>> it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like
>>> for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of
>>> February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable.
>>>
>>> Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions
>>> and defensive non-answers.
>>>
>>> For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in
>>> the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be
>>> edited later on a wiki:
>>> "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s
>>> message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Lodewijk,

The question at the top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is:

"Is the money still with Tides?"

The answer seems to be "Yes".

If so, then the next question is:

If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian
journalists that their information was incorrect and the Endowment had
already been moved to the 501(c)(3)?

It seems like another case of paltering.[2] The bigger issue is that this
sort of thing *undermines community trust in everything the WMF says*,
especially about money.[3] Why didn't the WMF simply tell the journalists,
as you just put it, Lodewijk, "No, not yet. But we are going towards that
new situation"?

We had two high-profile community RfCs on the English Wikipedia's Vilage
Pump last year that came to the conclusion that the WMF puts out misleading
or deceptive communications.[4] Half the shortlisted board candidates in
last year's board election endorsed that view during their campaigns.[5]

We have a longstanding and, I believe, popular (his talk page has 670
watchers) English Wikipedia administrator, a former member of the
Arbitration Committee, saying things like the following on his talk page[6]
(last year, in a different context):

*"I don't doubt that the WMF is lying here—when it comes to where the money
comes from, where it goes, and who is taking a cut along the way, it would
be more unusual to find them being honest". *

*"What's particularly irritating is that there's no need for the WMF to
equivocate here and they're just doing it out of habit."*

I believe those are fairly mainstream views in the community, based on
close observation of the WMF's conduct. It's not healthy, and I believe the
WMF should look at its paltering habit.

Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
?
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering
[3] See also ongoing discussions here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Additional_members_of_the_LLC_besides_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_193#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emails
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers
[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent=1124517409


On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:18 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Lane,
>
> maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the
> process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new
> situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be
> beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the
> statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his
> question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's
> response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you)
> to achieve just that: clarification.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance  wrote:
>
>> Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
>> Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
>> not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.
>>
>> A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
>> any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
>> controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the
>> yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that
>> they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim
>> "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might
>> think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does
>> it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like
>> for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of
>> February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable.
>>
>> Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions
>> and defensive non-answers.
>>
>> For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in
>> the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be
>> edited later on a wiki:
>> "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s
>> message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia
>> Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal
>> Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial
>> systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the
>> direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement
>> made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect
>> representation of the answers we sent them; a 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[effe iets anders]

Hi Lane,

maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the
process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new
situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be
beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the
statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his
question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's
response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you)
to achieve just that: clarification.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance  wrote:

> Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
> Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
> not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.
>
> A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
> any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
> controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the
> yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that
> they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim
> "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might
> think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does
> it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like
> for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of
> February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable.
>
> Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions
> and defensive non-answers.
>
> For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in
> the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be
> edited later on a wiki:
> "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s
> message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia
> Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal
> Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial
> systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the
> direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement
> made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect
> representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification
> was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from
> the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies
> in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation
> and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the
> movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best
> regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)"
>
> Thanks,
> Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia
> Signpost)
>
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs  wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1]
> > Regards,
> > Julia
> >
> > [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
> ?
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Sam,
> >>
> >> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been
> moved, or it has not been moved.
> >>
> >> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation
> didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?"
> >>
> >> Here is the complete question again:
> >>
> >> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides
> Foundation. According to SignPost (
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion)
> on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us
> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches
> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a
> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33
> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia
> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into
> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report
> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information
> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations?
> >>
> >> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of
> affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org
> ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I
> feel, have looked something like this:
> >>
> >> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity
> when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that
> move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a
> new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Lane Chance]

Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.

A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the
yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that
they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim
"holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might
think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does
it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like
for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of
February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable.

Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions
and defensive non-answers.

For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in
the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be
edited later on a wiki:
"This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s
message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia
Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal
Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial
systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the
direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement
made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect
representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification
was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from
the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies
in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation
and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the
movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best
regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)"

Thanks,
Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia Signpost)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs  wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1]
> Regards,
> Julia
>
> [1] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides?
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sam,
>>
>> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved, or 
>> it has not been moved.
>>
>> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn't 
>> move it to a separate 501e3 entity?"
>>
>> Here is the complete question again:
>>
>> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides Foundation. 
>> According to SignPost 
>> (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion)
>>  on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us 
>> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches 
>> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a 
>> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 
>> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia 
>> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into 
>> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report 
>> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information 
>> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations?
>>
>> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of affairs 
>> – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready, 
>> so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel, 
>> have looked something like this:
>>
>> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity when it 
>> reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move. We 
>> have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new 
>> organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We 
>> are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and 
>> expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).
>>
>> Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had 
>> already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the 
>> Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to a 
>> dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022.
>>
>> This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment 
>> page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by 
>> the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund".
>>
>> There are really two issues here:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Julia Brungs]

Hi All,

We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1]
Regards,
Julia

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
?

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Sam,
>
> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved,
> or it has not been moved.
>
> The Rai journalists specifically asked *"Why the Wikimedia Foundation
> didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" *
>
> Here is the complete question again:
>
> Q: *The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides
> Foundation. According to SignPost
> (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
> )
> on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us
> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches
> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a
> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33
> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia
> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into
> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report
> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information
> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? *
>
> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of
> affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org
> ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I
> feel, have looked something like this:
>
> A: *We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity
> when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that
> move
> .
> We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new
> organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We
> are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and
> expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).*
>
> Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had
> already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the
> Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to
> a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022.
>
> This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment
> page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by
> the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund".
>
> There are really two issues here:
>
> 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this in
> the public domain.
> 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating?
>
> As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai:
>
> A: *The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of
> transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for
> public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on
> developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information
> such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on
> the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy
> updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as
> on the Wikimedia Foundation website.  *
>
> I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on the
> Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where things
> stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info to the
> Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting minutes.[1]
>
> And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited
> financial statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in
> all the seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the
> "principles of transparency common to our movement" (a point that,
> incidentally, was also made in the Italian programme).
>
> I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several weeks ago
> on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date.
>
> As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 million
> that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates in the
> July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the Form 990
> disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years
> (their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), hoping to find
> US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that 2020/2021 APG amount
> over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I have not been
> successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 million total.
>
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Sam,

Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved,
or it has not been moved.

The Rai journalists specifically asked *"Why the Wikimedia Foundation
didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" *

Here is the complete question again:

Q: *The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides
Foundation. According to SignPost
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
)
on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us
the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches
$33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a
new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33
million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia
Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into
the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report
about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information
and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? *

If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of affairs
– i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready,
so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel,
have looked something like this:

A: *We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity when
it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move
.
We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new
organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We
are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and
expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).*

Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had
already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the
Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to
a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022.

This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment
page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by
the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund".

There are really two issues here:

1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this in
the public domain.
2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating?

As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai:

A: *The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of
transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for
public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on
developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information
such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on
the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy
updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as
on the Wikimedia Foundation website.  *

I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on the
Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where things
stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info to the
Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting minutes.[1]

And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited financial
statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in all the
seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the "principles of
transparency common to our movement" (a point that, incidentally, was also
made in the Italian programme).

I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several weeks ago
on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date.

As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 million
that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates in the
July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the Form 990
disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years
(their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), hoping to find
US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that 2020/2021 APG amount
over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I have not been
successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 million total.

Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else reading in
who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms as well, to
see whether you come to a different result? The forms are linked in the
discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF board
experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that happily
resolves the apparent discrepancy.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[The Cunctator]

I hope the always-welcome discussion here about non-profit logistics and
online civility doesn't derail an answer to Andreas's question, which is
important and remains unanswered.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:36 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true, and
> what one might expect from governance decisions to date.
>
> WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is working on
> its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year.  It will
> need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides currently
> provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the collective action
> fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place.
>
> The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on organizational
> structure, timelines, goals and budgeting, coordination with WMF,
> practicalities of how an endowment functions) are only partly related to
> the mandatory reports of a charity.  Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts of
> clarifications are great, and relevant to how we all plan for the future;
> perhaps we can catalyze a public conversation about such things.
>
> Warmly, SJ
> (still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans for
> maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget)
>
> Dan S writes:
> > Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions...
> ___
> 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/2JBV2WWRWVS5FOXRG4NZYKAOJK6X3XCX/
> 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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NWN67V2UCH4NXZ7QNFLM6DNBO6QAUOKK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Samuel Klein]

The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true, and
what one might expect from governance decisions to date.

WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is working on
its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year.  It will
need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides currently
provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the collective action
fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place.

The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on organizational
structure, timelines, goals and budgeting, coordination with WMF,
practicalities of how an endowment functions) are only partly related to
the mandatory reports of a charity.  Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts of
clarifications are great, and relevant to how we all plan for the future;
perhaps we can catalyze a public conversation about such things.

Warmly, SJ
(still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans for
maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget)

Dan S writes:
> Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions...
___
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/2JBV2WWRWVS5FOXRG4NZYKAOJK6X3XCX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Dan Szymborski]

Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions, then by
definition, one of them *has* to be substantially misleading as anyone who
reads it would get the opposite of the true situation. If Andreas had an
intent to be hostile, he could have said lie, which he did not.

Dan



On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:21 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> I will support the underlying questions of this type (it's helpful to have
> conversations about our organizational structure, and how it works -
> clarifications are great!) but I would really hope that you could leave
> aside insinuations of the type "If it isn't, and the money is still with
> Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November substantially
> misleading?". They are unnecessary and don't actually add any information.
> Could we possibly keep it a bit more constructive?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:02 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia
>> Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national
>> broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their
>> website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the
>> programme makers asked.[2]
>>
>> One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote:
>>
>> *Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100
>> million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate
>> 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to
>> the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think
>> there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is
>> created through worldwide donations? *
>>
>> *A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was
>> established as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit
>> status in 2022 following a 2021 board resolution. *
>>
>> This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October
>> 2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a
>> 501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the
>> process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies
>> and systems".[3]
>>
>> Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new
>> 501(c)(3)?
>>
>> At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its
>> readers that the funds are held and administered by the Tides
>> Foundation.[4]
>>
>> Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and
>> the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November
>> substantially misleading?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42bb-bef0-0063a0e1b1fb.html
>> [2]
>> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2024%20NOVEMBRE%202022_EN.pdf
>> and
>> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2010%20GENNAIO%202023_ITA.pdf
>>
>> [3]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_from_the_WMF
>> [4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007
>> [5]
>> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-endowment-board/
>> refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected
>> timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)."
>> ___
>> 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/7XYR2NTQQGCP5W5YBEA75JIXT6GOZRPF/
>> 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
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IC32GRFZPR5JRJ43S2GPETUTNZP3JWQW/
> 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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/STYZAODTWAI2VUR73ZB23LNKQKP2Y2JA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[effe iets anders]

Hi Andreas,

I will support the underlying questions of this type (it's helpful to have
conversations about our organizational structure, and how it works -
clarifications are great!) but I would really hope that you could leave
aside insinuations of the type "If it isn't, and the money is still with
Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November substantially
misleading?". They are unnecessary and don't actually add any information.
Could we possibly keep it a bit more constructive?

Thanks!

Lodewijk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:02 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia
> Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national
> broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their
> website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the
> programme makers asked.[2]
>
> One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote:
>
> *Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100
> million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate
> 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to
> the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think
> there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is
> created through worldwide donations? *
>
> *A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was established
> as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in 2022
> following a 2021 board resolution. *
>
> This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October
> 2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a
> 501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the
> process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies
> and systems".[3]
>
> Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new
> 501(c)(3)?
>
> At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its
> readers that the funds are held and administered by the Tides
> Foundation.[4]
>
> Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and
> the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November
> substantially misleading?
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42bb-bef0-0063a0e1b1fb.html
> [2]
> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2024%20NOVEMBRE%202022_EN.pdf
> and
> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2010%20GENNAIO%202023_ITA.pdf
>
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_from_the_WMF
> [4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007
> [5]
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-endowment-board/
> refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected
> timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)."
> ___
> 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/7XYR2NTQQGCP5W5YBEA75JIXT6GOZRPF/
> 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 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IC32GRFZPR5JRJ43S2GPETUTNZP3JWQW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org