Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Bad usage of money in Brazil

[ENWP Pine]

Hi Rodrigo,

Thank you for these questions. There have been questions about the India
program as well, so these questions about Brazil can be added to the list of 
issues for WMF to investigate.

I am not personally familiar with either of the Brazil or India catalyst 
programs,
but I suggest that you contact Asaf or Anasuya if you don't get a response
on this list or on the discussion page within two days.

Thank you again for bringing up these questions.

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Bad usage of money in Brazil

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

Could you pleas give me some opinions on this:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Bad_usage_of_money_in_Brazil


-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 979 718 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[MZMcBride]

Hubert Laska wrote:
>Am 21.05.2014 15:33, schrieb MZMcBride:
>> To that end, on the subject of outside observers and open letters:
>> when writing such a letter, it's important to give context and err on
>> the side of formality. I've never seen a professional letter begin
>> with "Dear Sue" (no last name or contact information provided) and end
>> with "Yours sincerely, Jon" (no last name or contact information
>> provided). This isn't a huge deal, but it's perhaps indicative.
>MZMcBride
>
>Dear Sir!
>
>  ??? With all due respect, but what kind of bullshit is this??

Hi Hubert,

https://www.google.com/search?q=formal+letter+template may be helpful.

Nathan wrote:
>The smart move is to seek a re-evaluation with the next ED, without
>poisoning the well. I'm sure that the WMUK staff and leadership are aware
>that no affiliate is entitled to process payments for the annual WMF
>fundraising drive... It might be worthwhile to consider that
>communications that suggest a sense of entitlement might not sit well
>with the many chapters who never had an expectation of being able to
>process payments.

Yep. Though in addition to the issue of a perception of entitlement, I
think there's also a larger issue of re-establishing trust between the two
organizations. That's perhaps the central issue here.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] MET allows free image download for 390, 000+ works already in the pubic domain

[David Gerard]

On 21 May 2014 21:25, Lane Rasberry  wrote:


> Despite what the museum director says in the press release, they are not
> providing images in accord with "open access" principles as they forbid
> reuse in commercial publications, like school textbooks.
>


Well, arguably they are, barely. "Green open access" in scientific journals
includes NC licenses. It's far short of being proper "free content", as you
note.


- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Silly question? - What list is meant for what?

[Rui Correia]

Thanks, that was insightful.

I'll be in touch off list if I feel the need.

Regards,

Rui


2014-05-21 22:18 GMT+02:00 quiddity :

> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Rui Correia 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the Wikimedia
> > Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een
> > realising that I was writing to more than one list. I do now vaguely
> recall
> > once getting a response saying that what I wanted discusses would best be
> > discussed on the Foundation List. And I see there is also a Wikipedia
> > information team. And how do these, if at all, overlap with the Village
> > Pump? And the Portals?
> >
> > Where could I find out more about what exactly is the purview of each of
> > these forums?
> >
> >
> Hi Rui,
> There are so many thousands of us, working on so many aspects of so many
> projects, in so many languages, that we have hundreds of communication
> channels.
> Mailing lists:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
> IRC:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels
> Village pumps at each wiki (eg English):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VP
> Newsletters (eg English):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News
> etc.
>
> You can sign up for everything (and be deluged with information daily), or
> just ask each time, and hope someone friendly points you to the right
> specific location. ("You're not a real Wiki*edian, until you've made and
> learned from 50 mistakes", as someone told me years ago. :)
>
> Basically, if it's a question about a single wiki, start off at that wiki's
> Help page or Village Pump. And starting off small, is often best, even for
> discussions that eventually grow to encompass multiple wikis. I don't know
> if there are any pages/guides detailing /when/ it is best to take a
> question to a mailing list.
>
> Portals (in the Enwiki sense) aren't really discussion hubs themselves.
> They're crossroad signposts or maps, giving an overview of a topic's
> content and backstage work (generally targeted at readers and new editors).
>
>
>
> > Examples of the kind of issues and where to discuss:
> >
> > 1. A simpler (automated) merge proposal template
> > 2. A simpler deletion proposal process
> > 3. Content issues that affect many articles (therefore talkpages are not
> > efficient)
> >
> >
> For #3, the current method is WikiProjects. See further below, for more on
> those.
>
> The Flow  project aims to solve many
> other aspects of these example issues. It's the "communication and
> collaboration" system, currently being developed, with an initial focus on
> user-to-user discussions. It's built with the idea of being able to easily
> embed a single "workflow" (for discussions, this would be a Topic-thread)
> across multiple pages, and even multiple wikis.
>
> Later on (many months from now), they plan to create an abstract set of
> "workflow components", so that each wiki can hook together the various APIs
> and other processes they have available, to make tasks that are currently
> very complicated and multi-step into a more efficient and seamless
> endeavour.
>
> Note that Flow is still in very early stages at the moment, and will change
> drastically over the coming months and years. There is a /lot/ of work to
> be done, and many avenues to explore. (E.g. There's a front-end overhaul
> coming in the next few weeks, based on the last few months of
> user-feedback, so the aesthetics will change drastically soon, with many
> further iterations and experiments to come afterwards.) Feedback on the
> talkpage is appreciated, with a long-term emphasis.
>
>
>
> > Some of these I have brought up before on one of the lists.
> >
> > Right now I would like to make two further suggestions even if after this
> > it turns out that I must do this on a different forum:
> >
> > 1. A source ranking system - edit summaries are full of "not a reliable
> > source" justifications. Can we not create a ranking system where editors
> > rank each source on a scale of 1-10 and a programme automatically
> > calculates that source a reliability value?
> >
> >
> Basically no, because humans are fallible and inconsistent! Unreliable
> [statements/articles] appear in generally reliable sources quite regularly.
> See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Define_reliable_sourcesfor
> more details, and links.
>
>
>
> > 2. a) "Keep me informed on this" - often one issue is discussed on a
> > multitude of pages (Bushmen/ Khoisan/ Khoi and San, is such an example)
> and
> > it is difficult to keep track. Using any of the existing systems that
> group
> > pages together - such as categories - could we not create a "theme/ issue
> > watchlist" similar to the page wattchlist currently available?
> >
> >
> The existing possibility, is to create a list of pages (eg. in your
> userspace/subpage, or a wikiproject subpage), and then click the "Related
> chan

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Andrew Gray]

On 21 May 2014 12:22, Russavia  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope
> someone might be able to answer.
>
> 1) I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
> tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF
> couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the USA?

Very significant; with some caveats, any donation from someone who a)
is a basic rate taxpayer (earns more than ~£10k/year) and b) fills in
a short form agreeing to it, gets increased by 25% by HMRC.

This is handled by the charity rather than the donor - ie, the donor
still pays tax and then the charity recovers it, rather than the donor
claiming a tax deduction as in the US model. (It's an open question
which of these is more efficient...).

I don't believe an overseas charity would be eligible for this rebate,
and so money paid to WMF directly by UK residents is not going to get
this aid.

> 2) If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF
> to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take
> WMUK out of the equation completely?

...which is why WMUK was created in the first place, including a lot
of legal back-and-forth to demonstrate that it was actually possible
under charity law! (It took quite a while to get to this stage,
including a first chapter which basically fizzled, but charitable
donations was right there on day one as an issue.)

The chapter qua chapter has done some pretty good things, but one of
the big drivers from the very first discussions back in 2005 (or
earlier?) was the efficiency of being able to fundraise and take
advantage of gift aid; everything else followed on since then. Of
course, Wikimedia as a whole had a lot less money in 2005 and we were
all somewhat unclear on what a chapter could actually do ;-)

So it seems a little weird, to me, to create a second charity to do
the job that the first one was created for...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username

[James Alexander]

Thanks so much for the help with this Fæ!

James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ  wrote:
> > ... I'll take a look at Faebot keeping
> > a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets
> > API.
>
> For anyone that may be interested in seeing which WMF employees have
> what advanced permissions, there is now a wikitable on meta
> automatically generated from the Google spreadsheet that the WMF
> maintains.
>
> The table is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions
>
> I don't want to encourage folks to start relying on Google
> spreadsheets(!), however keeping spreadsheets like this in-sync with
> on-wiki tables is not a new issue. Anyone interested in how I did it
> can find a copy of the Python script at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/code/advanced_permissions
>
> I have also asked for a meta bot flag, as I'm planning for Faebot to
> check/update the table once a week:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_bot_status#Faebot
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username

[Fæ]

On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ  wrote:
> ... I'll take a look at Faebot keeping
> a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets
> API.

For anyone that may be interested in seeing which WMF employees have
what advanced permissions, there is now a wikitable on meta
automatically generated from the Google spreadsheet that the WMF
maintains.

The table is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions

I don't want to encourage folks to start relying on Google
spreadsheets(!), however keeping spreadsheets like this in-sync with
on-wiki tables is not a new issue. Anyone interested in how I did it
can find a copy of the Python script at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/code/advanced_permissions

I have also asked for a meta bot flag, as I'm planning for Faebot to
check/update the table once a week:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_bot_status#Faebot

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

Here is another perspective on this same issue and an actionable remedy for
a lot of the problems we are discussing here.


That email describes a game in which people use a game on Wikidata to tag
biographies with a gender.

MzMcbride identified the major problem in the old system -
"The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and
not in the levels above those." Because of this, we had infrastructure
which precluded the development of finding all kinds of intersections. It
did not have to be that way, but that is how we used categories.

Read the above email in the link to see an example of how this new system
will prevent problems, make things simpler, and be more fair to people by
not defining them so discreetly.

Also, play the Wikidata game.

yours,



On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Nikolas Everett wrote:

> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Jan Ainali 
> wrote:
>
> > 2014-05-20 8:41 GMT+02:00 Chad Horohoe :
> >
> > > The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection.
> > So
> > > actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy.
> > >
> > >
> > Our definitiions of "very easy" are not intersecting :)
> >
> > It is possible yes, but to qualify for very easy I would suggest a GUI
> for
> > modifying a search and a hotcat like functionality for selecting
> > interescting categories. Such addition to Special:Search would be
> awesome.
> >
>
> I think of most the syntax that Special:Search supports as for
> experts/power users.  Pretty much everything beyond quoting phrases is
> non-intuitive.  I'd describe it as useful but not discoverable.
>
> I remember seeing on a draft backlog a mention of writing some kind of more
> discoverable interface for complex category queries.  I don't remember
> which backlog (so no link, sorry) but I recall it being scheduled
> reasonably high on the list.  I don't know what that means for when work
> starts, much less when a first copy is released.  I don't even know how
> well it'd work with categories being "leaves" rather than tags or
> declarations of facts like I imagine you'd get with an ontology based
> solution.  And I don't know how you'd get from the categories we have now
> to something more like tags or facts.  I don't know lots of things
>
> It might be worth it to jump over category queries and implement it
> directly against wikidata.  I'll be sure to talk about this with the
> wikidata team when I see them later this week
>
> One advantage that categories do have is that they are built in so whatever
> more intuitive intersection mechanism we make would be useful to all
> mediawiki installs willing to install the search backend.  If it is hitched
> directly to wikidata the installation burden goes up considerably.  Not to
> mention it'd be easier for me to test locally with categories then with
> wikidata.  On the other hand having some mechanism where facts in wikidata
> are reflected into the local wiki sounds a bit jangly and breakable.  On
> the other other hand reflecting the facts into the local wiki would
> translate them into that wiki's language which would delay the need for
> some kind of translation integration (probably with wikidata as well).  On
> the other other other hand that doesn't help commons be multilingual.  Or
> do anything about toothbrush.
>
> I'm going to stop rambling now and go work on something else and let my
> subconscious filter through this.
>
> Nik
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] MET allows free image download for 390, 000+ works already in the pubic domain

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

Only their photographs of public domain two-dimensional works are
compatible with Wikimedia Commons' upload policy, so that excludes most of
what they are sharing.

The works that they are sharing which are compatible with Wikipedia are
very impressive. I know of no one who is uploading them to Commons as a
collection but I have taken their work as I liked it and shared it.

Despite what the museum director says in the press release, they are not
providing images in accord with "open access" principles as they forbid
reuse in commercial publications, like school textbooks.

The project is a big deal but still keeps major barriers between itself and
the open educational resource movement.

yours,


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Maria Cruz  wrote:

> Hi,
> anyone knows if this MET initiative[1] is viable to have a reverberation in
> Commons, or if it is already a project in the community?
>
> I see this is very similar to the British Library donation, on December
> 2013[2], that quickly started to spread on to Commons[3].
>
> Any knowledge about this would be much appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> María
>
>
> [1] http://metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/press-room/news/2014/oasc-access
> [2]
>
> http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html
> [3]
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_British_Library_Mechanical_Curator_collection
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Silly question? - What list is meant for what?

[quiddity]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the Wikimedia
> Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een
> realising that I was writing to more than one list. I do now vaguely recall
> once getting a response saying that what I wanted discusses would best be
> discussed on the Foundation List. And I see there is also a Wikipedia
> information team. And how do these, if at all, overlap with the Village
> Pump? And the Portals?
>
> Where could I find out more about what exactly is the purview of each of
> these forums?
>
>
Hi Rui,
There are so many thousands of us, working on so many aspects of so many
projects, in so many languages, that we have hundreds of communication
channels.
Mailing lists:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
IRC:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels
Village pumps at each wiki (eg English):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VP
Newsletters (eg English):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News
etc.

You can sign up for everything (and be deluged with information daily), or
just ask each time, and hope someone friendly points you to the right
specific location. ("You're not a real Wiki*edian, until you've made and
learned from 50 mistakes", as someone told me years ago. :)

Basically, if it's a question about a single wiki, start off at that wiki's
Help page or Village Pump. And starting off small, is often best, even for
discussions that eventually grow to encompass multiple wikis. I don't know
if there are any pages/guides detailing /when/ it is best to take a
question to a mailing list.

Portals (in the Enwiki sense) aren't really discussion hubs themselves.
They're crossroad signposts or maps, giving an overview of a topic's
content and backstage work (generally targeted at readers and new editors).



> Examples of the kind of issues and where to discuss:
>
> 1. A simpler (automated) merge proposal template
> 2. A simpler deletion proposal process
> 3. Content issues that affect many articles (therefore talkpages are not
> efficient)
>
>
For #3, the current method is WikiProjects. See further below, for more on
those.

The Flow  project aims to solve many
other aspects of these example issues. It's the "communication and
collaboration" system, currently being developed, with an initial focus on
user-to-user discussions. It's built with the idea of being able to easily
embed a single "workflow" (for discussions, this would be a Topic-thread)
across multiple pages, and even multiple wikis.

Later on (many months from now), they plan to create an abstract set of
"workflow components", so that each wiki can hook together the various APIs
and other processes they have available, to make tasks that are currently
very complicated and multi-step into a more efficient and seamless
endeavour.

Note that Flow is still in very early stages at the moment, and will change
drastically over the coming months and years. There is a /lot/ of work to
be done, and many avenues to explore. (E.g. There's a front-end overhaul
coming in the next few weeks, based on the last few months of
user-feedback, so the aesthetics will change drastically soon, with many
further iterations and experiments to come afterwards.) Feedback on the
talkpage is appreciated, with a long-term emphasis.



> Some of these I have brought up before on one of the lists.
>
> Right now I would like to make two further suggestions even if after this
> it turns out that I must do this on a different forum:
>
> 1. A source ranking system - edit summaries are full of "not a reliable
> source" justifications. Can we not create a ranking system where editors
> rank each source on a scale of 1-10 and a programme automatically
> calculates that source a reliability value?
>
>
Basically no, because humans are fallible and inconsistent! Unreliable
[statements/articles] appear in generally reliable sources quite regularly.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Define_reliable_sourcesfor
more details, and links.



> 2. a) "Keep me informed on this" - often one issue is discussed on a
> multitude of pages (Bushmen/ Khoisan/ Khoi and San, is such an example) and
> it is difficult to keep track. Using any of the existing systems that group
> pages together - such as categories - could we not create a "theme/ issue
> watchlist" similar to the page wattchlist currently available?
>
>
The existing possibility, is to create a list of pages (eg. in your
userspace/subpage, or a wikiproject subpage), and then click the "Related
changes" link in the toolbox. This will produce a "watchlist-style view" of
just those pages. E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Rui_Gabriel_Correiashows
all the recent changes, for pages linked within your userpage.

For grander dreams, there is the
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Watchlist_wishlist - We all want 

[Wikimedia-l] MET allows free image download for 390, 000+ works already in the pubic domain

[Maria Cruz]

Hi,
anyone knows if this MET initiative[1] is viable to have a reverberation in
Commons, or if it is already a project in the community?

I see this is very similar to the British Library donation, on December
2013[2], that quickly started to spread on to Commons[3].

Any knowledge about this would be much appreciated!

Thanks,

María


[1] http://metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/press-room/news/2014/oasc-access
[2]
http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html
[3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_British_Library_Mechanical_Curator_collection
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Hubert Laska]

Am 21.05.2014 15:33, schrieb MZMcBride:
To that end, on the subject of outside observers and open letters: 
when writing such a letter, it's important to give context and err on 
the side of formality. I've never seen a professional letter begin 
with "Dear Sue" (no last name or contact information provided) and end 
with "Yours sincerely, Jon" (no last name or contact information 
provided). This isn't a huge deal, but it's perhaps indicative

MZMcBride

Dear Sir!

 ??? With all due respect, but what kind of bullshit is this??

sincerely H.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds 
> wrote:
> ...
> >2. Probably not. See
> >
> http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas-charity/
>
> This means that the WMF would need to establish an independent
> fundraising institution in the UK in order for it to be a registered
> charity. This would be in exactly the same ways as other global
> charities successfully manage it under UK law.
>
> >3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect.
> The
> >correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the
> correct
> >figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs
> as a
> >percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone
> wants
> >more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with
> them by
> >email.
>
> A strange response from WMUK as Russavia included a link to the
> analysis in his email, so this seems to be a tangent to the issue of
> the most recent accepted and analysed financial report, showing that
> more than 50% of funds are spent on non-project activities. Just in
> case people missed it, the link was
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Proposal_form#Programme_5.E2.80.94Finance
>
> The technical way of redefining English words in such a way so that
> the significant expenses of running trustee board meetings with staff
> support, or paying for highly expensive lawyers and management
> consultants as part of governance issues, gets reported as a
> deliverable open knowledge Wikimedia project, is unhelpful as a way to
> convince the Wikimedia community, or the WMF, that the UK charity is
> efficient compared to WMDE or the WMF. Using words this way undermines
> the value of the reports.
>
> As a bizarre example the SORP way of conveniently redefining English
> words, I could re-employ Jon Davies as a temporary "management
> consultant" rather than a "permanent employee", even giving him twice
> the income to take home, and yet this could be reported as a
> significant increase in the efficiency of the charity, as an expensive
> line item would move from administration to programme costs. I doubt
> that many Wikimedians are taken in by this management jargon, as
> opposed to common sense or plain English use of words.
>
> >4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of
> how,
> >even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do
> great work
> >for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have
> something
> >similar for ships!
> ...
>
> On this, we can agree. The Avionics Project represents less than 0.1%
> of funds handled by the UK charity, yet these volunteer centric and
> cheap-as-chips projects now represent the significant majority of
> tangible outcomes for Wikimedia Commons, if one, say, counts the
> actual number of media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather
> than soft (so-called "narrative") measures, or internal facing
> measures of success like supporting the Wikimania conference. As for
> ships, I have uploaded many thousands of historic images of ships to
> Commons which are highly valued by other unpaid Wikimedia volunteers,
> however these were not supported by Wikimedia UK due to previous
> concerns raised about my volunteer uploads from a potential partner
> institution that might have employed a WIR and might have done
> something similar. If the charity wishes to extend the project to
> media such as this, the trustees know how to find me.
>
> PS For those unfamiliar with my background, I was previously a trustee
> of Wikimedia UK and even served time as the Chairman, until I resigned
> after lots of political unpleasantness. My awareness of WMUK figures
> comes from that hands-on experience, not so long ago.
>
> Fae
> --
>


Reading over the linked Meta page, it actually looks like this disagreement
over expense ratios might be a misunderstanding. It's at least possible
that the performance ratios Richard Nevell reported were misinterpreted as
a description of how costs were classified.

I looked up the 2013 budget for WMUK[1] and did a rough classification of
expense types. I get *£*434,552 in "programmatic" spending vs. 336,568 in
administrative costs. Out of 771,119 in total planned expenditures, the
programmatic spending is 53%. That's the inverse of Fae's calculation on
the linked meta discussion.[2] Of course, 53% is still quite low and I'm
glad to read that the recent quarter has climbed past 80%.

In any event, this is only tangentially related. I agree with Max's
criticism of the letter as a little less professional and more emotional
than I would have expected, particularly given WMUK hasn't participated as
a payment processor since 2011. The smart move is to seek a re-evaluation
with the next ED,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Russavia]

Richard,

To answer 1 and 2 together, and thanks for your response

As you noted, under Gift Aid charities receive a 25% premium on donations
(I hope that's correct just going on your figures), and I can't see the WMF
really wanting to lose what is essentially, well, a gift.

As Fae mentioned in his response, the WMF could set up a trust in the UK
for the sole purpose of fundraising, to ensure that the 25% gift aid is
retained. They could then distribute these funds to whichever countries
they like.

This is apparently how Greenpeace operates with the Greenpeace
Environmental Trust[1] used to fundraise for the organisation, and
Greenpeace Limited doing the stuff that wouldnt be legal for the charitable
trust to do. With the fundraising the GET receives they can use these funds
to support the upkeep of their foreign ships, or to protest Russian goings
ons in the Arctic.

I sincerely can't see WMF wanting to lose the premium on donations which I
am sure they are aware of, and they don't want WMUK collecting donations,
so the logical conclusion to this is that they are bypassing WMUK to do
this themselves (which they have already stated, except for the how).

So that we have some idea could we please get some figures on how WMUK
collected for the WMF, and how much of the 25% premium (if that it was it
is) the WMUK received.

Cheers

Russavia

[1]
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=284934&SubsidiaryNumber=0




On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi Russavia,
>
> Just a quick response to your points:
>
>1. Yes. Gift Aid isn't quite the same as tax deductibility. To take
>Wikipedia's example, when Mr Smith donates £100 to a charity, the
> charity
>gets £100 from him, plus an extra £25 from the government. It's more
>complex than this - not everyone is eligible - but broadly this is the
> case.
>2. Probably not. See
>
> http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas-charity/
>.
>3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The
>correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct
>figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as
> a
>percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants
>more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with
> them by
>email.
>4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how,
>even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great
> work
>for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have
> something
>similar for ships!
>
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>
>
> On 21 May 2014 12:22, Russavia  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope
> > someone might be able to answer.
> >
> > 1) I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
> > tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF
> > couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the
> USA?
> > 2) If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF
> > to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take
> > WMUK out of the equation completely?
> > 3) Could the fact that WMUK is currently spending approximately 50% of
> its
> > income on non-project costs[1] be partly the reason for this decision by
> > Sue? I understand that 3 years ago there was no staff in the UK and
> > something like 90% of income was spent directly on projects, and now
> there
> > are 12 staff with at the very least 50% of income being spent on
> > non-project activities based on reports presented for the last FDC
> > proposal. This could be a message that WMUK needs to trim the fat,
> > especially if there are more overheads that are "hidden" within programme
> > activity funding.
> >
> > Not really sure what's going on here with the WMF, but the likelihood
> that
> > what Nemo and Mircu state is possible, but we shouldn't discount other
> > things as well.
> >
> > But I would like to thank WMUK for sponsoring the "Airliners" project on
> > Commons,[2] which will see over 200,000+ aviation images

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[MZMcBride]

Craig Franklin wrote:
>The Foundation acted to strip chapters of their fundraising authority at
>the first opportunity, based on what clearly seems to be a pre-determined
>ideological decision that doesn't take actual evidence into account and
>centralises movement decision making authority even further in the WMF?
>
>Colour me surprised.

Hi.

As I understand the history here (and please correct me where I'm wrong),
Wikimedia UK was one of the early chapters (along with Wikimedia
Deutschland and a few others) that set up fundraising agreements in the
mid-2000s. This resulted in a few Wikimedia chapters receiving a
disproportionate and frankly exorbitant amount of money as donation income
steadily increased over the years and the agreements (which were
percentage-based) stayed in place. Eventually the agreements were
renegotiated, but not before a few chapters had hundreds of thousands of
dollars and no concrete plans for what to do with this money.

Wikimedia UK in particular had bad enough management issues that in late
2012, the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK worked together to
generate a report about the various management and governance deficiencies
within the organization, which was posted a little over a year ago.

The history here is complex and it's certainly possible that the Wikimedia
Foundation is acting in its own interest rather than in the interest of
the Wikimedia movement. However, I have difficulty understanding why the
decision to not renew Wikimedia's UK fundraising agreement would be
surprising, given the historical context. I'm not sure this decision would
be surprising to an outside observer.

To that end, on the subject of outside observers and open letters: when
writing such a letter, it's important to give context and err on the side
of formality. I've never seen a professional letter begin with "Dear Sue"
(no last name or contact information provided) and end with "Yours
sincerely, Jon" (no last name or contact information provided). This isn't
a huge deal, but it's perhaps indicative.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Simon Knight]

To offer a clarification, SORP stands for Statement of Recommended Practice and 
offers a standard for best practice in charitable accounting. 
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Accounting_and_reporting/Preparing_charity_accounts/sorpfront.aspx
 

Cheers
Simon

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 21 May 2014 14:17
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds  wrote:
...
>2. Probably not. See
>
> http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-ab
> out-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas-
> charity/

This means that the WMF would need to establish an independent fundraising 
institution in the UK in order for it to be a registered charity. This would be 
in exactly the same ways as other global charities successfully manage it under 
UK law.

>3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The
>correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct
>figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a
>percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants
>more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by
>email.

A strange response from WMUK as Russavia included a link to the analysis in his 
email, so this seems to be a tangent to the issue of the most recent accepted 
and analysed financial report, showing that more than 50% of funds are spent on 
non-project activities. Just in case people missed it, the link was 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Proposal_form#Programme_5.E2.80.94Finance

The technical way of redefining English words in such a way so that the 
significant expenses of running trustee board meetings with staff support, or 
paying for highly expensive lawyers and management consultants as part of 
governance issues, gets reported as a deliverable open knowledge Wikimedia 
project, is unhelpful as a way to convince the Wikimedia community, or the WMF, 
that the UK charity is efficient compared to WMDE or the WMF. Using words this 
way undermines the value of the reports.

As a bizarre example the SORP way of conveniently redefining English words, I 
could re-employ Jon Davies as a temporary "management consultant" rather than a 
"permanent employee", even giving him twice the income to take home, and yet 
this could be reported as a significant increase in the efficiency of the 
charity, as an expensive line item would move from administration to programme 
costs. I doubt that many Wikimedians are taken in by this management jargon, as 
opposed to common sense or plain English use of words.

>4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how,
>even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work
>for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something
>similar for ships!
...

On this, we can agree. The Avionics Project represents less than 0.1% of funds 
handled by the UK charity, yet these volunteer centric and cheap-as-chips 
projects now represent the significant majority of tangible outcomes for 
Wikimedia Commons, if one, say, counts the actual number of media files 
uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather than soft (so-called "narrative") 
measures, or internal facing measures of success like supporting the Wikimania 
conference. As for ships, I have uploaded many thousands of historic images of 
ships to Commons which are highly valued by other unpaid Wikimedia volunteers, 
however these were not supported by Wikimedia UK due to previous concerns 
raised about my volunteer uploads from a potential partner institution that 
might have employed a WIR and might have done something similar. If the charity 
wishes to extend the project to media such as this, the trustees know how to 
find me.

PS For those unfamiliar with my background, I was previously a trustee of 
Wikimedia UK and even served time as the Chairman, until I resigned after lots 
of political unpleasantness. My awareness of WMUK figures comes from that 
hands-on experience, not so long ago.

Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Fæ]

On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds  wrote:
...
>2. Probably not. See
>
> http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas-charity/

This means that the WMF would need to establish an independent
fundraising institution in the UK in order for it to be a registered
charity. This would be in exactly the same ways as other global
charities successfully manage it under UK law.

>3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The
>correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct
>figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a
>percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants
>more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by
>email.

A strange response from WMUK as Russavia included a link to the
analysis in his email, so this seems to be a tangent to the issue of
the most recent accepted and analysed financial report, showing that
more than 50% of funds are spent on non-project activities. Just in
case people missed it, the link was
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Proposal_form#Programme_5.E2.80.94Finance

The technical way of redefining English words in such a way so that
the significant expenses of running trustee board meetings with staff
support, or paying for highly expensive lawyers and management
consultants as part of governance issues, gets reported as a
deliverable open knowledge Wikimedia project, is unhelpful as a way to
convince the Wikimedia community, or the WMF, that the UK charity is
efficient compared to WMDE or the WMF. Using words this way undermines
the value of the reports.

As a bizarre example the SORP way of conveniently redefining English
words, I could re-employ Jon Davies as a temporary "management
consultant" rather than a "permanent employee", even giving him twice
the income to take home, and yet this could be reported as a
significant increase in the efficiency of the charity, as an expensive
line item would move from administration to programme costs. I doubt
that many Wikimedians are taken in by this management jargon, as
opposed to common sense or plain English use of words.

>4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how,
>even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work
>for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something
>similar for ships!
...

On this, we can agree. The Avionics Project represents less than 0.1%
of funds handled by the UK charity, yet these volunteer centric and
cheap-as-chips projects now represent the significant majority of
tangible outcomes for Wikimedia Commons, if one, say, counts the
actual number of media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather
than soft (so-called "narrative") measures, or internal facing
measures of success like supporting the Wikimania conference. As for
ships, I have uploaded many thousands of historic images of ships to
Commons which are highly valued by other unpaid Wikimedia volunteers,
however these were not supported by Wikimedia UK due to previous
concerns raised about my volunteer uploads from a potential partner
institution that might have employed a WIR and might have done
something similar. If the charity wishes to extend the project to
media such as this, the trustees know how to find me.

PS For those unfamiliar with my background, I was previously a trustee
of Wikimedia UK and even served time as the Chairman, until I resigned
after lots of political unpleasantness. My awareness of WMUK figures
comes from that hands-on experience, not so long ago.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Silly question? - What list is meant for what?

[Rui Correia]

Thanks, Theo

Now it makes sense. And whereas I do appreciate the gesture of including
the link to the various lists, cryptic reply like that are just not
constructive.

Regards,

Rui


2014-05-21 13:52 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :

> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rui Correia 
> wrote:
>
> > Nemo
> >
> > I am not sure I understand your cryptic message
> >
>
> I believe he meant that you were writing to the same list. (Wikimedia-l was
> formerly Foundation-l, it was renamed a while ago by Erik). If you read in
> context, he was quoting you and then answering.
>
> The link he provided was to the meta page which gives an overview of the
> lists.
>
> As for info...@wikimedia.org - It's not a list, it's the OTRS address for
> contacting the Foundation indirectly and sending general inquiries,
> including copyright issues.[1]
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us
>
>
>  2014-05-21 10:24 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> >
> > > Rui Correia, 21/05/2014 00:01:
> > >
> > >  I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the
> Wikimedia
> > >> Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een
> > >> realising that I was writing to more than one list.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Because you were not.
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
> > >
> > > Nemo
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> >
> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > ___
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Richard Symonds]

Hi Russavia,

Just a quick response to your points:

   1. Yes. Gift Aid isn't quite the same as tax deductibility. To take
   Wikipedia's example, when Mr Smith donates £100 to a charity, the charity
   gets £100 from him, plus an extra £25 from the government. It's more
   complex than this - not everyone is eligible - but broadly this is the case.
   2. Probably not. See
   
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas-charity/
   .
   3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The
   correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct
   figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a
   percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants
   more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by
   email.
   4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how,
   even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work
   for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something
   similar for ships!


Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 21 May 2014 12:22, Russavia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope
> someone might be able to answer.
>
> 1) I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
> tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF
> couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the USA?
> 2) If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF
> to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take
> WMUK out of the equation completely?
> 3) Could the fact that WMUK is currently spending approximately 50% of its
> income on non-project costs[1] be partly the reason for this decision by
> Sue? I understand that 3 years ago there was no staff in the UK and
> something like 90% of income was spent directly on projects, and now there
> are 12 staff with at the very least 50% of income being spent on
> non-project activities based on reports presented for the last FDC
> proposal. This could be a message that WMUK needs to trim the fat,
> especially if there are more overheads that are "hidden" within programme
> activity funding.
>
> Not really sure what's going on here with the WMF, but the likelihood that
> what Nemo and Mircu state is possible, but we shouldn't discount other
> things as well.
>
> But I would like to thank WMUK for sponsoring the "Airliners" project on
> Commons,[2] which will see over 200,000+ aviation images being made
> available via Fae's great work, and the chapters generosity. It's something
> that I don't think sponsorship would have come as easily from other
> sources.
>
> Cheers
>
> Russavia
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Proposal_form#Programme_5.E2.80.94Finance
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Silly question? - What list is meant for what?

[Theo10011]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Nemo
>
> I am not sure I understand your cryptic message
>

I believe he meant that you were writing to the same list. (Wikimedia-l was
formerly Foundation-l, it was renamed a while ago by Erik). If you read in
context, he was quoting you and then answering.

The link he provided was to the meta page which gives an overview of the
lists.

As for info...@wikimedia.org - It's not a list, it's the OTRS address for
contacting the Foundation indirectly and sending general inquiries,
including copyright issues.[1]

Regards
Theo

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us


 2014-05-21 10:24 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>
> > Rui Correia, 21/05/2014 00:01:
> >
> >  I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een
> >> realising that I was writing to more than one list.
> >>
> >
> > Because you were not.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
> >
> > Nemo
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> _
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> ___
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Russavia]

Hi all,

A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope
someone might be able to answer.

1) I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF
couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the USA?
2) If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF
to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take
WMUK out of the equation completely?
3) Could the fact that WMUK is currently spending approximately 50% of its
income on non-project costs[1] be partly the reason for this decision by
Sue? I understand that 3 years ago there was no staff in the UK and
something like 90% of income was spent directly on projects, and now there
are 12 staff with at the very least 50% of income being spent on
non-project activities based on reports presented for the last FDC
proposal. This could be a message that WMUK needs to trim the fat,
especially if there are more overheads that are "hidden" within programme
activity funding.

Not really sure what's going on here with the WMF, but the likelihood that
what Nemo and Mircu state is possible, but we shouldn't discount other
things as well.

But I would like to thank WMUK for sponsoring the "Airliners" project on
Commons,[2] which will see over 200,000+ aviation images being made
available via Fae's great work, and the chapters generosity. It's something
that I don't think sponsorship would have come as easily from other sources.

Cheers

Russavia


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Proposal_form#Programme_5.E2.80.94Finance
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Reminder] Language Engineering IRC Office Hour on May 21, 2014 (Wednesday) at 1700 UTC

[Runa Bhattacharjee]

Hello

This is a reminder that the Language Engineering IRC office hour is
happening later today at 1700UTC on #wikimedia-office. Please see below for
the original announcement and local time.

Thanks
Runa

Monthly IRC Office Hour:
==
# Date: May 21, 2014 (Wednesday)

# Time: 1700 UTC/1000PDT (Check local time:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140521T1700)

# IRC channel: #wikimedia-office

# Agenda:
1. Content Translation project updates
2. Q & A (Questions can be sent to me ahead of the event)

-- Forwarded message --
From: Runa Bhattacharjee 
Date: Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:11 PM
Subject: Language Engineering IRC Office Hour on May 21, 2014 (Wednesday)
at 1700 UTC
To: MediaWiki internationalisation ,
Wikimedia Mailing List , Wikimedia
developers ,
wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org


[x-posted]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Language Engineering team will be hosting the next
monthly IRC office hour on Wednesday, May 21 2014 at 1700 UTC on
#wikimedia-office. The event is delayed this month as the team was
traveling.

In this office hour we will be discussing about our recent work, which
has mostly been around the upcoming first release of the Content
Translation tool[1]. We will also be taking questions during the
session.

Please see below for event details and local time. See you at the office
hour.

Thanks
Runa

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation

Monthly IRC Office Hour:
==
# Date: May 21, 2014 (Wednesday)

# Time: 1700 UTC/1000PDT (Check local time:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140521T1700)

# IRC channel: #wikimedia-office

# Agenda:
1. Content Translation project updates
2. Q & A (Questions can be sent to me ahead of the event)

--
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation



-- 
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Silly question? - What list is meant for what?

[Rui Correia]

Nemo

I am not sure I understand your cryptic message

Rui


2014-05-21 10:24 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :

> Rui Correia, 21/05/2014 00:01:
>
>  I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een
>> realising that I was writing to more than one list.
>>
>
> Because you were not.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Steve Zhang]

I have to say I'm quite surprised by this announcement and this course of
action taken by the Foundation, though it's not the first time this has
happened, and very few chapters are left with a fundraising agreement.

I don't know the reasons this action was taken, but I am troubled. :/


On 21 May 2014 18:09, Craig Franklin  wrote:

> The Foundation acted to strip chapters of their fundraising authority at
> the first opportunity, based on what clearly seems to be a pre-determined
> ideological decision that doesn't take actual evidence into account and
> centralises movement decision making authority even further in the WMF?
>
> Colour me surprised.
>
>
> On 21 May 2014 17:10, Stevie Benton 
> wrote:
>
> > Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the
> > Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has
> given
> > us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not
> > to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s
> > fundraiser.
> >
> > We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
> > letter to Sue can be found
> > here<
> >
> https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-renewal.pdf
> > >
> > on
> > the Wikimedia UK wiki.
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > Stevie
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stevie Benton
> > Head of External Relations
> > Wikimedia UK
> > +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
> > @StevieBenton
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> > and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> > Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> > London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
> > global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
> > Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> >
> > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> > control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[David Cuenca]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
>
> Ok, but did anyone in the world really believe for a second that WMF was
> ever going to change their mind after they managed to centralise UK income
> in WMF bank accounts?
>
>
Sometimes it is better to take a step back to understand in which
conceptual frame each decision is taken.

As I see it:
- WMF: specialized in global matters, fearful of not having enough
long-term resources to conduct its operation
- Chapters:  specialized in local matters, fearful of not having enough
long-term resources to conduct their operation

And resources are not only money, also the independence and political
capital to act, or to build-up donor's trust for future fundraisers.

Some chapters are taking a very active role in removing weight from WMF's
shoulders also on global matters, and I think that increases trust. Perhaps
there is a clear model about what expects each side, I was not able to find
it (other than Chapters Dialogue), that would prevent disappointments like
it seems in this case.

Cheers,
Micru
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Fæ]

> We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
> letter to Sue can be found here on the Wikimedia UK wiki.

This open letter may have some emotive reason for being produced, but
after reviewing it carefully, I can see no strategic value for WMUK by
publishing it.

It comes as no surprise for anyone with a reasonable understanding of
WMF politics that Sue Gardner has made this decision. The surprise
here is that Jon Davies (WMUK CEO) thought he had invested his time
over the last two years forming a relationship with the right person
within the WMF hierarchy that would take different action, or that he
was following effective tactics by using appeasing politics, in order
to achieve a different outcome in time for 2014/15.

This official letter criticises the outgoing CEO's judgement
(exceedingly pointless), and I read nothing in its content to address
how WMUK is making the significant management changes that would
convince those that think along Sue's lines to make a difference for
coming years. How Jon Davies believes this will impress the new WMF
CEO is beyond me.

Hopefully the superb exemplars of WMFR and WMDE in how they have, and
continue to, radically change their course is something that the
current WMUK board of trustees are taking to heart behind closed
doors. Certainly, *they* have said little in public.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Silly question? - What list is meant for what?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Rui Correia, 21/05/2014 00:01:

I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the Wikimedia
Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een
realising that I was writing to more than one list.


Because you were not.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Craig Franklin]

The Foundation acted to strip chapters of their fundraising authority at
the first opportunity, based on what clearly seems to be a pre-determined
ideological decision that doesn't take actual evidence into account and
centralises movement decision making authority even further in the WMF?

Colour me surprised.


On 21 May 2014 17:10, Stevie Benton  wrote:

> Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the
> Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given
> us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not
> to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s
> fundraiser.
>
> We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
> letter to Sue can be found
> here<
> https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-renewal.pdf
> >
> on
> the Wikimedia UK wiki.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Stevie
>
>
> --
>
> Stevie Benton
> Head of External Relations
> Wikimedia UK
> +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
> @StevieBenton
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
> global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
> Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Stevie Benton, 21/05/2014 09:10:

We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
letter to Sue can be found
here
on
the Wikimedia UK wiki.


Ok, but did anyone in the world really believe for a second that WMF was 
ever going to change their mind after they managed to centralise UK 
income in WMF bank accounts?


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

[Stevie Benton]

Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the
Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given
us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not
to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s
fundraiser.

We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
letter to Sue can be found
here
on
the Wikimedia UK wiki.

Thanks and regards,

Stevie


-- 

Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,