[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Dggenwp]

There is no point raising more money than we can usefully spend. There was 
presented in this thread a  very appropriate list of expensive things we could 
usefully do ,but the reason we don’t do them isn’t lack of money —because we 
have so much of what we raise unspent. We either don’t have the ability to 
organise to do the work or can’t find the people or would rather accumulate 
money than use it.

> On Sep 28, 2021, at 6:39 AM, Vi to  wrote:
> 
> 
> UCOC must surely be ruled out of this list. The reasons behind its creations 
> are indisputable.
> 
> Anyway donations are collected because of volunteers' work, but should be 
> mainly bound to readers' (donors') will.
> 
> Vito
> 
>> Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 10:19 Todd Allen  
>> ha scritto:
>> It's not only that.
>> 
>> When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer community 
>> (ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that raises issues 
>> beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are now actively 
>> being used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just that WMF is 
>> using its money on frivolous or useless projects (though that would be a 
>> problem), it is that WMF is using its funds from what we built to actively 
>> punch us in the face and act against us.
>> 
>> If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no reason, 
>> well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our funds to 
>> actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they say?
>> 
>> Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're seeing.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Todd Allen
>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier  
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on 
>>> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>>> 
>>> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve the 
>>> same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating in 
>>> those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>>> 
>>> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue generation) 
>>> tend to stem from three main sources:
>>> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
>>> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
>>> * improper means used to raise money.
>>> 
>>> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any 
>>> relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've 
>>> been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the 
>>> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through 
>>> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is inextricably 
>>> woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should only raise 
>>> the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything more is an 
>>> attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting. 
>>> 
>>> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software 
>>> community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around 
>>> paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be 
>>> done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But 
>>> let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more 
>>> fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>>> 
>>> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who 
>>> remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we 
>>> can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days 
>>> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from 
>>> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets 
>>> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the 
>>> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>>> 
>>> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to 
>>> advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is 
>>> also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board 
>>> understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they 
>>> directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be 
>>> able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members 
>>> of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also 
>>> understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding 
>>> question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]
>>> 
>>> [2] 
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
>>> [3] 
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Vi to]

Hr.wiki case proves that some very basic things must be enforced, anyway.

Vito

Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 23:29 Todd Allen 
ha scritto:

> If UCOC is such a great idea, it should be made opt-in, or at least
> opt-out. After all, if it's so brilliant, surely everyone will want it
> anyway, right?
>
> It is the imposition of "You will get this whether you like it or not"
> which is the problem.
>
> Todd
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:39 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
>> UCOC must surely be ruled out of this list. The reasons behind its
>> creations are indisputable.
>>
>> Anyway donations are collected because of volunteers' work, but should be
>> mainly bound to readers' (donors') will.
>>
>> Vito
>>
>> Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 10:19 Todd Allen 
>> ha scritto:
>>
>>> It's not only that.
>>>
>>> When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer
>>> community (ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that
>>> raises issues beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are
>>> now actively being used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just
>>> that WMF is using its money on frivolous or useless projects (though that
>>> would be a problem), it is that WMF is using its funds from what we built
>>> to actively punch us in the face and act against us.
>>>
>>> If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no reason,
>>> well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our funds to
>>> actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they say?
>>>
>>> Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're
>>> seeing.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Todd Allen
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier <
>>> gpaum...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
 revenue strategy in the past few years.)

 Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve
 the same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating
 in those discussions for 15 years, is the following.

 Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue
 generation) tend to stem from three main sources:
 * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
 * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
 * improper means used to raise money.

 The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any
 relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've
 been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
 advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
 countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is
 inextricably woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should
 only raise the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything
 more is an attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.

 This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software
 community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around
 paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be
 done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But
 let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more
 fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.

 The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who
 remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we
 can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
 seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
 our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
 appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
 budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.

 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)

 And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can
 get to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that
 it is also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the
 Board understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017,
 they directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to
 be able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow
 members of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
 understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding
 question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]

 [2]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
 [3]
 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Todd Allen]

If UCOC is such a great idea, it should be made opt-in, or at least
opt-out. After all, if it's so brilliant, surely everyone will want it
anyway, right?

It is the imposition of "You will get this whether you like it or not"
which is the problem.

Todd

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:39 AM Vi to  wrote:

> UCOC must surely be ruled out of this list. The reasons behind its
> creations are indisputable.
>
> Anyway donations are collected because of volunteers' work, but should be
> mainly bound to readers' (donors') will.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 10:19 Todd Allen 
> ha scritto:
>
>> It's not only that.
>>
>> When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer
>> community (ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that
>> raises issues beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are
>> now actively being used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just
>> that WMF is using its money on frivolous or useless projects (though that
>> would be a problem), it is that WMF is using its funds from what we built
>> to actively punch us in the face and act against us.
>>
>> If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no reason,
>> well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our funds to
>> actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they say?
>>
>> Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're seeing.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Todd Allen
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
>>> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>>>
>>> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve
>>> the same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating
>>> in those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>>>
>>> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue
>>> generation) tend to stem from three main sources:
>>> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
>>> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
>>> * improper means used to raise money.
>>>
>>> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any
>>> relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've
>>> been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
>>> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
>>> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is
>>> inextricably woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should
>>> only raise the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything
>>> more is an attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.
>>>
>>> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software
>>> community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around
>>> paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be
>>> done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But
>>> let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more
>>> fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>>>
>>> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who
>>> remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we
>>> can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
>>> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
>>> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
>>> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
>>> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>>>
>>> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get
>>> to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is
>>> also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board
>>> understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they
>>> directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be
>>> able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members
>>> of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
>>> understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding
>>> question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
>>> [3]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Revenue_Streams#Guiding_Questions
>>>
>>> People who attended the meeting of strategy working groups in Berlin in
>>> early 2018 might remember a thought exercise led by the Revenue Streams
>>> group. In it, we estimated that 

[Wikimedia-l] Incoming CEO Listening Tour

[Maryana Iskander]

Hi everyone - Thank you for the messages of welcome that I have received
since my announcement [1] last Tuesday as the incoming CEO of the Wikimedia
Foundation.



As I mentioned in my welcome letter below, I am officially joining in
January 2022 and would like to use the next few months for a “listening
tour” to help me do just that: listen and learn.



If you are interested in sharing, you can find details on Meta now [2]. I
welcome input from anyone who would like to share and look forward to
meeting some of you on the screen and maybe even in person!



Thank you,

Maryana



[1]

*https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/14_September_2021_-_Welcoming_the_new_Wikimedia_Foundation_CEO
*




[2]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Chief_Executive_Officer/Maryana%E2%80%99s_Listening_Tour



On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:35 PM Maryana Iskander 
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to introduce myself to you.
>
> When I read the job position [1] for the next leader of Wikimedia
> Foundation, I noticed that it opened with a seemingly simple statement:
> “Knowledge belongs to all of us.” Does it, really? It’s a striking
> statement. In an increasingly unequal and polarizing world, one in which
> almost nothing belongs to all of us, the idea that knowledge *must *belong
> to all is enough to capture anyone’s attention and imagination – certainly
> mine.
>
> My story is shaped by a twin belief that knowledge can also set us free.
> Shortly after I was born in Cairo, Egypt, my parents left for the United
> States. During my time at university, graduate school, and law school, I
> was consistently pulled towards some of society’s toughest issues – women’s
> rights, civil rights, and the rights of prisoners. I was equally pulled by
> the need to be effective in making change – seeking out leadership
> positions and raising my hand and voice to change the institutions of
> power, not just protest against them. I learned that the opportunity to
> make meaningful impact often sits ‘in-between’ traditional spheres:
> in-between research and teaching at Rice University, in-between healthcare
> delivery and advocacy at Planned Parenthood, and in-between government and
> the private sector at Harambee Youth Employment Accelerator. My time at all
> of these organisations required listening to and learning from many diverse
> stakeholders – including volunteers – and using my position of leadership
> to champion often unheard voices.
>
>
>
> In 2012, I followed my heart to South Africa and its very complicated
> society – a legacy of apartheid perpetuating deep inequality despite the
> resilience of communities full of potential and hope, and a country with
> one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the world. A new
> organisation had just been formed with a big vision to close this
> opportunity gap. I signed up, first as an unpaid volunteer, and then for
> many years as the CEO. My job has been to cultivate a common space of trust
> for the collective assets of the society – from government, the private
> sector, civil society, and millions of young people – to work in a
> coalition to tackle one of the most daunting challenges of our time. To do
> this, we relied on an inclusive, multi-channel platform that leverages all
> forms of technology as a way to serve communities still riddled by a basic
> lack of access. Our successes came from the power of connection,
> partnership, and a collective belief that young people are the solution,
> not the problem. As I began my tenth year, I felt it was time to make space
> for new leaders.
>
>
>
> Why am I joining the Wikimedia Foundation at this moment? There are many
> reasons: (1) this collective of projects is growing what is perhaps the
> most important commons infrastructure of our modern world. I am excited to
> add my time and talents to this vision. What will it take to create – not
> just imagine – a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in the sum of all knowledge? (2) I have experienced first-hand that
> distributed leadership models can usually achieve more than any group of
> people can do on their own. I am eager to support processes that will make
> this even more true for our movement; and (3) I am drawn to working with
> people of integrity and commitment, who also appreciate humor and joy. I
> can already see that I will meet new colleagues like this from all over the
> world.
>
>
>
> My former colleagues will say that I believe progress is enabled by
> culture: one that is founded on accountability, diversity and inclusion in
> all its forms, and a way of working led by values. It has informed an
> organisational humility in working with others and a relentless focus on
> getting things done the right way – while doing the right thing.
>

[Wikimedia-l] Invitation to join the International Jury Team of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021

[Euphemia Uwandu]

Hello everyone,

The #WPWPCampaign 2021 International Team is looking for experienced
volunteer Wikipedia editors to join the campaign international jury team.
Interested person(s) should email the international team via their mailing
list: wpwp-organiz...@lists.wikimedia.org list.

Thank you,

Euphemia and Rajeeb
For: Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos International Jury.
___
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/ETKG26UMGCATMFZNRKYDJS7NOUBUCJJF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Vi to]

UCOC must surely be ruled out of this list. The reasons behind its
creations are indisputable.

Anyway donations are collected because of volunteers' work, but should be
mainly bound to readers' (donors') will.

Vito

Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 10:19 Todd Allen 
ha scritto:

> It's not only that.
>
> When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer
> community (ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that
> raises issues beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are
> now actively being used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just
> that WMF is using its money on frivolous or useless projects (though that
> would be a problem), it is that WMF is using its funds from what we built
> to actively punch us in the face and act against us.
>
> If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no reason,
> well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our funds to
> actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they say?
>
> Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're seeing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Allen
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
>> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>>
>> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve the
>> same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating in
>> those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>>
>> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue
>> generation) tend to stem from three main sources:
>> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
>> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
>> * improper means used to raise money.
>>
>> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any
>> relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've
>> been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
>> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
>> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is
>> inextricably woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should
>> only raise the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything
>> more is an attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.
>>
>> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software
>> community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around
>> paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be
>> done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But
>> let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more
>> fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>>
>> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who
>> remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we
>> can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
>> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
>> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
>> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
>> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>>
>> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get
>> to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is
>> also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board
>> understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they
>> directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be
>> able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members
>> of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
>> understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding
>> question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]
>>
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
>> [3]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Revenue_Streams#Guiding_Questions
>>
>> People who attended the meeting of strategy working groups in Berlin in
>> early 2018 might remember a thought exercise led by the Revenue Streams
>> group. In it, we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably
>> require an annual budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion
>> dollars. There is nothing intrinsically outrageous about that amount, as
>> long as the money advances the mission efficiently and equitably. The
>> International Committee of the Red Cross had a global budget of $1.6
>> billion in 2016.
>>
>> And that's the heart of the argument 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: About raising money

[Peter Southwood]

I think perhaps you attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained 
by incompetence. 

Cheers,

Peter

 

From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 28 September 2021 10:01
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

 

It's not only that.

 

When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer community 
(ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that raises issues 
beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are now actively being 
used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just that WMF is using its 
money on frivolous or useless projects (though that would be a problem), it is 
that WMF is using its funds from what we built to actively punch us in the face 
and act against us.

 

If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no reason, 
well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our funds to 
actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they say?

 

Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're seeing.

 

Regards,

 

Todd Allen

 

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier  
wrote:

Hi,

 

(Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on revenue 
strategy in the past few years.)

 

Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve the same 
arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating in those 
discussions for 15 years, is the following.

 

Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue generation) 
tend to stem from three main sources:

* the moral superiority of financial disinterest

* outlandish budgets and fundraising goals

* improper means used to raise money.

 

The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any 
relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've been 
editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the advancement of 
humankind through knowledge. We have done so through countless acts of 
selflessness. Our financial disinterest is inextricably woven into our identity 
as Wikimedians. The Foundation should only raise the minimum funds required to 
"keep the lights on." Anything more is an attempt to profit from our free 
labor, and that's revolting. 

 

This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software 
community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around paid 
editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be done to 
change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But let's name them 
explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more fact-based arguments, 
if we are willing and able.

 

The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who 
remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we can 
buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days seems 
extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from our past 
act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets appear greedily 
outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the budget, we should 
instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.

 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)

 

And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to 
advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is also 
bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board understood: 
shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they directed the 
Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be able to move 
towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members of the working 
group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also understood the scope of the 
movement's ambitions: the first guiding question for our work was how to 
"maximize revenue for the movement". [3]

 

[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization

[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Revenue_Streams#Guiding_Questions

 

People who attended the meeting of strategy working groups in Berlin in early 
2018 might remember a thought exercise led by the Revenue Streams group. In it, 
we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably require an annual 
budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion dollars. There is nothing 
intrinsically outrageous about that amount, as long as the money advances the 
mission efficiently and equitably. The International Committee of the Red Cross 
had a global budget of $1.6 billion in 2016.


And that's the heart of the argument about fundraising goals; it's less about 
how much we raise, and more about what we spend it on. Moral argument aside, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Todd Allen]

It's not only that.

When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer community
(ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that raises issues
beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are now actively
being used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just that WMF is
using its money on frivolous or useless projects (though that would be a
problem), it is that WMF is using its funds from what we built to actively
punch us in the face and act against us.

If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no reason,
well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our funds to
actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they say?

Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're seeing.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>
> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve the
> same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating in
> those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>
> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue
> generation) tend to stem from three main sources:
> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
> * improper means used to raise money.
>
> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any
> relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've
> been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is
> inextricably woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should
> only raise the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything
> more is an attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.
>
> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software
> community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around
> paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be
> done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But
> let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more
> fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>
> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who
> remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we
> can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>
> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get
> to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is
> also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board
> understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they
> directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be
> able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members
> of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
> understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding
> question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Revenue_Streams#Guiding_Questions
>
> People who attended the meeting of strategy working groups in Berlin in
> early 2018 might remember a thought exercise led by the Revenue Streams
> group. In it, we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably
> require an annual budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion
> dollars. There is nothing intrinsically outrageous about that amount, as
> long as the money advances the mission efficiently and equitably. The
> International Committee of the Red Cross had a global budget of $1.6
> billion in 2016.
>
> And that's the heart of the argument about fundraising goals; it's less
> about how much we raise, and more about what we spend it on. Moral argument
> aside, the problem is rarely that the movement is raising too much money,
> but rather that people feel that they're not getting their fair share of
> it, whether in cash, attention, support, or something else. At the
> Wikimedia Conference in 2018, literally no one wanted to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Andreas, you are entitled to an opinion. But it is your opinion. When
others say things about the WMF, what it is there for, its challenges, when
they build an argument you can and you do ignore it. The consequence is
that it invalidates your refutations and your opinion is only that at best.
A case in point is: Guillaume makes a statement about the WMF and you
reduce it to his opinion. In this way you take the liberty to ignore what
is said and continue with the same, same, same.

The Wikimedia list is not your platform, it is not about Wikipedia. The
whole of your point is as I perceive it, built on your perception  of a
"checkered past". Nowhere is it about what we as a movement will be in the
future, the challenges we face. What I miss in all of your writing is what
to do for our future, how are we going to tackle the biggest bias we face
(English, not gender). How are we going to tackle our biggest blind spot
(the non-AngloSaxon world).

As I pointed out before, your opinion is your own. The arguments of others
you ignore and you are entitled to your opinion. Sadly, your point of view
does not bring us forward.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 17:33, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Guillaume,
>
> Thanks for a thoughtful, perceptive, enlightening and multidimensional
> post that's been a pleasure to read. I think we grow as people when we can
> see things from more than one perspective, and there is much in your post
> that is worth pondering.
>
> I will try to add some complementary perspectives in this post.
>
> There are two – closely related – assumptions in your mail that strike me
> as particularly worthy of being examined.
>
> First, you say, "as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to
> advance our mission".
>
> I would argue that this is not something that you objectively "need", but
> something that you "want". Which leads me directly into the second
> assumption, underlying your assertion that your co-workers "have literally
> spent years doing A/B tests to soften the tone and figure out the least
> alarming language possible to raise the required amounts. All that while
> enduring constant criticism of their work. They are heroes."
>
> The key word here is "required". You present your colleagues as people
> trapped in a system where they are condemned to desperate efforts to, as
> you say, figure out the "least alarming language" that will "do the trick"
> (while not getting them hated on too much).
>
> That means you are looking at the question of banner wording from one end
> only (one anchor, to use the phraseology you introduced in your post):
> whatever amount is "required" this year. In doing so, you tacitly accept
> and endorse the need for "alarming language" – you're effectively saying
> that reducing it to the level of the "least alarming language" possible is
> all your team can be asked to do, and enough to fulfil their ethical
> responsibilities.
>
> This isn't right. You are unmoored from the other end of the equation,
> i.e. to what extent the fundraising banners would still be considered
> consistent with your actual financial situation by an average person in
> full possession of the facts.
>
> This unmooring is how you end up, year after year, based on your A/B
> testing, with messages that prominently paint a picture of Wikipedia being
> threatened. These messages have been about "keeping Wikipedia online and
> ad-free", impressing on people the need to make "a donation this Sunday" so
> the WMF can "continue to protect Wikipedia's independence", and so on. They
> work not because donors share your ideas about the ever more comprehensive
> and costly global mission the WMF has set itself, but because they love
> Wikipedia and would not like to see it fail or disappear. It's as simple as
> that.
>
> You also elided the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation, in the 2020/2021
> financial year alone, took at least $65M, but perhaps as much as $85M more
> from donors than its own budget "required":
>
> – Actual takings were $157M+ for the Foundation[1] and $40M? for the
> Endowment (the Endowment stood at $62.9M on July 1 2020[2] and has now
> exceeded $100M, as we've just been told; the June 30 2021 year-end figure
> is still not available, as you still haven't published the fourth-quarter
> tuning session deck).
>
> – Revenue targets at the beginning of the financial year were $108M for
> the Foundation and $5M for the Endowment.[3]
>
> Clearly, the budgeted amounts could have been taken with "less alarming"
> language.
>
> I have asked before who sets these "required" amounts, and who directs
> staff to continue fundraising well after publicised targets are met. I have
> not received a straight answer. Where, please, does the buck, literally,
> stop? Who has the final word?
>
> And are Advancement managers' salaries, which appear to have a startling
> upward mobility (just like the CEO salary in the past five years), indeed
> tied to increases in 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Again, your English Wikipedia background shows. Wikipedia exists in 200+
languages, knowledge panels in English are of interest to some 50% of our
public. The aggregated data at Wikidata is able to service all the
languages we support. For the nds.wikipedia.org just recently, it was
announced that they now support Listeria lists. Given a mission of "sharing
the sum of all knowledge", there is more data to share in Wikidata than
there is in all the Wikipedias combined.

When you consider the data stream provided to those who want to pay for it;
this data stream makes much of the bot traffic we used to have redundant.
So it is not as if any party could not get at the data, this way is more
convenient to us and to them.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 15:03, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> The Cunctator's point about Wikidata's copyright-free CC0 licence is
> actually one issue that I had meant to include in the list of WMF ethical
> lapses in my other post .
>
> Wikidata has imported very large amounts of content from Wikipedia, which,
> as The Cunctator points out, has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
> License. This was not the original plan, as it was thought doing so would
> infringe the licence under which Wikipedia contributors had released their
> contributions.
>
> In 2012, for example, while he was still a Wikimedia Deutschland employee,
> Denny wrote on Meta,[1]
>
> Alexrk2, it is absolutely true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be
> allowed to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not
> plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will ''provide''
> data that can be reused in the Wikipedias. And a CC0 source can be used by
> a Share-Alike project, be it either Wikipedia or OSM. But not the other way
> around. Do we agree on this understanding? --[[User:Denny Vrandečić
> (WMDE)|Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)|talk]])
> 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
>
> Denny then moved to Google in October 2013, and subsequently argued
> strongly in favour of making Wikidata CC0, which is the viewpoint that
> prevailed and led to large-scale importation of Wikipedia content in
> Wikidata.
>
> The legal situation is admittedly fairly complex[2] but it stands to
> reason that when a person moves from Wikimedia to Google, loyalties and
> priorities will change along with such a move. That is only natural. Nobody
> would or should make such a move if they weren't prepared to be loyal to
> their new employer. (I've cc'ed Denny as a courtesy.)
>
> What is equally certain is that the CC0 licence served the interests of
> Google and other Big Tech companies. All of this of course happened at a
> time when Google and Silicon Valley were particularly strongly represented
> on the WMF board.[3]
>
> As far as the Wikimedia projects are concerned, Wikidata's shift to CC0
> substantially increased the risk of disintermediation that Guillaume
> mentioned in his post. If content is CC0, there is no need for attribution,
> so unlike the present Knowledge Graph panels, which at least have a link to
> Wikipedia, there is no need for any attribution to a Wikimedia site at all
> when others use Wikidata content.
>
> Content is then widely disseminated and presented as truth without any
> indication that it comes from a Wikimedia volunteer project. As Heather
> Ford has pointed out in her chapter of the Wikipedia @ 20 book, "Rise of
> the Underdog"[4], this obscuring of provenance is undesirable for other
> reasons as well – it becomes harder to contest information. Users lose
> agency.
>
> Now, in the context of the grand aim of Knowledge Equity, I believe it is
> absolutely the wrong thing for the WMF to enter into any association with
> Big Tech companies that results in any preferential treatment being
> extended to them.
>
> Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook are surveillance
> capitalists. Their entire business model is based on tracking user
> behaviour. It is diametrically opposed to professed WMF core values
> concerning privacy and data protection.
>
> Moreover, these companies have become trillion-dollar companies – really
> the 21st-century equivalent in many ways of what oil companies were in the
> last century, and wielding the same kind of covert influence – in part
> because of their diligent effort to avoid paying taxes in the countries
> they operate in.
>
> The way these companies are set up, this will never change: shareholders
> will always demand maximum return on their investments, which necessitates
> minimising tax. I believe anyone who would try to change these companies'
> tax-avoidance behaviour, volunteering to pay the billions of dollars of tax
> these companies morally owe the global south and other jurisdictions, would
> simply be axed.
>
> What this means, given that all these companies are based in the US, is
> that as their already overwhelming market share grows globally, the
> economic imbalance