[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Julia Brungs]

Hi All,

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

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

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

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

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement funding questions

[Julia Brungs]

Hi SJ,

We posted an answer to your questions on meta [1] and will update that
answer when reports become available in the next few months.

Best wishes,
Julia

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_2030/2021_Call_for_Movement_Strategy_Implementation_Grants#Making_progress_on_questions_of_resource_allocation


On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 5:51 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Adam: well put.
>
> We may want to translate '*Service and equity*', from recent strategy
> discussions, more widely: into a range of contexts as well as languages.
>
> 
>
> On Thu., May 20, 2021, 3:19 a.m. Adam Wight, 
> wrote:
>
>> In case there really is a question about whether we should be working
>> towards greater equity, please see the Wikimedia Foundation's vision
>> statement [1],
>>
>>  > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
>> the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment
>>
>> and in more detail [2],
>>
>>  > ... our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and
>> contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from
>> accessing or contributing to our projects ...
>>
>> Since sj's point is in the context of Wikimedia, "goals of increasing
>> equity across the world, and supporting underrepresented communities"
>> should be understood as "goals of increasing equity [to read and
>> contribute to Wikimedia projects] across the world, and supporting
>> underrepresented [Wikimedia] communities".  Please correct me if I've
>> misunderstood these affiliate review suggestions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>>
>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision
>> [2]
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Serving_every_human_being
>>
>> On 5/20/21 7:34 AM, Alexander N Krassotkin wrote:
>> > Dear Samuel,
>> >
>> >   Just a note...
>> >
>> > "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage
>> > people around the world to collect and develop educational content
>> > under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it
>> > effectively and globally".
>> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/mission/
>> >
>> >   But not "increasing equity across the world".
>> >
>> >   You can create separate funds for this and other good purposes.
>> >
>> > sasha.
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:05 PM Julia Brungs 
>> wrote:
>> >> Dear SJ,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you very much for your questions here and on meta. We are
>> working on answering them and will post the answers on meta (don't worry I
>> will reply to this thread again when the answers are live so people can go
>> and find them).
>> >>
>> >> Best wishes,
>> >> Julia
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 7:32 PM Samuel Klein 
>> wrote:
>> >>> :)   Dimi, do you know of reports on subsets of this, for groups and
>> projects in Europe?   I discovered to my delight a beautiful summary of WMF
>> grants made up to 2020 -- thanks Guillaume! -- which partly answers the
>> first question. But this does not include donations + external grant
>> funding that directly supports affiliates.
>> >>>
>> >>> One other point -- It was noted that 3a and 3d seem similar.  I
>> updated these Qs on meta to be clearer.  I meant:
>> >>>
>> >>>   3a:  What groups do we envision making individual funding
>> recommendations?  [timing, who decides, what constraints]
>> >>>   3d:  How do we envision reviewing how things are going?   [peer
>> feedback on budgets and plans, reflection on the overall balance of funding
>> across the movement.]
>> >>>
>> >>> These inform one another, but are distinct.   And the first is more
>> than just updating current processes: major gaps to fill include funding
>> for projects under $500, and multi-year funding for infrastructure and
>> projects -- among the most common requests.
>> >>>
>> >>> SJ
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 6:52 AM Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
>> dimitar.parvanov.dimit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Samuel,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for structuring these questions regarding funding and
>> fundraising. I just wanted to pitch in a +1.
>>

[Wikimedia-l] Join the new Regional Committees for Grants

[Julia Brungs]

Dear all,

We hope this email finds you well and safe. The COVID 19 situation
continues to affect many of us across the globe and our thoughts are with
everyone affected. We are also aware that there are several processes
currently in progress that demand volunteer time and we do not want to add
more work to anyone's plate.

We do want to draw your attention to our new Regional Committees for Grants
though as they are an opportunity for you to have an active say in the
future of our Movement!

 So today, we invite you to join our new Regional Committees for Grants!


We encourage Wikimedians and Free Knowledge advocates to be part of the new
Regional Committees that the WMF Community Resources team is setting up as
part of the grants strategy relaunch [1]. You will be a key strategic
thought partner to help understand the complexities of any region, provide
knowledge and expertise to applicants, to support successful movement
activities, and make funding decisions for grant applications in the region.

Find out more on meta [2].

Regional Committees will be established for the following regions:

   - Middle East and Africa
   - SAARC [3] region (Includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the
   Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka)
   - East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific (ESEAP) region
   - Latin America (LATAM) and The Caribbean
   - United States and Canada
   - Northern and Western Europe
   - Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)

All details about the Committees and how to apply can be found on meta
[4]. Applications have to be submitted by *June 4, 2021*!

If you have any questions or comments, please use the meta discussion page
[5].

Please do share this announcement widely with your Network.
Best wishes,
Julia on behalf of the Community Resources Team

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees
[3] https://www.saarc-sec.org/index.php/about-saarc/about-saarc
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees#How_to_apply
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021

-- 
*Julia Brungs*
Senior Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement funding questions

[Julia Brungs]

Dear SJ,

Thank you very much for your questions here and on meta. We are working on
answering them and will post the answers on meta (don't worry I will reply
to this thread again when the answers are live so people can go and find
them).

Best wishes,
Julia


On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 7:32 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> :)   Dimi, do you know of reports on subsets of this, for groups and
> projects in Europe?   I discovered to my delight a beautiful summary of WMF
> grants made up to 2020
>  -- thanks
> Guillaume! -- which partly answers the first question. But this does not
> include donations + external grant funding that directly supports
> affiliates.
>
> One other point -- It was noted that 3a and 3d seem similar.  I updated
> these Qs on meta  to be
> clearer.  I meant:
>
>  *3a*:  What groups do we envision making individual funding
> recommendations?  [timing, who decides, what constraints]
>  *3d*:  How do we envision reviewing how things are going?   [peer
> feedback on budgets and plans, reflection on the overall balance of funding
> across the movement.]
>
> These inform one another, but are distinct.   And the first is more than
> just updating current processes: major gaps to fill include funding for
> projects under $500, and multi-year funding for infrastructure and projects
> -- among the most common requests.
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 6:52 AM Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
> dimitar.parvanov.dimit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Samuel,
>>
>> Thanks for structuring these questions regarding funding and fundraising.
>> I just wanted to pitch in a +1.
>>
>> It would be very useful to have answers to some of these for our public
>> facing work. Such questions pop up naturally in conversations and the more
>> granular we can be in our answers the better the reaction we get.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dimi
>>
>> На пн, 17.05.2021 г. в 21:13 ч. Samuel Klein  написа:
>>
>>> Dear list,
>>>
>>> Risker posed an excellent question in the AffCom thread about *review
>>> and development of movement funding*, which could use its own dedicated
>>> thread.  Riffing on the theme, here are a dozen questions for anyone who
>>> knows part of the answer -- particularly those who helped develop the 2019
>>> recommendations on resource allocation
>>> 
>>>  ,
>>> the 2020 approach to hubs and participatory resource allocation
>>> ,
>>> and the grants strategy relaunch
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> We can move this discussion to meta
>>>  if the thread becomes unwieldy.
>>> (:
>>>
>>> *1. Current state of movement funding*
>>>
>>>  1a. Roughly what % of global fundraising is currently allocated to
>>> affiliates, or other entities + projects not run by the WMF?  (*my poor
>>> guess*)
>>>
>>>  1b. Roughly how much regional fundraising goes directly to major
>>> affiliates?
>>>
>>>  1c. Which affiliates with annual plan grants have been growing over
>>> time, and how is the expansion of existing budgets approved?
>>>
>>>  1d. Which affiliates have gotten their first APG in the past five
>>> years, and how has that developed over time?
>>>
>>> *2. Current review process*
>>>
>>>  2a. How is funding by WMF of movement affiliates (general operations,
>>> and large specific projects) currently determined?  Does the Board engage
>>> with this?
>>>
>>>  2b. Is the funding of affiliate work linked to goals of increasing
>>> equity across the world, and supporting underrepresented communities?
>>> If so, how / how is this visualized?
>>>
>>>  2c. What other mechanisms for focusing and allocating resources are
>>> good examples to replicate?
>>>
>>>  2d. What other bilateral projects (such as joint projects, and grant
>>> or microgrant programs), run by large affiliates and hubs other than the
>>> WMF, currently exist?  Which seem like examples to replicate?
>>>
>>> *3. Desired futures!*
>>>
>>>  3a. What movement bodies are expected to play any role in
>>> recommendations about funding (extending, withdrawing, denying funding) to
>>> new and existing affiliates, now that the FDC is inactive?
>>>
>>>  3b. Is there a possibility of the FDC returning? How do past FDC
>>> members have about this? What was found to be good and bad about the FDC
>>> process?
>>>
>>>  3c.  What elements of this is the global council expected to take up in
>>> its first year? What elements are hubs expected to take up, now and in the
>>> future?
>>>
>>>  3d. What roles do we envision each of {WMF, hubs, affiliates, community
>>> members} to play in reviewing movement budgets/plans and the volume 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Julia Brungs]

Dear all,

We investigated the question you raised about separating the endowment gift
from other grants. Separating the endowment gift from other grants is not
an audit (GAAP) requirement. But due to the nature of the expenses and our
principle of transparency, we do disclose the purpose of the Endowment Fund
and the amounts funded both in the fiscal year of the report as well as
cumulative to-date in Footnote 6 of the audit report [1]. We can certainly
add this to the FAQs going forward.

Just as a reminder, many of the questions raised here have been discussed
on talk:fundraising [2] and talk:endowment [3]

Best wishes,
Julia

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_Enterprise_discussion)
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_Enterprise_discussion)
-- 
*Julia Brungs*
Senior Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:39 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:19 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
>> Including the $100 million endowment, the WMF will now have investments
>>> of around $200 million (excluding cash and cash equivalents), for an annual
>>> investment income of over $10 million. That is already enough to run core
>>> services. Wikimedia posted total expenses of $3.5 million in 2007/2008, a
>>> year after Wikipedia became a global top-ten website.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it's not 2007 anymore. Just because it cost $3.5 million in 2007
>> doesn't mean it'd cost $3.5 million now. I don't know enough about the
>> current financial situation, staff, data centre expenditure, hardware, etc.
>> to state whether $10 million is actually enough to continue to maintain the
>> infrastructure required for the project. Could you share your breakdown and
>> financial analysis?
>>
>
>
> I recall Erik (Möller) saying[1] here on this list, around the time the
> idea of an endowment took shape:
>
>
>
> WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal
>
> staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on
>
> an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to
>
> actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base
>
> level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of
>
> magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual
>
> sustainability of Wikimedia's mission. The "what's the level required
>
> for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,
>
> because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,
>
> to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.
>
>
>
> Now the annual $10M+ of operating expenses Erik spoke of were already for
> more than bare survival – they were for what he called "actual
> sustainability of Wikimedia's mission."
>
>
>
> Right now, the WMF collects about 15 times as much, while still pretending
> to the public that Wikipedia "really needs" their money "this Friday" to
> "stay online", "to protect Wikipedia's independence," etc. What does that
> last phrase even mean, given that the WMF is by any definition bigger and
> wealthier than ever?
>
>
>
> The WMF is $200 million richer today than it was in 2015, when the
> Washington Post asked, "Wikipedia has a ton of money, so why is it begging
> you to donate yours?[2] (At the time I actually thought we had turned a
> corner, hence I am the only one quoted in that article as saying the
> problem had been satisfactorily addressed. More fool me!)
>
>
>
> Latin America is currently being treated to fundraising banners telling
> the public to give the WMF more money to "show the volunteers that their
> work matters" – the same wording the WMF just withdrew after two weeks or
> so when the Brazilians complained[3]. That wording runs along with the
> other familiar banner messages, like "humbly" asking people to donate "to
> defend Wikipedia's independence", etc.
>
>
>
> At least this year's India fundraising drive has been cancelled (for now,
> who knows ...).
>
> I  think this is why we need more cohesion between language communities.
> When the English fundraising banners run, there is the annual moan about
> how the banners are misleading, annoying, too big, too persistent, too
> dishonest, not classy, manipulative, etc. And then January comes, everyone
> breathes a sigh of relief, and forgets ... until next November.
>
> Meanwhile, though, the exact

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF transfers $8.7 million to "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund"

[Julia Brungs]

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for bringing these questions together here. As you are aware the
questions and answers are also on meta (both the talk:Endowment [1] and the
talk:Fundraising [2]) and we expect to post further answers to those
talkpages during the US West Coast daytime today.

Thank you very much.
Best wishes,
Julia

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_Enterprise_discussion)
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising
-- 
*Julia Brungs*
Senior Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:01 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Lisa and all,
>
> Could you provide any update on what is happening with the $8.7 million in
> the Tides Advocacy fund? I asked about it on the Endowment talk page on
> Meta two weeks ago, and while many other questions there have been
> answered, this one has not.
>
> I also asked on Meta how much money the WMF had contributed to the
> Endowment to date. Amy Parker just replied it had been $20 million,[1] but
> that can't be right, as in the audited 2019/2020 financial statements
> published last year (page no. 14), it was already $25 million ($5 million
> p.a. over five years).[2]
>
> A curious side-effect of the Endowment is that money the WMF pays into its
> own Endowment shows up as an Awards and Grants *expense* in the audited
> statements, reducing the revenue surplus. Money flowing into the Endowment,
> on the other hand, is included neither in Revenue nor Net Assets, as it is
> legally separate.[7]
>
> So according to the financial statements for the last five years, the WMF
> had a revenue surplus of over $100 million over that time period (measured
> as increase in net assets, from $77.8 million to $180.3 million). But over
> the same period, the Foundation also accumulated $100 million in Tides
> Foundation funds (i.e. the Endowment, reported[6] to have passed $90
> million in early February, and the $8.7 million in Tides Advocacy).
>
> This means that the Foundation has actually had a revenue surplus of more
> than $200 million over the past five years, averaging over $40 million per
> annum.
>
> Could you provide an update on exactly how much many money is in the
> Endowment and the Tides Advocacy fund at the moment? The Endowment is not
> very transparent. I understand the only page showing how much money has
> accumulated in the Endowment is the page on Meta, and this has only
> sporadically been updated. In this edit,[3] for example, it jumped from
> $62.9 million to $90 million. Before that, the total had last been updated
> more than six months prior.[4]
>
> Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment on
> Meta? (If I have missed any other pages  or documents containing such
> information, I would ask you to kindly provide a link.)
>
> In the discussions on Meta, Pats Peña pointed me to the FAQ[5] for the
> most recent financial statements. One thing I miss in these FAQs is any
> reference to the $100 million held by the Tides Foundation. Readers of the
> FAQ will remain unaware that the actual amount of investments the WMF was
> the beneficiary of in July 2020 substantially exceeded the figure of $170
> million given in the audited financial statements the FAQ refers to –
> including the Tides funds, by well over $70 million when the FAQ was
> published.
>
> I also cannot see any reference to the fact that the expenses noted in the
> FAQ include $5 million that the WMF paid into its own endowment. Could this
> be remedied in this and future FAQs?
>
> Finally, if we were trying to provide a best estimate of the Wikimedia
> Foundation's current total net assets (last reported as $180 million,
> excluding money in the Tides Foundation), would $200 million be in the
> right ballpark, for a grand total of $300 million if we include the Tides
> Foundation money?
>
> I understand that fundraising this fiscal year already exceeded the
> combined year goal for the Foundation and endowment after the first six
> months, followed by the year goal being raised, and exceeded again before
> the end of the second quarter.[8] As fundraising continues (currently in
> Mexico, I understand), it seems certain the WMF net assets are once again
> likely to have risen substantially by the end of the fiscal year,
> especially given that once again, many physical events will have had to be
> cancelled owing to the pandemic.
>
> Best wishes,
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=21395254=21391565
> [2]
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2019-2020_Audit_Report.pdf=16
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.or