[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fact-checking Raju Narisetti in the Indian Express

[Peter Southwood]

The price of free and reliable information seems to be eternal questioning of 
the published information, something we are quite accustomed to. We expect this 
from politicians and big business interests. A pity it applies so much to our 
internal affairs too.

Cheers,

Peter

 

From: Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 03 June 2022 12:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Fact-checking Raju Narisetti in the Indian Express

 

Dear all,

 

The Indian Express article has been updated. The paragraph discussed now reads 
as follows:

 

“More than 75% of the money we raise globally goes to two things. One is to 
give money back to the volunteer community so they can launch a new language. 
Two is about half of it goes to the infrastructure. You need to have databases 
and put it on the cloud and make sure it’s reliable,” he said. Although a lot 
of the money is raised in the more developed Western markets, a lot of it is 
actually flowing into the global south, where the growth will come in languages 
and users.

 

At the bottom of the article there is now a Disclaimer:

 

Disclaimer: An earlier version of the story used the phrase ‘most of it’ in 
place of ‘a lot of it’ while talking of funding being used in the global south. 
This has been corrected.

 

This is better, thank you, although still far from perfect. (I wouldn't have 
said "a lot of it"; it actually is relatively little, as explained earlier.) 

 

I've been told the "More than 75%" in the first sentence of that paragraph 
refers to the sum of 

 

42% Direct support to websites

31% Direct support to communities

 

mentioned in the Annual Report.[1] 

 

Now, I am quite certain the "31% Direct support to communities" includes 
funding for the affiliates, which in many cases have paid staff, not volunteer 
staff. If so, then the phrase "give money back to the volunteer community" – 
which is different from "communities" in the Anual Report – is substantially 
misleading. (Wikimedia Germany alone has around 160 paid employees.) 

 

The 65,000 Indian volunteer contributors mentioned in the Indian Express 
article by and large don't get any of those funds. What personal grants there 
were in South Asia ($75,198) went to 22 individuals, according to the Form 990 
(p. 34, column (c), "Number of recipients").[2] The impression created by this 
passage is quite different from the reality.

 

Another inaccuracy is in the phrase "75% of the money we raise". As mentioned 
earlier, the WMF each year raises substantially more money than it spends. The 
percentages in the Annual Report relate to expenditure, not revenue. (You can 
tell that this is so because they sum to 100%.) 

 

75% of $112 million (total expenses) is not 75% of $163 million (total support 
and revenue)![3] 

 

Another paragraph in the Indian Express article that I thought was strange is 
this one:

 

“Unlike many other countries, India is mobile-centric… you can’t tell people to 
go to a desktop or laptop and edit. So that became a constraint. So we actually 
partnered with Jio and made sure it (editing) was built into the app itself… We 
enabled people to edit Wikipedia on the phone, which is a big breakthrough in a 
country like India, and so that has contributed to the significant growth in 
languages,” he said, adding this is also the answer to why Wikipedia raises 
money.

 

As an explanation for why Wikipedia raises money, this reads very well – "The 
Wikimedia Foundation needs money to create more free content in Indian 
languages!" I can imagine how this might be viewed as something Indians can get 
behind. 

 

But as mentioned before, the Wikimedia Foundation had a surplus of $50 million 
in the 2020/2021 financial year. That surplus alone is ten times what the 
Foundation spent in the entire rest of the world (outside Europe and North 
America) in 2020, according to the Form 990.[4] 

 

As a movement committed to accuracy and neutrality, we always fact-check 
narratives. Please let's do that with our own as well! 

 

I would also like to point out that the only thing enabling us to check the 
facts in this case is the Form 990 the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required 
to publish in order to retain charitable status. 

 

As I mentioned the other day, both here and in the Signpost,[5] the Wikimedia 
Endowment – which now also receives most planned gifts (assets left in people's 
will) that in the past would have gone to the Foundation[6] – has never 
produced a Form 990 or audited financial statements, because it is still not a 
501(c)(3) organisation. As a movement, we should insist on the move to a 
501(c)(3) being completed as a matter of urgency, to establish a minimum 
standard of transparency.

 

Best,

Andreas

 

[1] 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/

[2] 
https://upload.wikimedia.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fact-checking Raju Narisetti in the Indian Express

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The Indian Express article has been updated. The paragraph discussed now
reads as follows:

“More than 75% of the money we raise globally goes to two things. One is to
give money back to the volunteer community so they can launch a new
language. Two is about half of it goes to the infrastructure. You need to
have databases and put it on the cloud and make sure it’s reliable,” he
said. Although a lot of the money is raised in the more developed Western
markets, a lot of it is actually flowing into the global south, where the
growth will come in languages and users.

At the bottom of the article there is now a Disclaimer:

*Disclaimer: An earlier version of the story used the phrase ‘most of it’
in place of ‘a lot of it’ while talking of funding being used in the global
south. This has been corrected.*

This is better, thank you, although still far from perfect. (I wouldn't
have said "a lot of it"; it actually is relatively little, as explained
earlier.)

I've been told the "More than 75%" in the first sentence of that paragraph
refers to the sum of

42% Direct support to websites
31% Direct support to communities

mentioned in the Annual Report.[1]

Now, I am quite certain the "31% Direct support to communities" includes
funding for the affiliates, which in many cases have paid staff, not
volunteer staff. If so, then the phrase "give money back to the *volunteer*
community" – which is different from "communities" in the Anual Report – is
substantially misleading. (Wikimedia Germany alone has around 160 paid
employees.)

The 65,000 Indian volunteer contributors mentioned in the Indian Express
article by and large don't get any of those funds. What personal grants
there were in South Asia ($75,198) went to 22 individuals, according to the
Form 990 (p. 34, column (c), "Number of recipients").[2] The impression
created by this passage is quite different from the reality.

Another inaccuracy is in the phrase "75% of the money we *raise*". As
mentioned earlier, the WMF each year raises substantially more money than
it spends. The percentages in the Annual Report relate to expenditure, not
revenue. (You can tell that this is so because they sum to 100%.)

75% of $112 million (total expenses) is not 75% of $163 million (total
support and revenue)![3]

Another paragraph in the Indian Express article that I thought was strange
is this one:

“Unlike many other countries, India is mobile-centric… you can’t tell
people to go to a desktop or laptop and edit. So that became a constraint.
So we actually partnered with Jio and made sure it (editing) was built into
the app itself… We enabled people to edit Wikipedia on the phone, which is
a big breakthrough in a country like India, and so that has contributed to
the significant growth in languages,” he said, adding this is also the
answer to why Wikipedia raises money.

As an explanation for why Wikipedia raises money, this reads very well –
"The Wikimedia Foundation needs money to create more free content in Indian
languages!" I can imagine how this might be viewed as something Indians can
get behind.

But as mentioned before, the Wikimedia Foundation had a surplus of $50
million in the 2020/2021 financial year. *That surplus alone* is ten times
what the Foundation spent in the entire rest of the world (outside Europe
and North America) in 2020, according to the Form 990.[4]

As a movement committed to accuracy and neutrality, we always fact-check
narratives. Please let's do that with our own as well!

I would also like to point out that the only thing enabling us to check the
facts in this case is the Form 990 the Wikimedia Foundation is legally
required to publish in order to retain charitable status.

As I mentioned the other day, both here and in the Signpost,[5] the
Wikimedia Endowment – which now also receives most planned gifts (assets
left in people's will) that in the past would have gone to the
Foundation[6] – has never produced a Form 990 or audited financial
statements, because it is still not a 501(c)(3) organisation. As a
movement, we should insist on the move to a 501(c)(3) being completed as a
matter of urgency, to establish a minimum standard of transparency.

Best,
Andreas

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/
[2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=34
[3]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf#page=5
[4]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=29
[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
[6]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Remit_of_Planned_Gifts_to_the_Wikimedia_Endowment

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:39 PM Megan Hernandez 
wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> We have followed up to your questions on the fundraising meta talk page
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fact-checking Raju Narisetti in the Indian Express

[Megan Hernandez]

Hi Andreas,

We have followed up to your questions on the fundraising meta talk page

.


Thank you,


Megan


On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:52 PM Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> This seems a reasonable request.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 02 June 2022 15:13
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Fact-checking Raju Narisetti in the Indian
> Express
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Last weekend, an interview with Raju Narisetti, titled "Wikipedia is
> building trust with transparency", was published in the Indian Express, one
> of the major daily newspapers in India.
>
>
>
> For your convenience, here is an archive link for the article:
> https://archive.ph/RaCwX
>
>
>
> The Indian Express link is:
> https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/raju-narisetti-interview-wikipedia-trust-transparency-7940621/
>
>
>
> The article quotes Raju as saying (my emphases),
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> “*More than 75% of the money we raise globally* goes to two things. One
> is to *give money back to the volunteer community* so they can launch a
> new language. Two is about *half of it goes to the infrastructure.* You
> need to have databases and put it on the cloud and make sure it’s
> reliable,” he said. Although a lot of the money is raised in the more
> developed Western markets, *most of it is actually flowing into the
> global south,* where the growth will come in languages and users.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> This diverged sharply from my understanding of WMF finances. So I looked
> at the records to try to fact-check these statements.
>
>
>
> I found the Foundation raised $163 million in the 2020/2021 financial
> year.[1] But it actually only spent $112 million of it (69%).[1] If the WMF
> kept 31% of its revenue to itself, it obviously can't have spent "more than
> 75%" (i.e. over $120M) of the money it raised on anything.
>
>
>
> This is a trivial point. But I was even more astonished by the other
> statement in the article, that most of the money raised "is actually
> flowing into the global south".
>
>
>
> Raju was talking to an Indian audience. This article was timed to coincide
> with the start of the Indian fundraiser – Indians are currently faced with
> fundraising banners on Wikipedia as well as emails soliciting repeat
> donations.[2] So I appreciate it is a good soundbite that might motivate
> Indian citizens to reach for their purses and wallets. After all, few
> people in India feel it is their job to send financial aid to the US,
> right?
>
>
>
> But is this soundbite really true?
>
>
>
> To fact-check that claim, I looked at the official figures in the latest
> (2020) WMF Form 990 tax return detailing WMF spending outside the US.
> According to the Form 990 section "General Information on Activities
> Outside the United States", spending on activities outside the US amounted
> to a total of $20,076,181 in 2020.[3] This means well over 80% of WMF
> expenditure was in the US.
>
>
>
> The Form 990 also provides a breakdown by global regions, detailing the
> precise amounts the WMF spent in each region. Again, I found this paints a
> very different picture to what the Indian public has been told in the
> Indian Express.
>
>
>
> First I added up all the amounts (Program Services, p. 29, and
> Grantmaking, pp. 30–31) that were spent in Europe and North America
> (excluding the US). I arrived at a total of $14.8M – which means that 73.5%
> of the total spending on non-US activities was in these regions of the
> affluent north.
>
>
>
> This left only $5.3M, or about 3% of total WMF revenue in 2020/2021, for
> the entire rest of the world, which also includes countries like Saudi
> Arabia, Russia, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, which are not usually included in
> the Global South. The actual money flowing into the Global South is thus
> even less than 3% – hardly "most" of the money raised.
>
>
>
> Raju mentioned the volunteers. I thought, let's leave Program Services
> expenses (which presumably would include servers and caching centres
> abroad) out of the equation and look at Grantmaking alone (pages 30 and 31
> of the Form 990).
>
>
>
> The Grantmaking total for activities outside the US given in the Form 990
> is $3,475,062.
>
>
>
> Almost exactly $1.2M (35%) of that went to Europe and North America
> (excluding the US).
>
>
>
> So total grantmaking in the entire rest of the world outside Europe and
> North America was $2.3M, or 1.4% of the money the WMF raised in 2020/2021.
>
>
>
> Again 1.4% is not "most of the money raised", by any stretch of the
> imagination. And the Global South only accounts for a part of that 1.4%.
>
>
>
> Lastly, as Raju was speaking to the Indian public, I wanted to find out
> how much money the WMF actually spent on grantmaking in India. The Form 990
> only gives grantmaking totals 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fact-checking Raju Narisetti in the Indian Express

[Peter Southwood]

This seems a reasonable request.

Cheers,

Peter

 

From: Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 June 2022 15:13
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fact-checking Raju Narisetti in the Indian Express

 

Dear all,

 

Last weekend, an interview with Raju Narisetti, titled "Wikipedia is building 
trust with transparency", was published in the Indian Express, one of the major 
daily newspapers in India.

 

For your convenience, here is an archive link for the article: 
https://archive.ph/RaCwX

 

The Indian Express link is: 
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/raju-narisetti-interview-wikipedia-trust-transparency-7940621/

 

The article quotes Raju as saying (my emphases),

 



 

“More than 75% of the money we raise globally goes to two things. One is to 
give money back to the volunteer community so they can launch a new language. 
Two is about half of it goes to the infrastructure. You need to have databases 
and put it on the cloud and make sure it’s reliable,” he said. Although a lot 
of the money is raised in the more developed Western markets, most of it is 
actually flowing into the global south, where the growth will come in languages 
and users.

 



 

This diverged sharply from my understanding of WMF finances. So I looked at the 
records to try to fact-check these statements.

 

I found the Foundation raised $163 million in the 2020/2021 financial year.[1] 
But it actually only spent $112 million of it (69%).[1] If the WMF kept 31% of 
its revenue to itself, it obviously can't have spent "more than 75%" (i.e. over 
$120M) of the money it raised on anything. 

 

This is a trivial point. But I was even more astonished by the other statement 
in the article, that most of the money raised "is actually flowing into the 
global south". 

 

Raju was talking to an Indian audience. This article was timed to coincide with 
the start of the Indian fundraiser – Indians are currently faced with 
fundraising banners on Wikipedia as well as emails soliciting repeat 
donations.[2] So I appreciate it is a good soundbite that might motivate Indian 
citizens to reach for their purses and wallets. After all, few people in India 
feel it is their job to send financial aid to the US, right? 

 

But is this soundbite really true? 

 

To fact-check that claim, I looked at the official figures in the latest (2020) 
WMF Form 990 tax return detailing WMF spending outside the US. According to the 
Form 990 section "General Information on Activities Outside the United States", 
spending on activities outside the US amounted to a total of $20,076,181 in 
2020.[3] This means well over 80% of WMF expenditure was in the US.

 

The Form 990 also provides a breakdown by global regions, detailing the precise 
amounts the WMF spent in each region. Again, I found this paints a very 
different picture to what the Indian public has been told in the Indian Express.

 

First I added up all the amounts (Program Services, p. 29, and Grantmaking, pp. 
30–31) that were spent in Europe and North America (excluding the US). I 
arrived at a total of $14.8M – which means that 73.5% of the total spending on 
non-US activities was in these regions of the affluent north. 

 

This left only $5.3M, or about 3% of total WMF revenue in 2020/2021, for the 
entire rest of the world, which also includes countries like Saudi Arabia, 
Russia, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, which are not usually included in the Global 
South. The actual money flowing into the Global South is thus even less than 3% 
– hardly "most" of the money raised.

 

Raju mentioned the volunteers. I thought, let's leave Program Services expenses 
(which presumably would include servers and caching centres abroad) out of the 
equation and look at Grantmaking alone (pages 30 and 31 of the Form 990). 

 

The Grantmaking total for activities outside the US given in the Form 990 is 
$3,475,062.

 

Almost exactly $1.2M (35%) of that went to Europe and North America (excluding 
the US). 

 

So total grantmaking in the entire rest of the world outside Europe and North 
America was $2.3M, or 1.4% of the money the WMF raised in 2020/2021. 

 

Again 1.4% is not "most of the money raised", by any stretch of the 
imagination. And the Global South only accounts for a part of that 1.4%.

 

Lastly, as Raju was speaking to the Indian public, I wanted to find out how 
much money the WMF actually spent on grantmaking in India. The Form 990 only 
gives grantmaking totals for "South Asia" – which along with India includes 
other major countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan. 

 

These totals are $75,198 (grants and other assistance to 22 individuals, 
certainly not rank-and-file Wikipedians, given the average amount) and $3,339 
(grants to organisations). This yields a total of $78,537 for all of South Asia.

 

I make that 0.048% of the WMF's 2020/2021 revenue. Only a part of that may have 
been spent in India. 

 

Please