Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Hoi, I totally agree that more money spend on Wikipedia is where we may be at one end of the law of diminishing returns. However, that is Wikipedia. We ask money for the Wikimedia Foundation and it has neglected a wide area of projects where additional money will make a marked improvement. As far

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

> On the general topic, the restricted grants received by the WMF have a > beneficial effect that we could wish extended throughout its operations: > because it is responsible to the grantor for producing the results demanded > under the terms of the grant, the outcomes are much more likely to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

I can see the logic in trying for a different funding source, fundraising banners and their messaging have been a cause of tension between the WMF and the community; and asking our readers for money relies on our readers coming to our desktop sites directly and is at risk in a world where our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Hoi, Thanks for a thoughtful piece. I will only respond to the first part, the second part is imho out of scope. When the WMF wants more funding, it can if it trusts its chapters. The current funding model has chapters rely totally on the vagaries of the funding committee. Legally they are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Lodewijk wrote: >When I'd have to guess, I'd say that we're beyond our 'optimal size' >(budget wise) already. > >Especially the 'small donor' stream is rather sensitive towards tides. As >long as Wikipedia is very popular and visible, we'll be doing well. But >when we have a few more screwups at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Hoi, Thank you for your opinion. When you ask me, I will not do a WIkipedia article. I find it highly stressful. I find that doing the edit is not so bad, it is the lengthy stuff around it that amount to little. I rather do a thousand Wikidata edits. That brings me to the other point. I do not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

The limiting resource for Wikipedia is not money, but Wikipedians. I could only with great difficulty imagine useful ways to spend the amount of money that we do receive (mostly, increased support for the participation of individual WPedians in the overall movement, and the provision of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it > was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds > of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Hoi, Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch chapter that received money. Long story short, after some animosity the WMF now has the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

I wish to respond to this specific statement: On 3 February 2016 at 13:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > When the WMF wants more funding, it can if it trusts its chapters. The > current funding model has chapters rely totally on the vagaries of the > funding committee.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

> > > > Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC recommendations for > applicant who come from rich countries have requested the Chapter > investigate diversifying their funding sources. All have tried, and their > success has varied depending on many factors. Some have actually been

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC recommendations for > > applicant who come from rich countries have requested the Chapter > > investigate diversifying their funding sources. All have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

I have a couple of comments, mostly directed to WMF, about fundraising and governance matters: As a matter of good governance, I would not encourage WMF to be seeking large external partners who do solid due-diligence about their grantees until WMF demonstrates that it can complete an annual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Hoi, You know, when the WMF is to be judged as an organisation, I would never judge on a few incidents. I would judge it on its intrinsic value. Personally and that is the highest level of commitment, personally I find that we are doing a sterling job. Wikipedia is a top ten website in the world.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Hi Scot, You wrote: Sue explained to me that the goal was to have WMF's budget be roughly 50% > grants and 50% user contributions to guard against unexpected fragility > with either of these funding sources. [...] > This was Sue's explanation. I don't know if this is still the explicit >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Thanks Scott, this is important context. I think Wikimedia gets rather too little of its funding from other foundations, through cooperations with like-minded organizations, and from national/international initiatives to educate and to preserve culture & knowledge. Scott writes: > MZMcBride

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:19 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > Sue explained to me that the goal was to have WMF's budget be roughly 50% > grants and 50% user contributions to guard against unexpected fragility > with either of these funding sources. If that was the goal, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

> > > You raise a valid question: how many sources of funding does the Wikimedia > Foundation need? > The Bridgespan Group is a consultancy firm specialized in non-profits. They > have been hired > in the past by the Wikimedia Foundtion, for example in the period of > strategy formation that > led

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

Hi Ad, That is of course one side of the medal. And yes, lets be grateful for the donations we receive day in, day out from our donors. But 'getting big' is maybe not the most important thing in the world. Working on our mission, is. And part of that, is security. The WMF is not in this world to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

sam, i am not so convinced that what you write is true in too many countries, namely that you think wikimedia gets too little of its funding from other foundations. but i think it is fair enough that WMF tries to get foundations funding on its home turf which it knows best. there are many US based