A big advantage of having an endowment would be in conversations with our GLAM partners.
- An organisation funded by an endowment can more credibly make longer-term commitments than one that is not. This would be particularly attractive to some of our current and potential GLAM partners; "Entrust us with a copy of your images and metadata and we have the funding to keep it on the Internet for the foreseeable future" would be a very attractive commitment for us to be able to make. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment#Advantages> We don't need an endowment large enough to keep the organisation going as is, or even the pedias being still open to edit, before we can commit that "the media library on Wikimedia Commons has an endowment that should suffice to keep it on the web or on whatever replaces the internet for the foreseeable future" . In a world of budget cuts and short term thinking this would be a very positive thing for us to be able to say to museum curators and similar custodians of cultural heritage. That doesn't mean we commit to keeping everything in a particular image release, we might well delete some images because our policy on copyright risk will be different to theirs. But if you want to keep things in existence longterm then the strategy used by the writers of the domesday book still works. Make several copies and place them with organisations that intend to be around for millennia to come. An endowment could mean that we become such an organisation. I would hope that the WMF board aims for an endowment that allows us to make such a commitment. An endowment so large that we no longer need an annual fundraiser would be a very much larger sum and harder in my view to justify. Why should this generation pay so that people can edit Wikipedia in 2050 without there being a fundraising banner? ~~~~ > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 02:39:59 +0330 > From: Mardetanha <mardetanha.w...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <email@example.com> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion > Message-ID: > <CAN6NyNrimRB0zv8X2qDXt==4v-gn88bt09CE7o= > f1svhifu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any > fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the > position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and keep > running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ? > > Mardetanha > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell <lgruw...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > > Hi all- > > > > > > For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions > > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment> about whether and when to > > begin > > > building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt > > to > > > rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching > an > > > endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan. > > > > Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving > > forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay. > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > > Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is > > > probably worthwhile. > > > > I agree, and this is a good point to bring up. > > > > The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an > > investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think > > directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual > > funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, > > much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and > > levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might > > not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other > > large socially-minded organizations for ideas. > > > > best, > > Phoebe > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:25:20 -0500 > From: Risker <risker...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <email@example.com> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion > Message-ID: > <CAPXs8yTkw4scDz6D_rDZJ= > rf+1dvswn_q6busm+kzrdkk42...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Heh. $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on > an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants > that are separate from direct fundraising. It *might* last 5-7 years of > bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no > software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own > desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to > chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for > free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major > changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep > up-to-date with this. > > This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to > include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating > functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to > proceed. > > Risker/Anne > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>