I'm not an expert, but I like the idea of an endowment: there are many ways to put your money to good use out there, and if we will manage to do it ethically and in a transparent way, many good things can happen. Of course, "ethically" and "transparent" are crucial factors here, and a lot of work.
Aubrey On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:08 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > 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 > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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 <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > 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 > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
