I have been following the grant process with keen interest. I have rather noticed a worrying trend that I think for the sustainability of the grant program and the continuity of the volunteer spirit we need to address this issue as a regional group.

First and foremost we must bear in mind that Wikimedia Foundation is donor funded and non profit. And as such people give and make it possible for the organization to support the activities of volunteers. Therefore our request and demands must be guarded.

Again we need to know that the movement relies on the activities of volunteers ( more content are created by volunteers than any other set of people) and as such that should be spirit we should be promoting through all our undertakings.

After painstakingly going through the grant request of some Usergroups, what I noticed was something rather alarming. I will just mention a few of my observations.

The Wikimedia Inc Nigeria for instance was requesting over $55,000 (aprox $4800 a month) for an office space at a time when even bigger tech organizations etc are moving to working remotely and hence promoting work from home.

In addition to this, there were line items for projects that have other organizations running and hence have funds they disburse for organizations. (Arts and Feminism,Wiki Loves Africa etc)

My second observation wasn’t only alarming but also ridiculous.

The Dagbani Usergroup which linked to GOIF as exclaimed on their own pages (was actually formed from the GOIF) put in separate grant applications totaling over $220,000.( far higher than a continental group like Wiki in Africa and country group like Wikimedia CIV) This same group is also behind another group (LUCG) that has currently put in another rapid grant request. ( tye proposed Twi Wikimedians Usergroup is also an offshoot) A question was posed about their link to GOIF (their mother institution) and the answers seem quite unreasonable, because all the separate activities can be rounded in one grant request as programs to paint a holistic picture of their annual activities rather than create fragments.

Based on the monthly salary requested for these 10 trainers, it is only right to assume that each of these trainers will organise at least 2 trainings per month making a monthly total of 20 trainings (annual 240 trainings). This is somewhat ridiculous and overly ambitious for even a well developed Wikimedia community.

Aside from the aforementioned monthly payment for 10 volunteers/trainers they are also requesting for 2 other paid roles with very exorbitant amounts requested as salaries especially for the Executive Director role ($5000 a month), which even top manager levels in Corporate Ghana and in government workplaces never receive. In the first place this is a small group trying to rally and sustain a community and these requests for staff is just surprising and out of place.

In addition to this, there was a request for a paid WiR for 12 months ($3,500 for 12 months). Apart the huge salary this is even problematic judging from the fact there was no partnership with any organization to do a GLAM activity or a project that needed an embedded Wikimedian in a partner organisation, which is normally the workflow that creates the need for a WiR.

Again this wasn’t even part of the goals of this organization. A closer look at the budget further shows that most of the requests are either frivolous, overpriced or outrageous.

Looking at such a small language Usergroup what is the need for an office space and all the equipment for an office?

The request for 6 MacBook airs for team members is rather an insult to the charitable donors of the foundation. The million dollar question here though, is why MacBooks? And why 6 of them? Wikimedians don’t need priced equipment to deliver on their jobs and if the intention is to be able to loan it to the community then macbooks still seem outrageous (because they can be destroyed easily with change of hands).

Then comes a request for two foreign trips at a time when most organizations are putting hold on trips. However the question is trips to where? For what? And why two team members?

These and many several budget items feel out of place, from requesting for research line items (which I am wondering what it's meant for and the goals of the research) to requesting specific team members for projects (arts&feminism) which should be managed by already requested staff roles (why hire other people again when you have a project manager for the organisation, who is supposed to run projects anyways)

Everything in that budget seems padded and inconsiderate to the many donors that believe in our vision. Such characters should not be supported in our movement and be watched closely.

Lastly I have noticed significant changes to the budget (from about $190,000 to about $39,000) after the questions posed by the committee, this is a significant 80% drop from the initial request. As to whether the new requested amount is a true reflection of the needs on the ground we all all judges. I am fully aware that the grant proposal has been updated but I decided to bring to light the initial grant request because if it has has been approved I am sure the group would have accepted the full funding. And also the current grant is still padded.

I have also copied Affcom in this mail because I wanted to bring to their notice the other trend that I wanted to spell out. The proliferation of language Usergroups. The same group has one Usergroup and three incubator groups why so? Three of these groups have applied for grants separately.

We need to re-examine our commitment to this cause. Wikimedia is a voluntary movement to promote the sum of all human knowledge. Yes it’s ok when we sometimes expend our expertise so ask for some remuneration. But we shouldn’t form Usergroup groups with the basis of being employed or a conduit for making profit.