We investigated the question you raised about separating the endowment
gift from other grants. Separating the endowment gift from other grants is
not an audit (GAAP) requirement. But due to the nature of the expenses and
our principle of transparency, we do disclose the purpose of the Endowment
Fund and the amounts funded both in the fiscal year of the report as well
as cumulative to-date in Footnote 6 of the audit report . We can
certainly add this to the FAQs going forward.
Just as a reminder, many of the questions raised here have been
discussed on talk:fundraising  and talk:endowment 
Senior Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:39 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:19 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) <djgwiki(a)gmail.com>
> Including the $100 million endowment, the WMF will now have
>> investments of around $200 million (excluding cash and cash equivalents),
>> for an annual investment income of over $10 million. That is already enough
>> to run core services. Wikimedia posted total expenses of $3.5 million in
>> 2007/2008, a year after Wikipedia became a global top-ten website.
> Well, it's not 2007 anymore. Just because it cost $3.5 million in 2007
> doesn't mean it'd cost $3.5 million now. I don't know enough about the
> current financial situation, staff, data centre expenditure, hardware, etc.
> to state whether $10 million is actually enough to continue to maintain the
> infrastructure required for the project. Could you share your breakdown and
> financial analysis?
I recall Erik (Möller) saying here on this list, around the time the
idea of an endowment took shape:
WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal
staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on
an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to
actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base
level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of
magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual
sustainability of Wikimedia's mission. The "what's the level required
for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,
because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,
to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.
Now the annual $10M+ of operating expenses Erik spoke of were already
for more than bare survival – they were for what he called "actual
sustainability of Wikimedia's mission."
Right now, the WMF collects about 15 times as much, while still
pretending to the public that Wikipedia "really needs" their money "this
Friday" to "stay online", "to protect Wikipedia's
independence," etc. What
does that last phrase even mean, given that the WMF is by any definition
bigger and wealthier than ever?
The WMF is $200 million richer today than it was in 2015, when the
Washington Post asked, "Wikipedia has a ton of money, so why is it begging
you to donate yours? (At the time I actually thought we had turned a
corner, hence I am the only one quoted in that article as saying the
problem had been satisfactorily addressed. More fool me!)
Latin America is currently being treated to fundraising banners telling
the public to give the WMF more money to "show the volunteers that their
work matters" – the same wording the WMF just withdrew after two weeks or
so when the Brazilians complained. That wording runs along with the
other familiar banner messages, like "humbly" asking people to donate "to
defend Wikipedia's independence", etc.
At least this year's India fundraising drive has been cancelled (for
now, who knows ...).
I think this is why we need more cohesion between language
communities. When the English fundraising banners run, there is the annual
moan about how the banners are misleading, annoying, too big, too
persistent, too dishonest, not classy, manipulative, etc. And then January
comes, everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and forgets ... until next
Meanwhile, though, the exact same banners start running somewhere else
on the globe. And when the Brazilians get rid of one banner, the same
banner starts running a couple of weeks later in neighbouring Argentina.
Even if an objectionable wording is dropped to placate one subset of the
community, the objection is *never really taken on board* – the WMF
just moves to a new target unaware of the previous controversy, and carries
on as before. I can't think of a better definition of "Divide et impera".
Let's just note: with $100m in the Endowment and another $100m in
short-term investments (not to mention another $70m in cash and cash
equivalents, per the 2019/2020 audit report), the WMF has got to the point
Erik envisaged above. It's able to ensure the "actual sustainability of
Wikimedia's mission" just from the interest its investments accrue, and has
got there in half the time anticipated.
> The problem for me – and many other rank-and-file volunteers – is not
>> the idea of an endowment as such, but fundraising messages saying
>> "Wikipedia really needs you this Tuesday" to donate money so Wikipedia
>> "stay online", "protect its independence", etc., or "to
show the volunteers
>> their work matters".
>> The WMF creates the impression that it struggles to keep Wikipedia up
>> and running; people then feel scared or guilty, think Wikipedia is
>> struggling, or dying, or will soon put up a paywall; and the WMF does
>> little to correct that mistaken impression, even when directly asked about
>> it as in Katherine's recent The Daily Show interview. One is left with
>> the uncomfortable conclusion that the WMF creates and fails to correct that
>> false impression because it benefits financially from it.
> Indeed, as the endowment grows I would expect our fundraising
> messaging to change, from talking about donations being required to
> maintain the projects, to instead highlighting the new developments that
> donations enable. As mentioned before, I don't know if we're there yet. I
> look forward to us getting there.
We have "been there" for a long time. I pray that one day I will see a
WMF fundraising banner that does not threaten that the lights will go out,
or Wikipedia will lose its independence and be taken over by ... who
> (I'll ignore your nonsenscial remark about the WMF somehow profiting
> from this.)
Well, let's look at the video and let's see what's missing. In the
video, Noah comments on the fundraising banners which he says used to
irritate him much. But then, reflecting on the cost of a traditional
encyclopaedia set, he adds,
"I wonder if that has been part of the reason you’ve been so successful
in remaining neutral. When you don’t have profits, you are now in a space
where you don’t try to generate profits. The downside of it means you often
struggle to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running. So, two
parts. One, is that true and how does it affect you, and then two, Why
would you make this thing if it’s not going to make you money, why, if it’s
going to be a non-profit?"
Katherine makes no effort to dispel the idea that the WMF "often
struggles to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running", but talks
at length about how the WMF doesn't try to sell you anything and doesn't
I am reminded of a Middle Eastern parable:
*Nasrudin used to take his donkey across a frontier every day, with the
panniers loaded with straw. Since he admitted to being a smuggler when he
trudged home every night, the frontier guards searched him again and again.
They searched his person, sifted the straw, steeped it in water, even
burned it from time to time. Meanwhile he was becoming visibly more and
more prosperous. *
*Then he retired and went to live in another country. Here one of the
customs offices met him, years later. *
*“You can tell me now, Nasrudin,” he said. “Whatever *was* it that you
were smuggling, when we could never catch you out?” *
*“Donkeys,” said Nasrudin.*
> I disagree, SJ. The Meta page has a blue progress bar showing how
>> much money is in the Endowment. To me it is incompatible with the idea of a
>> wiki – a website designed to support continuous updates – for such a
>> progress bar to be up to a year out of date. It's not what a reasonable
>> reader of that page would expect.
> "People expect wikis to be updated, and information on the endowment
> is on a wiki, therefore we should have monthly updates on the endowment"
> isn't a very compelling argument. I don't see why the reporting cadence
> should go beyond what is typically expected of endowments in the nonprofit
> If you have a problem with that particular bar on that page on Meta
> for some reason, perhaps a disclaimer about the last time it was updated
> could be added. That seems like a much simpler solution than drastically
> increasing the financial auditing and reporting overhead.
Do you think it involves a drastic increase in financial and auditing
overhead for the WMF to know how much money it has in its Endowment?
Surely, the Tides Foundation knows how much money enters its accounts, just
like any bank can give you the balance of your account any day.
This said, your suggestion to note on the page when the blue bar was
last updated is a practical and sensible one, regardless of how often the
bar is updated.
 Katherine's annual compensation alone was about $400,000,
equivalent to 200,000 Indian readers donating the suggested 150 Rupees
 Idries Shah, The Sufis, p. 59
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: