Greetings.
The Charity Navigator site has evaluated and rated the Wikimedia Foundation:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Charity Navigator as "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities in its Cause". The Charity Navigator site further states:
"Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero points for their overall organizational efficiency score."
While the WMF seemed to be narrowly meeting these guidelines (according to the site's "Revenue/Expenses Trend" histogram) in perhaps 2007, it appears that in 2008, the trend got decidedly worse. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the criteria and/or the graphic. But, the 2-out-of-4 stars rating is decidedly clear.
For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481
I am wondering (and I suppose others may be, too) whether the staff and board feel that Charity Navigator is a reputable and credible measurement service, and if so, are you satisfied with receiving two out of four stars in this area, and if not what do you plan to change to improve the rating next year? Gregory Kohs