This is fair comment, but the lack of transparency makes it impossible to make a fair judgement. These things are not sufficiently obvious to just do them without adequate explanation. Cheers, Peter

From: effe iets anders [mailto:effeietsanders@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 August 2023 05:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some of the tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that we can't fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own work, and yet fund projects that don't feel like they directly support other activities our movement is deploying. 

There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it is, but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century, there was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific progress. Some of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to support also more fundamental research that did not necessarily always have a direct feed into their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program has the same vibe to me: we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to develop areas that we know are underserved (which may well be an understatement), without always having a direct connection to how that will feed into our projects, into our activities or communities. There is little doubt in my mind though, that in the long run the ecosystem will benefit from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our work in turn. 

So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to help society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the ecosystem that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors donating for' is equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate to us to help achieve the mission and trust us to make the choices that best serve this big picture. 

We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to worry about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most important funder, but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are many other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this is likely very subjective :)

Warmly,

Lodewijk

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:

That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.

But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you were saying ?we all should want?.

I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity and that probably require outside of the projects programs.

As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic discussion but I don?t find where we had it.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com> wrote:

?

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Steven,

If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.

If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the project we would actually be missing so much.

I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement.

As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia Organisations. 

@Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with us?

Thanks a lot :)

Christophe

Christophe, 

Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the boundary of acceptable initiatives end? 

For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it possible for more people to edit the projects. 

The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to support the projects. 

On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com> wrote:

?

This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.

If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons? Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics? 

If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when they give us money. 

A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but this is not the way. 

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena <ngunasena@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi all,

As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan goal around supporting knowledge equity by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund. Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.

With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the second round of grantees from the Knowledge Equity Fund. This second round includes seven grantees that span five regions, including the Fund?s first-ever grantees in Asia. This diverse group of grantees was chosen from an initial pool of 42 nominations, which were received from across the Wikimedia movement through an open survey in 2022 and 2023. Each grantee aligns with one of Fund?s five focus areas, identified to address persistent structural barriers experienced by communities of color that prevent equitable access and participation in open knowledge. They are also recognized nonprofits with a proven track record of impact in their region. The grantees include:

Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, Indonesia: The Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, or the Alliance of the Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN for short), is a non-profit organization based in Indonesia that works on human rights, journalism, and advocacy issues for indigenous people. 

Black Cultural Archives, United Kingdom: Black Cultural Archives is a Black-led archive and heritage center that preserves and gives access to the histories of African and Caribbean people in the UK. 

Create Caribbean Research Institute, Commonwealth of Dominica: Create Caribbean Research Institute is the first digital humanities center in the Caribbean. 

Criola, Brazil: Criola is a civil society organization, based in Rio de Janeiro, dedicated to advocating for the rights of Black women in Brazilian society. 

Data for Black Lives, United States: Data for Black Lives is a movement of activists, organizers, and scientists committed to the mission of using data to create concrete and measurable change in the lives of Black people. 

Filipino American National Historical Society, United States: The Filipino American National Historical Society has a mission to gather, document and share Filipino American history through its 42 community based chapters. 

Project Multatuli, Indonesia: Project Multatuli is an organization dedicated to non-profit journalism, especially for underreported topics, ranging from indigenous people to marginalized issues.

The Equity Fund Committee, made up of five Wikimedia community members and five Wikimedia Foundation staff, have also connected each of these grantees with regional and relevant partners in the Wikimedia movement, including local and established movement affiliates who can support knowledge equity work and help grantees learn about how to connect back to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects. We continue to look for ways to increase these connections and welcome your input.

This second round of grants was administered by the Wikimedia Foundation, after all remaining funds for the Equity Fund were transferred back from Tides Advocacy to the Foundation earlier this year. 

We welcome thoughts and questions about the Equity fund and the second round of grantees on Meta.

Thank you,

Nadee Gunasena

On behalf of the Equity Fund Committee

Biyanto Rebin, Emna Mizouni, Gala Mayi Miranda, Kelly Foster, Maari Zwick-Maitreyi, Aeryn Palmer, Jorge Vargas, Kassia Echavarri-Queen, Nadee Gunasena, Sandister Tei

--

Nadee Gunasena Chief of Staff Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/N75XU7AX7AZ734ESTYTYEQJACJO3E2ED/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WDUNC3MFTNY3SSQ5XNGJTA3XLLLA24M5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3QJH5E6DBQRN4XE2UXOZKDZQ3CD32MOX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/N4BSI4TY255XFNKXKKNHDAI2S2SD6MUR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OVP5MFT4A6KDTUBZNH45O7L6QRTJATUU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

Virus-free.www.avg.com