The Endowment, again - Wikimedia-l

effe iets anders

19 Jan 19 Jan

7:20 p.m.

Hi Andreas, I will support the underlying questions of this type (it's helpful to have conversations about our organizational structure, and how it works - clarifications are great!) but I would really hope that you could leave aside insinuations of the type "If it isn't, and the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November substantially misleading?". They are unnecessary and don't actually add any information. Could we possibly keep it a bit more constructive? Thanks! Lodewijk On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:02 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear all, The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the programme makers asked.[2] One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote: *Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? * *A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was established as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in 2022 following a 2021 board resolution. * This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October 2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a 501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies and systems".[3] Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new 501(c)(3)? At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its readers that the funds are held and administered by the Tides Foundation.[4] Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November substantially misleading? Andreas [1] https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42… [2] http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%20… and http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20W… [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_… [4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007 [5] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-end… refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)." _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Reply

Samuel Klein

11:35 p.m.

The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true, and what one might expect from governance decisions to date. WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is working on its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. It will need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides currently provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the collective action fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place. The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on organizational structure, timelines, goals and budgeting, coordination with WMF, practicalities of how an endowment functions) are only partly related to the mandatory reports of a charity. Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts of clarifications are great, and relevant to how we all plan for the future; perhaps we can catalyze a public conversation about such things. Warmly, SJ (still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans for maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget) Dan S writes:

...

Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions...

Reply

Andreas Kolbe

21 Jan 21 Jan

2:31 a.m.

Dear Sam, Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved, or it has not been moved. The Rai journalists specifically asked *"Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" * Here is the complete question again: Q: *The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides Foundation. According to SignPost (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opi… <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion>) on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? * If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel, have looked something like this: A: *We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Endowment_Structure,_2021>. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).* Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022. This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund". There are really two issues here: 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this in the public domain. 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating? As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai: A: *The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as on the Wikimedia Foundation website. * I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on the Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where things stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info to the Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting minutes.[1] And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited financial statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in all the seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the "principles of transparency common to our movement" (a point that, incidentally, was also made in the Italian programme). I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several weeks ago on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date. As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 million that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates in the July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the Form 990 disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years (their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), hoping to find US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that 2020/2021 APG amount over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I have not been successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 million total. Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else reading in who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms as well, to see whether you come to a different result? The forms are linked in the discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF board experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that happily resolves the apparent discrepancy. Regards, Andreas [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=p… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Tides_Agreement [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:36 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true, and what one might expect from governance decisions to date. WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is working on its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. It will need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides currently provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the collective action fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place. The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on organizational structure, timelines, goals and budgeting, coordination with WMF, practicalities of how an endowment functions) are only partly related to the mandatory reports of a charity. Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts of clarifications are great, and relevant to how we all plan for the future; perhaps we can catalyze a public conversation about such things. Warmly, SJ (still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans for maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget) Dan S writes:

Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions...

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Reply

Lane Chance

11:39 a.m.

Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed. A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable. Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions and defensive non-answers. For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be edited later on a wiki: "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)" Thanks, Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia Signpost) On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs <jbrungs(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hi All, We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1] Regards, Julia [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still… On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Sam, > > Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved, or it has not been moved. > > The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" > > Here is the complete question again: > > Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides Foundation. According to SignPost (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opi…) on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? > > If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel, have looked something like this: > > A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year). > > Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022. > > This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund". > > There are really two issues here: > > 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this in the public domain. > 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating? > > As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai: > > A: The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as on the Wikimedia Foundation website. > > I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on the Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where things stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info to the Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting minutes.[1] > > And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited financial statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in all the seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the "principles of transparency common to our movement" (a point that, incidentally, was also made in the Italian programme). > > I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several weeks ago on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date. > > As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 million that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates in the July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the Form 990 disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years (their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), hoping to find US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that 2020/2021 APG amount over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I have not been successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 million total. > > Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else reading in who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms as well, to see whether you come to a different result? The forms are linked in the discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF board experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that happily resolves the apparent discrepancy. > > Regards, > Andreas > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=p… > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Tides_Agreement > [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:36 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true, and what one might expect from governance decisions to date. >> >> WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is working on its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. It will need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides currently provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the collective action fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place. >> >> The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on organizatFascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.

A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable. Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions and defensive non-answers. For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be edited later on a wiki: "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)" Thanks, Lane On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs <jbrungs(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1] > Regards, > Julia > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still… > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Sam, >> >> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved, or it has not been moved. >> >> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" >> >> Here is the complete question again: >> >> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides Foundation. According to SignPost (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opi…) on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? >> >> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel, have looked something like this: >> >> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year). >> >> Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022. >> >> This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund". >> >> There are really two issues here: >> >> 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this in the public domain. >> 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating? >> >> As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai: >> >> A: The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as on the Wikimedia Foundation website. >> >> I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on the Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where things stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info to the Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting minutes.[1] >> >> And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited financial statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in all the seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the "principles of transparency common to our movement" (a point that, incidentally, was also made in the Italian programme). >> >> I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several weeks ago on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date. >> >> As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 million that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates in the July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the Form 990 disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years (their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), hoping to find US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that 2020/2021 APG amount over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I have not been successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 million total. >> >> Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else reading in who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms as well, to see whether you come to a different result? The forms are linked in the discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF board experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that happily resolves the apparent discrepancy. >> >> Regards, >> Andreas >> >> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=p… >> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Tides_Agreement >> [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:36 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true, and what one might expect from governance decisions to date. >>> >>> WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is working on its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. It will need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides currently provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the collective action fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place. >>> >>> The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on organizational structure, timelines, goals and budgeting, coordination with WMF, practicalities of how an endowment functions) are only partly related to the mandatory reports of a charity. Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts of clarifications are great, and relevant to how we all plan for the future; perhaps we can catalyze a public conversation about such things. >>> >>> Warmly, SJ >>> (still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans for maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget) >>> >>> Dan S writes: >>> > Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.orgional structure, timelines, goals and budgeting, coordination with WMF, practicalities of how an endowment functions) are only partly related to the mandatory reports of a charity. Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts of clarifications are great, and relevant to how we all plan for the future; perhaps we can catalyze a public conversation about such things. >>> >>> Warmly, SJ >>> (still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans for maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget) >>> >>> Dan S writes: >>> > Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Reply

Andreas Kolbe

25 Jan 25 Jan

1:23 p.m.

Lodewijk, The question at the top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is: "Is the money still with Tides?" The answer seems to be "Yes". If so, then the next question is: If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian journalists that their information was incorrect and the Endowment had already been moved to the 501(c)(3)? It seems like another case of paltering.[2] The bigger issue is that this sort of thing *undermines community trust in everything the WMF says*, especially about money.[3] Why didn't the WMF simply tell the journalists, as you just put it, Lodewijk, "No, not yet. But we are going towards that new situation"? We had two high-profile community RfCs on the English Wikipedia's Vilage Pump last year that came to the conclusion that the WMF puts out misleading or deceptive communications.[4] Half the shortlisted board candidates in last year's board election endorsed that view during their campaigns.[5] We have a longstanding and, I believe, popular (his talk page has 670 watchers) English Wikipedia administrator, a former member of the Arbitration Committee, saying things like the following on his talk page[6] (last year, in a different context): *"I don't doubt that the WMF is lying here—when it comes to where the money comes from, where it goes, and who is taking a cut along the way, it would be more unusual to find them being honest". * *"What's particularly irritating is that there's no need for the WMF to equivocate here and they're just doing it out of habit."* I believe those are fairly mainstream views in the community, based on close observation of the WMF's conduct. It's not healthy, and I believe the WMF should look at its paltering habit. Andreas [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still… ? [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering [3] See also ongoing discussions here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Additional_member… [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_19… and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_19… [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Communi… [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&oldid=1… On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:18 PM effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi Lane, maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you) to achieve just that: clarification. Best, Lodewijk On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance <zinkloss(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed. A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable. Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions and defensive non-answers. For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be edited later on a wiki: "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)" Thanks, Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia Signpost) On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs <jbrungs(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi All, We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1] Regards, Julia [1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still… ?

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> > Dear Sam, > > Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been

moved, or it has not been moved.

> > The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation

didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?"

> > Here is the complete question again: > > Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides

Foundation. According to SignPost ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opi…) on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations?

> > If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of

affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel, have looked something like this:

> > A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity

when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).

> > Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money

had already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022.

> > This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the

Endowment page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund".

> > There are really two issues here: > > 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this

in the public domain.

> 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating? > > As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai: > > A: The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of

transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as on the Wikimedia Foundation website.

> > I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on

the Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where things stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info to the Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting minutes.[1]

> > And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited

financial statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in all the seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the "principles of transparency common to our movement" (a point that, incidentally, was also made in the Italian programme).

> > I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several weeks

ago on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date.

> > As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223

million that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates in the July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the Form 990 disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years (their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), hoping to find US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that 2020/2021 APG amount over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I have not been successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 million total.

> > Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else

reading in who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms as well, to see whether you come to a different result? The forms are linked in the discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF board experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that happily resolves the apparent discrepancy.

> > Regards, > Andreas > > [1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=p…

> [2]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Tides_Agreement

> [3]

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…

> > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:36 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

>> >> The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both true,

and what one might expect from governance decisions to date.

>> >> WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is

working on its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. It will need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides currently provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the collective action fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place.

>> >> The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on

organizatFascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed. A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable. Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions and defensive non-answers. For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be edited later on a wiki: "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)" Thanks, Lane On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs <jbrungs(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: