No, the Wikimedia Endowment is a separate thing.

-- Yair Rand

‫בתאריך יום א׳, 13 בדצמ׳ 2020 ב-4:18 מאת ‪Michael Peel‬‏ <‪ email@mikepeel.net‬‏>:‬

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment ?

On 13 Dec 2020, at 08:33, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

According to the recent Independent Auditors' Report of the WMF [1], at some point prior to the end of June 2020, an entity called the "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" was established, and $8.723 million was transferred to it by the WMF, in the form of an unconditional grant. The Fund is "managed and controlled by Tides Advocacy" (a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit previously led by the WMF's current General Counsel/Board Secretary, who served as CEO, Board Secretary, and Treasurer there). Given that a Google search for "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" yields zero results prior to the release of the report, it is clear that the WMF kept this significant move completely secret for over five months, perhaps over a year. The Report FAQ additionally emphasizes that the WMF "has no right of return to the grant funds provided, with the exception of unexpended funds."

The WMF unilaterally and secretly transferred nearly $9 million of movement funds to an outside organization not recognized by the Affiliations Committee. No mention of the grant was made in any Board resolutions or minutes from the relevant time period. The amount was not mentioned in the public annual plan, which set out rather less than this amount for the entire grantmaking budget for the year. No application was made through any of the various Wikimedia grants processes. No further information has been provided on the administration of this new Fund, or on the text of the grant agreement.

I am appalled.

-- Yair Rand

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, < mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>>

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi folks,

Happy Sunday from San Francisco -- we've seen the questions on this list, and we'll reply tomorrow when folks are back at work. Thanks for your understanding!

Hope everyone is staying well and safe,

Katherine

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 5:36 AM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:

I agree with Dan. A question about this should have been directed to the WMF and allow them to respond prior to raising it here (if that's even necessary in the first place.)

Regards

Isaac

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 14:30 Dan Garry (Deskana), djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

It seems disingenous to describe it as "secret" given that it was willingly acknowledged in the the FAQ of the annual financial audit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year%E2%80%99s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?. The information provided in the FAQ is somewhat lacking, but these are not the actions of people trying to sweep it under the rug.

Let us politely ask for more information without being unnecessarily alarmist.

Dan

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 08:54, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

...

According to the recent Independent Auditors' Report of the WMF [1], at some point prior to the end of June 2020, an entity called the "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" was established, and $8.723 million was transferred to it by the WMF, in the form of an unconditional grant. The Fund is "managed and controlled by Tides Advocacy" (a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit previously led by the WMF's current General Counsel/Board Secretary, who served as CEO, Board Secretary, and Treasurer there). Given that a Google search for "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" yields zero results prior to the release of the report, it is clear that the WMF kept this significant move completely secret for over five months, perhaps over a year. The Report FAQ additionally emphasizes that the WMF "has no right of return to the grant funds provided, with the exception of unexpended funds."

The WMF unilaterally and secretly transferred nearly $9 million of movement funds to an outside organization not recognized by the Affiliations Committee. No mention of the grant was made in any Board resolutions or minutes from the relevant time period. The amount was not mentioned in the public annual plan, which set out rather less than this amount for the entire grantmaking budget for the year. No application was made through any of the various Wikimedia grants processes. No further information has been provided on the administration of this new Fund, or on the text of the grant agreement.

I am appalled.

-- Yair Rand

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Thanks Lisa. That statement makes a lot of sense, though I do have some questions still.

Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week.

Are Tides simply administering these funds at the WMF's direction, or will Tides start to take over decisions about who gets these grants and what amount different entities are eligible for? Has there been any change to the reporting and transparency requirements that go with the APG grants? What is the intention about how APG grants will work, since the FDC was abolished a couple of years ago and there is unlikely to be any community-driven replacement for it until at least a year or two's work has gone into the implementation of the strategy?

As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we go.

Funding knowledge equity sounds like a great idea, but I have not previously heard of an organisation making an irrecoverable $4.5 million transfer without knowing what that money will be used to fund. Is there anything more that can be shared apart from "it'll be used to fund knowledge equity somehow"? And as above - is this going to be a WMF-led process (maybe even involving the community), or will Tides be actually making recommendations about who and what is funded? If the latter, how are Tides going to adjust to the Wikimedia community's expectations about transparency?

Thanks,

Chris

This is great to see. Thank you for helping to ensure continuity of support in a tense time. SJ

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:11 PM Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi Chris-

I am happy to answer your questions about Tides. No, Tides is not picking the grantees. The docket of grantees and the specific of the grants comes from us. Tides provides legal and administrative review of the grants, approves them, and processes the grants(i.e. wires the funding to the grantees). It is rare that there is ever a problem, but if Tides were to see one, we actually appreciate the outside review and would be open to hearing their reasons. There is no change for the reporting and transparency requirements for APG grants. Tides will also not be making recommendations for the grants for the Knowledge Equity Fund. They will play a similar role as I described for the APG grants. Again, I know there will be more info on the Knowledge Equity Fund in the new year. I ask your patience for the folks initiating this and trust that they will share more soon.

Best, Lisa

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:18 AM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thanks Lisa. That statement makes a lot of sense, though I do have some questions still.

...

Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week.

Are Tides simply administering these funds at the WMF's direction, or will Tides start to take over decisions about who gets these grants and what amount different entities are eligible for? Has there been any change to the reporting and transparency requirements that go with the APG grants? What is the intention about how APG grants will work, since the FDC was abolished a couple of years ago and there is unlikely to be any community-driven replacement for it until at least a year or two's work has gone into the implementation of the strategy?

...

As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we go.

Funding knowledge equity sounds like a great idea, but I have not previously heard of an organisation making an irrecoverable $4.5 million transfer without knowing what that money will be used to fund. Is there anything more that can be shared apart from "it'll be used to fund knowledge equity somehow"? And as above - is this going to be a WMF-led process (maybe even involving the community), or will Tides be actually making recommendations about who and what is funded? If the latter, how are Tides going to adjust to the Wikimedia community's expectations about transparency?

Thanks,

Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Lisa Seitz Gruwell

Chief Advancement Officer

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi Mike-

Thanks for the question. The review and oversight that we will get from Tides is nothing like the FDC review. They will be looking at, for example, "Is this grant supporting activity that is legal for a 501c3 to fund?" It is in no way a replacement for the work that the FDC or the Global Council would do regarding grants.

Best, Lisa

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:55 PM Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:

Hi Lisa,

Isn’t this the oversight work that the WMF wanted to be able to do when it changed from Wikimedia affiliates being able to fundraise directly to the FDC process? Why has WMF chosen to outsource this to Tides rather than continuing to do it in-house? And why does Tides now get to approve such grants, rather than a community appointed committee?

FDC was a process that worked extremely well, and was discontinued for obscure reasons. The Global Council approach that the strategy was heading towards looked like it might be a good replacement. Outsourcing it to Tides seems really bad.

Boldly creating a new fund for fellow organisations looks nice, but without community involvement it’s a controversy in development.

Thanks, Mike

On 14 Dec 2020, at 20:11, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi Chris-

I am happy to answer your questions about Tides. No, Tides is not picking the grantees. The docket of grantees and the specific of the grants comes from us. Tides provides legal and administrative review of the grants, approves them, and processes the grants(i.e. wires the funding to the grantees). It is rare that there is ever a problem, but if Tides were to see one, we actually appreciate the outside review and would be open to hearing their reasons. There is no change for the reporting and transparency requirements for APG grants. Tides will also not be making recommendations for the grants for the Knowledge Equity Fund. They will play a similar role as I described for the APG grants. Again, I know there will be more info on the Knowledge Equity Fund in the new year. I ask your patience for the folks initiating this and trust that they will share more soon.

Best, Lisa

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:18 AM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thanks Lisa. That statement makes a lot of sense, though I do have some questions still.

...

Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week.

Are Tides simply administering these funds at the WMF's direction, or will Tides start to take over decisions about who gets these grants and what amount different entities are eligible for? Has there been any change to the reporting and transparency requirements that go with the APG grants? What is the intention about how APG grants will work, since the FDC was abolished a couple of years ago and there is unlikely to be any community-driven replacement for it until at least a year or two's work has gone into the implementation of the strategy?

...

As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we go.

Funding knowledge equity sounds like a great idea, but I have not previously heard of an organisation making an irrecoverable $4.5 million transfer without knowing what that money will be used to fund. Is there anything more that can be shared apart from "it'll be used to fund knowledge equity somehow"? And as above - is this going to be a WMF-led process (maybe even involving the community), or will Tides be actually making recommendations about who and what is funded? If the latter, how are Tides going to adjust to the Wikimedia community's expectations about transparency?

Thanks,

Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Lisa Seitz Gruwell Chief Advancement Officer Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, < mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>>

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

hi lisa,

have a good start into the new year everybody! should not, ideally, the legal team of amanda keton be able to tell if fundting something is legal? or is this a liability issue, so tides would be liable for misconduct, and not a person within wikimedia foundation?

rupert

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:18 PM Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi Mike-

Thanks for the question. The review and oversight that we will get from Tides is nothing like the FDC review. They will be looking at, for example, "Is this grant supporting activity that is legal for a 501c3 to fund?" It is in no way a replacement for the work that the FDC or the Global Council would do regarding grants.

Best, Lisa

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:55 PM Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:

...

Hi Lisa,

Isn’t this the oversight work that the WMF wanted to be able to do when it changed from Wikimedia affiliates being able to fundraise directly to the FDC process? Why has WMF chosen to outsource this to Tides rather than continuing to do it in-house? And why does Tides now get to approve such grants, rather than a community appointed committee?

FDC was a process that worked extremely well, and was discontinued for obscure reasons. The Global Council approach that the strategy was heading towards looked like it might be a good replacement. Outsourcing it to Tides seems really bad.

Boldly creating a new fund for fellow organisations looks nice, but without community involvement it’s a controversy in development.

Thanks, Mike

On 14 Dec 2020, at 20:11, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi Chris-

I am happy to answer your questions about Tides. No, Tides is not picking the grantees. The docket of grantees and the specific of the grants comes from us. Tides provides legal and administrative review of the grants, approves them, and processes the grants(i.e. wires the funding to the grantees). It is rare that there is ever a problem, but if Tides were to see one, we actually appreciate the outside review and would be open to hearing their reasons. There is no change for the reporting and transparency requirements for APG grants. Tides will also not be making recommendations for the grants for the Knowledge Equity Fund. They will play a similar role as I described for the APG grants. Again, I know there will be more info on the Knowledge Equity Fund in the new year. I ask your patience for the folks initiating this and trust that they will share more soon.

Best, Lisa

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:18 AM Chris Keating < chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Lisa. That statement makes a lot of sense, though I do have some questions still.

...

Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week.

Are Tides simply administering these funds at the WMF's direction, or will Tides start to take over decisions about who gets these grants and what amount different entities are eligible for? Has there been any change to the reporting and transparency requirements that go with the APG grants? What is the intention about how APG grants will work, since the FDC was abolished a couple of years ago and there is unlikely to be any community-driven replacement for it until at least a year or two's work has gone into the implementation of the strategy?

...

As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we go.

Funding knowledge equity sounds like a great idea, but I have not previously heard of an organisation making an irrecoverable $4.5 million transfer without knowing what that money will be used to fund. Is there anything more that can be shared apart from "it'll be used to fund knowledge equity somehow"? And as above - is this going to be a WMF-led process (maybe even involving the community), or will Tides be actually making recommendations about who and what is funded? If the latter, how are Tides going to adjust to the Wikimedia community's expectations about transparency?

Thanks,

Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Lisa Seitz Gruwell Chief Advancement Officer Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, < mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>>

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Lisa Seitz Gruwell

Chief Advancement Officer

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Thanks Lisa, that's very reassuring.

Again, I know there will be more info on the Knowledge Equity Fund in the

new year. I ask your patience for the folks initiating this and trust that they will share more soon.

I look forward to hearing more from those folks in due course. There must be some more details circulating internally though? I'm guessing the Board probably had more information than "$4.5M for Knowledge Equity, to be specified" in front of them when they agreed the grant? (Not that these questions are addressed to you personally...)

Chris

Hi Lisa and all,

Thanks for your responses and thoughts. This is an important area, and key to get right with a consensus-driven approach.

Are we going to announce the process for giving grants to organisations outside the movement, including the process for community involvement, in the spirit of the strategy recommendations?

Or should we just expect an announcement of the first recipients?

Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:54 PM Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks for the questions. We intend to announce the Knowledge Equity Fund in early 2021, once we have a bit more details and specifics worked out. However, we can share the overall intention today.

Some background: Our fiscal year runs from July through June, which means that the second half of last year was heavily affected by the unforeseen effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Community events were canceled, hiring slowed, and we put work on pause while we responded to the changing circumstances. As a result, we ended the year with funds that were underspent, relative to what we had planned for the budget.

In May of last year, we were also planning for this current fiscal year and had very little insight about how fundraising would perform in this pandemic. People around the world were losing their sources of income, as unemployment soared. We worked with the board to plan for different scenarios, including if fundraising went really poorly.

As a general matter, when the budget is underspent, any remainder goes into the reserve. For accounting purposes, it cannot be carried over into the budget of a new fiscal year. Because we were concerned about the uncertainty of fundraising this year, we decided to set aside underspent funds from the past fiscal year, so that we could keep our commitment to our grantees even if fundraising fell short and also make progress on knowledge equity. (Good news: Fundraising ended up going a lot better than we expected when we were planning in the early months of this pandemic. More to come on that.)

With the WMF board’s approval, we set up a US$8.7 million grantmaking fund at Tides Advocacy, which has two purposes: 1) Funding Annual Plan Grants (APG) to the affiliates this year and 2) Funding Knowledge Equity. We have been working with Tides since 2016 when we launched the Endowment. The relationship has gone well and they have a lot of expertise at administering grants internationally.

Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week.

As the Audit Report FAQ states,[1] the remaining funds will be used to launch the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund. This new fund is in addition to the existing grants that are already available for the communities (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants, and APGs) and does not impact the amount of funds in those grant portfolios.

Our goal is to use this fund to invest in new opportunities that increase the availability of free knowledge for marginalized people and counteract structural inequalities. Knowledge equity is a key pillar of the 2030 movement strategy, and this investment will help us to address some of the barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge.

As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we go.

We’ll share more details in early 2021 about the Knowledge Equity Fund. We are excited to see what progress we can make for knowledge equity with this investment.

Thank you,

Lisa Gruwell

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audit... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year%E2%80%99s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 12:35 PM Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Hi folks,

Happy Sunday from San Francisco -- we've seen the questions on this list, and we'll reply tomorrow when folks are back at work. Thanks for your understanding!

Hope everyone is staying well and safe,

Katherine

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 5:36 AM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:

...

I agree with Dan. A question about this should have been directed to the WMF and allow them to respond prior to raising it here (if that's even necessary in the first place.)

Regards

Isaac

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 14:30 Dan Garry (Deskana), djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

It seems disingenous to describe it as "secret" given that it was willingly acknowledged in the the FAQ of the annual financial audit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year%E2%80%99s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?. The information provided in the FAQ is somewhat lacking, but these are not the actions of people trying to sweep it under the rug.

Let us politely ask for more information without being unnecessarily alarmist.

Dan

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 08:54, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

...

According to the recent Independent Auditors' Report of the WMF [1], at some point prior to the end of June 2020, an entity called the "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" was established, and $8.723 million was transferred to it by the WMF, in the form of an unconditional grant. The Fund is "managed and controlled by Tides Advocacy" (a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit previously led by the WMF's current General Counsel/Board Secretary, who served as CEO, Board Secretary, and Treasurer there). Given that a Google search for "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" yields zero results prior to the release of the report, it is clear that the WMF kept this significant move completely secret for over five months, perhaps over a year. The Report FAQ additionally emphasizes that the WMF "has no right of return to the grant funds provided, with the exception of unexpended funds."

The WMF unilaterally and secretly transferred nearly $9 million of movement funds to an outside organization not recognized by the Affiliations Committee. No mention of the grant was made in any Board resolutions or minutes from the relevant time period. The amount was not mentioned in the public annual plan, which set out rather less than this amount for the entire grantmaking budget for the year. No application was made through any of the various Wikimedia grants processes. No further information has been provided on the administration of this new Fund, or on the text of the grant agreement.

I am appalled.

-- Yair Rand

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Katherine Maher (she/her)

CEO

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Lisa Seitz Gruwell

Chief Advancement Officer

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi Lisa and all,

Could you provide any update on what is happening with the $8.7 million in the Tides Advocacy fund? I asked about it on the Endowment talk page on Meta two weeks ago, and while many other questions there have been answered, this one has not.

I also asked on Meta how much money the WMF had contributed to the Endowment to date. Amy Parker just replied it had been $20 million,[1] but that can't be right, as in the audited 2019/2020 financial statements published last year (page no. 14), it was already $25 million ($5 million p.a. over five years).[2]

A curious side-effect of the Endowment is that money the WMF pays into its own Endowment shows up as an Awards and Grants *expense* in the audited statements, reducing the revenue surplus. Money flowing into the Endowment, on the other hand, is included neither in Revenue nor Net Assets, as it is legally separate.[7]

So according to the financial statements for the last five years, the WMF had a revenue surplus of over $100 million over that time period (measured as increase in net assets, from $77.8 million to $180.3 million). But over the same period, the Foundation also accumulated $100 million in Tides Foundation funds (i.e. the Endowment, reported[6] to have passed $90 million in early February, and the $8.7 million in Tides Advocacy).

This means that the Foundation has actually had a revenue surplus of more than $200 million over the past five years, averaging over $40 million per annum.

Could you provide an update on exactly how much many money is in the Endowment and the Tides Advocacy fund at the moment? The Endowment is not very transparent. I understand the only page showing how much money has accumulated in the Endowment is the page on Meta, and this has only sporadically been updated. In this edit,[3] for example, it jumped from $62.9 million to $90 million. Before that, the total had last been updated more than six months prior.[4]

Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment on Meta? (If I have missed any other pages or documents containing such information, I would ask you to kindly provide a link.)

In the discussions on Meta, Pats Peña pointed me to the FAQ[5] for the most recent financial statements. One thing I miss in these FAQs is any reference to the $100 million held by the Tides Foundation. Readers of the FAQ will remain unaware that the actual amount of investments the WMF was the beneficiary of in July 2020 substantially exceeded the figure of $170 million given in the audited financial statements the FAQ refers to – including the Tides funds, by well over $70 million when the FAQ was published.

I also cannot see any reference to the fact that the expenses noted in the FAQ include $5 million that the WMF paid into its own endowment. Could this be remedied in this and future FAQs?

Finally, if we were trying to provide a best estimate of the Wikimedia Foundation's current total net assets (last reported as $180 million, excluding money in the Tides Foundation), would $200 million be in the right ballpark, for a grand total of $300 million if we include the Tides Foundation money?

I understand that fundraising this fiscal year already exceeded the combined year goal for the Foundation and endowment after the first six months, followed by the year goal being raised, and exceeded again before the end of the second quarter.[8] As fundraising continues (currently in Mexico, I understand), it seems certain the WMF net assets are once again likely to have risen substantially by the end of the fiscal year, especially given that once again, many physical events will have had to be cancelled owing to the pandemic.

Best wishes, Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment&di... [2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation... [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=21... [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=pr... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Fi... [6] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-the-end-of-the-maher-era-at-wikipedia-c1ed14... [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment&di... [8] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Wikimedia_Foundation_sec...

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:54 PM Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks for the questions. We intend to announce the Knowledge Equity Fund in early 2021, once we have a bit more details and specifics worked out. However, we can share the overall intention today.

Some background: Our fiscal year runs from July through June, which means that the second half of last year was heavily affected by the unforeseen effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Community events were canceled, hiring slowed, and we put work on pause while we responded to the changing circumstances. As a result, we ended the year with funds that were underspent, relative to what we had planned for the budget.

In May of last year, we were also planning for this current fiscal year and had very little insight about how fundraising would perform in this pandemic. People around the world were losing their sources of income, as unemployment soared. We worked with the board to plan for different scenarios, including if fundraising went really poorly.

As a general matter, when the budget is underspent, any remainder goes into the reserve. For accounting purposes, it cannot be carried over into the budget of a new fiscal year. Because we were concerned about the uncertainty of fundraising this year, we decided to set aside underspent funds from the past fiscal year, so that we could keep our commitment to our grantees even if fundraising fell short and also make progress on knowledge equity. (Good news: Fundraising ended up going a lot better than we expected when we were planning in the early months of this pandemic. More to come on that.)

With the WMF board’s approval, we set up a US$8.7 million grantmaking fund at Tides Advocacy, which has two purposes: 1) Funding Annual Plan Grants (APG) to the affiliates this year and 2) Funding Knowledge Equity. We have been working with Tides since 2016 when we launched the Endowment. The relationship has gone well and they have a lot of expertise at administering grants internationally.

Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week.

As the Audit Report FAQ states,[1] the remaining funds will be used to launch the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund. This new fund is in addition to the existing grants that are already available for the communities (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants, and APGs) and does not impact the amount of funds in those grant portfolios.

Our goal is to use this fund to invest in new opportunities that increase the availability of free knowledge for marginalized people and counteract structural inequalities. Knowledge equity is a key pillar of the 2030 movement strategy, and this investment will help us to address some of the barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge.

As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we go.

We’ll share more details in early 2021 about the Knowledge Equity Fund. We are excited to see what progress we can make for knowledge equity with this investment.

Thank you,

Lisa Gruwell

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audit... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year%E2%80%99s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 12:35 PM Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Hi folks,

Happy Sunday from San Francisco -- we've seen the questions on this list, and we'll reply tomorrow when folks are back at work. Thanks for your understanding!

Hope everyone is staying well and safe,

Katherine

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 5:36 AM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:

...

I agree with Dan. A question about this should have been directed to the WMF and allow them to respond prior to raising it here (if that's even necessary in the first place.)

Regards

Isaac

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 14:30 Dan Garry (Deskana), djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

It seems disingenous to describe it as "secret" given that it was willingly acknowledged in the the FAQ of the annual financial audit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year%E2%80%99s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?. The information provided in the FAQ is somewhat lacking, but these are not the actions of people trying to sweep it under the rug.

Let us politely ask for more information without being unnecessarily alarmist.

Dan

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 08:54, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

...

According to the recent Independent Auditors' Report of the WMF [1], at some point prior to the end of June 2020, an entity called the "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" was established, and $8.723 million was transferred to it by the WMF, in the form of an unconditional grant. The Fund is "managed and controlled by Tides Advocacy" (a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit previously led by the WMF's current General Counsel/Board Secretary, who served as CEO, Board Secretary, and Treasurer there). Given that a Google search for "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" yields zero results prior to the release of the report, it is clear that the WMF kept this significant move completely secret for over five months, perhaps over a year. The Report FAQ additionally emphasizes that the WMF "has no right of return to the grant funds provided, with the exception of unexpended funds."

The WMF unilaterally and secretly transferred nearly $9 million of movement funds to an outside organization not recognized by the Affiliations Committee. No mention of the grant was made in any Board resolutions or minutes from the relevant time period. The amount was not mentioned in the public annual plan, which set out rather less than this amount for the entire grantmaking budget for the year. No application was made through any of the various Wikimedia grants processes. No further information has been provided on the administration of this new Fund, or on the text of the grant agreement.

I am appalled.

-- Yair Rand

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Katherine Maher (she/her)

CEO

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Lisa Seitz Gruwell

Chief Advancement Officer

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Dear Julia,

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:07 PM Julia Brungs jbrungs@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for bringing these questions together here. As you are aware the questions and answers are also on meta (both the talk:Endowment [1] and the talk:Fundraising [2]) and we expect to post further answers to those talkpages during the US West Coast daytime today.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Questions_(from_Wik...) [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising

I will briefly note below which questions were answered yesterday and which ones still await an answer.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:01 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Lisa and all,

...

Could you provide any update on what is happening with the $8.7 million in the Tides Advocacy fund? I asked about it on the Endowment talk page on Meta two weeks ago, and while many other questions there have been answered, this one has not.

The answer I've been given is that more information will now be shared in May. (This information was originally promised in the FAQ for late 2020, and then promised for early 2021.)

I also asked on Meta how much money the WMF had contributed to the

...

Endowment to date. Amy Parker just replied it had been $20 million,[1] but that can't be right, as in the audited 2019/2020 financial statements published last year (page no. 14), it was already $25 million ($5 million p.a. over five years).[2]

It's $25 million to date.

A curious side-effect of the Endowment is that money the WMF pays into its

...

own Endowment shows up as an Awards and Grants *expense* in the audited statements, reducing the revenue surplus. Money flowing into the Endowment, on the other hand, is included neither in Revenue nor Net Assets, as it is legally separate.[7]

So according to the financial statements for the last five years, the WMF had a revenue surplus of over $100 million over that time period (measured as increase in net assets, from $77.8 million to $180.3 million). But over the same period, the Foundation also accumulated $100 million in Tides Foundation funds (i.e. the Endowment, reported[6] to have passed $90 million in early February, and the $8.7 million in Tides Advocacy).

This means that the Foundation has actually had a revenue surplus of more than $200 million over the past five years, averaging over $40 million per annum.

Could you provide an update on exactly how much many money is in the Endowment and the Tides Advocacy fund at the moment? The Endowment is not very transparent. I understand the only page showing how much money has accumulated in the Endowment is the page on Meta, and this has only sporadically been updated. In this edit,[3] for example, it jumped from $62.9 million to $90 million. Before that, the total had last been updated more than six months prior.[4]

Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment on Meta? (If I have missed any other pages or documents containing such information, I would ask you to kindly provide a link.)

There has been no answer to this (and these are not questions asked on Meta). To be clear, the questions are:

1. How much money is there currently in the Endowment and Tides Advocacy funds? 2. Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment on Meta?

In the discussions on Meta, Pats Peña pointed me to the FAQ[5] for the

...

most recent financial statements. One thing I miss in these FAQs is any reference to the $100 million held by the Tides Foundation. Readers of the FAQ will remain unaware that the actual amount of investments the WMF was the beneficiary of in July 2020 substantially exceeded the figure of $170 million given in the audited financial statements the FAQ refers to – including the Tides funds, by well over $70 million when the FAQ was published.

I also cannot see any reference to the fact that the expenses noted in the FAQ include $5 million that the WMF paid into its own endowment. Could this be remedied in this and future FAQs?

There has been no answer to this, and they're not questions asked on Meta. So,

3. Could a mention of the Endowment, and the fact that the posted expenses include $5 million paid to the endowment, be added to the FAQ?

(The FAQ refers to the most recent audited accounts, and thus is still a live document. For Awards and grants, which includes the $5 million paid to the endowment, the FAQ summary is: "We increased our awards and grants as we continue our commitment to support our Affiliates, Organized Groups, and Community Members." I don't think the Endowment could reasonably be described as an "Affiliate, Organized Group, or Community Member", and its $5 million would surely represent the largest amount in this bracket, after the Tides Advocacy grant.)

Finally, if we were trying to provide a best estimate of the Wikimedia

...

Foundation's current total net assets (last reported as $180 million, excluding money in the Tides Foundation), would $200 million be in the right ballpark, for a grand total of $300 million if we include the Tides Foundation money?

4. A similar question was asked on Meta over two weeks ago, but has not been answered to date. Is $300 million in the right ballpark?

Any further answers would be great. Meanwhile, thank you very much for all the many questions that have been answered on Meta! It's much appreciated.

Best wishes, Andreas

...

I understand that fundraising this fiscal year already exceeded the combined year goal for the Foundation and endowment after the first six months, followed by the year goal being raised, and exceeded again before the end of the second quarter.[8] As fundraising continues (currently in Mexico, I understand), it seems certain the WMF net assets are once again likely to have risen substantially by the end of the fiscal year, especially given that once again, many physical events will have had to be cancelled owing to the pandemic.

Best wishes, Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment&di... [2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation... [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=21... [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=pr... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Fi... [6] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-the-end-of-the-maher-era-at-wikipedia-c1ed14... [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment&di... [8] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Wikimedia_Foundation_sec...

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:54 PM Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Hi all,

Thanks for the questions. We intend to announce the Knowledge Equity Fund in early 2021, once we have a bit more details and specifics worked out. However, we can share the overall intention today.

Some background: Our fiscal year runs from July through June, which means that the second half of last year was heavily affected by the unforeseen effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Community events were canceled, hiring slowed, and we put work on pause while we responded to the changing circumstances. As a result, we ended the year with funds that were underspent, relative to what we had planned for the budget.

In May of last year, we were also planning for this current fiscal year and had very little insight about how fundraising would perform in this pandemic. People around the world were losing their sources of income, as unemployment soared. We worked with the board to plan for different scenarios, including if fundraising went really poorly.

As a general matter, when the budget is underspent, any remainder goes into the reserve. For accounting purposes, it cannot be carried over into the budget of a new fiscal year. Because we were concerned about the uncertainty of fundraising this year, we decided to set aside underspent funds from the past fiscal year, so that we could keep our commitment to our grantees even if fundraising fell short and also make progress on knowledge equity. (Good news: Fundraising ended up going a lot better than we expected when we were planning in the early months of this pandemic. More to come on that.)

With the WMF board’s approval, we set up a US$8.7 million grantmaking fund at Tides Advocacy, which has two purposes: 1) Funding Annual Plan Grants (APG) to the affiliates this year and 2) Funding Knowledge Equity. We have been working with Tides since 2016 when we launched the Endowment. The relationship has gone well and they have a lot of expertise at administering grants internationally.

Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week.

As the Audit Report FAQ states,[1] the remaining funds will be used to launch the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund. This new fund is in addition to the existing grants that are already available for the communities (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project Grants, and APGs) and does not impact the amount of funds in those grant portfolios.

Our goal is to use this fund to invest in new opportunities that increase the availability of free knowledge for marginalized people and counteract structural inequalities. Knowledge equity is a key pillar of the 2030 movement strategy, and this investment will help us to address some of the barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge.

As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we go.

We’ll share more details in early 2021 about the Knowledge Equity Fund. We are excited to see what progress we can make for knowledge equity with this investment.

Thank you,

Lisa Gruwell

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audit... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year%E2%80%99s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 12:35 PM Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Hi folks,

Happy Sunday from San Francisco -- we've seen the questions on this list, and we'll reply tomorrow when folks are back at work. Thanks for your understanding!

Hope everyone is staying well and safe,

Katherine

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 5:36 AM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I agree with Dan. A question about this should have been directed to the WMF and allow them to respond prior to raising it here (if that's even necessary in the first place.)

Regards

Isaac

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 14:30 Dan Garry (Deskana), djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

It seems disingenous to describe it as "secret" given that it was willingly acknowledged in the the FAQ of the annual financial audit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year%E2%80%99s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?. The information provided in the FAQ is somewhat lacking, but these are not the actions of people trying to sweep it under the rug.

Let us politely ask for more information without being unnecessarily alarmist.

Dan

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 08:54, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

> According to the recent Independent Auditors' Report of the WMF [1], > at some point prior to the end of June 2020, an entity called the > "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" was established, and $8.723 million was > transferred to it by the WMF, in the form of an unconditional grant. The > Fund is "managed and controlled by Tides Advocacy" (a 501(c)(4) advocacy > nonprofit previously led by the WMF's current General Counsel/Board > Secretary, who served as CEO, Board Secretary, and Treasurer there). > Given that a Google search for "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" yields > zero results prior to the release of the report, it is clear that the WMF > kept this significant move completely secret for over five months, perhaps > over a year. The Report FAQ additionally emphasizes that the WMF "has no > right of return to the grant funds provided, with the exception of > unexpended funds." > > The WMF unilaterally and secretly transferred nearly $9 million of > movement funds to an outside organization not recognized by the > Affiliations Committee. No mention of the grant was made in any Board > resolutions or minutes from the relevant time period. The amount was not > mentioned in the public annual plan, which set out rather less than this > amount for the entire grantmaking budget for the year. No application was > made through any of the various Wikimedia grants processes. No further > information has been provided on the administration of this new Fund, or on > the text of the grant agreement. > > I am appalled. > > -- Yair Rand > > [1] > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_... > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto: wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Katherine Maher (she/her)

CEO

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Lisa Seitz Gruwell

Chief Advancement Officer

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi SJ,

Long time no speak. :)

As explained on Meta, it is inaccurate to think of the endowment as "an

investment that the WMF is the beneficiary of". The endowment is there to support the Projects, rain or shine.

I don't think you can separate the WMF from its projects, which are the WMF's wholly owned property and its whole raison d'être.

The Wikimedia Endowment page on Meta[1] actually states very clearly in its lead paragraph who benefits from the Endowment. It says,

"The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission."

The Wikimedia Foundation alone controls how the funds are used (limited only by whatever UPMIFA or donor-specific constraints apply).

Moreover, as I'm sure you know, the Endowment is actually about to be returned in full to the WMF, to be placed into a new 501(c)(3) organisation the WMF will set up. If anyone familiar with the matter could outline the envisaged legal structure of that future organisation, that would be great.

To quote from my initial proposal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/endowment (*NB: past proposals may not reflect current or future endowment goals; among other things I don't know that we've ever tried to narrowly define and optimize core services ;*) :

"The endowment should be large enough to sustainably support the basic operation of the Projects (see iii. below), able to grow with inflation while supporting any needed central server farms and technical support with its interest, and of a size that we can raise."

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.

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 can "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;[2] 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[3]. One is left with the uncomfortable conclusion that the WMF creates and fails to correct that false impression because it benefits financially from it.

If tens of millions of dollars of the money collected under that false premise, that Wikipedia is struggling, then end up in an endowment grown to $100 million in half the time originally planned for, that is unseemly. No one should beg for money claiming to be penniless if what they're actually doing is building up a $100 million investment portfolio in record time.

The last phrase ("show the volunteers their work matters") is objectionable for a different reason, and people at the WMF I think are well aware that volunteers object to it. Nevertheless, it just ran again on fundraising banners in Brazil, only to be withdrawn after complaints from the pt.WP community.[4] I would love it if this one could really be phased out now!

2. Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment

...

on Meta?

Once a year is standard and would suffice here, I should think.

I disagree, SJ. The Meta page[1] 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.

3. Could a mention of the Endowment, and the fact that the posted expenses

...

include $5 million paid to the endowment, be added to the FAQ?

(The FAQ refers to the most recent audited accounts, and thus is still a live document. For Awards and grants, which includes the $5 million paid to the endowment, the FAQ summary is: "We increased our awards and grants as we continue our commitment to support our Affiliates, Organized Groups, and Community Members."

I agree with clarifying the 'Awards and grants' category. I try to keep track of the % of total global donations that are redistributed as awards and APG or other grants (*current guess: 9% https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/wikilibrium#Timeline_of_funds_distribution?*), and must remember to subtract the endowment transfer each year. It would be excellent if that were called out as its own line item.

I am very happy that we agree on this, at least, SJ! It's not right to pay millions into a Collective Action Fund set up for your own benefit, and then declare it to the public as an expense – without so much as an explanation in the FAQ.

If you could help to make that FAQ update (and change to the format of future financial statements) happen, that would be great!

Wikilove, Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment [2] https://www.freepressjournal.in/technology/is-wikipedia-dying-the-online-enc... [3] https://youtu.be/MKdn1s9Sjfo?t=270 [4] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Banner_solicita...)

Wikilove, SJ.

• I remain of the opinion that the endowment should be doing even better,

as a hedge against the growth in complexity and maintenance cost of our toolchains and services -- that we should implement a policy assigning a minimum % of all windfall gifts or donations over the expected target to the endowment. But it may make sense to revisit that in earnest once the Endowment org & what it supports are more crisply defined.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 15:02, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

The Wikimedia Endowment page on Meta[1] actually states very clearly in its lead paragraph who benefits from the Endowment. It says,

"The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission."

The Wikimedia Foundation alone controls how the funds are used (limited only by whatever UPMIFA or donor-specific constraints apply).

The Wikimedia Foundation legally controlling the funds, and the endowment's purpose being to protect the project moving forwards, are not mutually exclusive. Legally, yes, the Wikimedia Foundation controls the funds, so for the page to say otherwise would be misleading. Unless some other entity can somehow direct Tides to transfer the money, then the page shouldn't say that.

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?

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 can "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;[2] 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[3]. 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.

(I'll ignore your nonsenscial remark about the WMF somehow profiting from this.)

I disagree, SJ. The Meta page[1] 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 space.

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.

Dan

Dear all,

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 [1]. 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 [2] and talk:endowment [3]

Best wishes, Julia

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_E...) [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Questions_(from_Wik...)

Hi again, Julia and Pats,

I've written an article for The Daily Dot, based on our conversations on Meta. You can find the article here:

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/

In response to my questions on Talk:Wikimedia Endowment, Pats pointed me to the FAQ at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audit... ?

and a link to that FAQ is included in the article's penultimate paragraph ("official answer"). If you would like to add any further comment to the article, please let us know, and we'll be happy to add it!

To anyone who thinks the article raises an important issue about Wikimedia fundraising, I'd be grateful if you shared it online.

Best wishes, Andreas Kolbe

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 8:30 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Julia,

That's great. One other question:

Looking at the first quarter Advancement tuning session[1], the July 2020 – June 2021 fiscal year started out with a WMF fundraising year goal of $108 million (+$5 million for the Endowment).

$108 million is also the total Expense figure in the 2020/2021 annual plan.[2]

By the time of the second quarter tuning session[3], the WMF year goal had increased by $17 million to $125 million.

And according to that same page[3] the WMF had almost met that goal at the end of the second quarter, standing at $124 million (a little over, actually, summing the component amounts).

The Endowment had taken $17.5 million by the end of the second quarter, $12.5 million above its $5 million target.[3]

I am reading this correctly, aren't I?

Now, according to the public fundraising data Excel file[4], the WMF has taken $11.5 million in the calendar year to date (i.e. in the fiscal year's third and fourth quarters running from January to June 2021).

So, if you were at $124 million by the end of December, and have taken another $11.5 million since, would it be correct to conclude that the WMF (excluding the endowment) is now at $135.5 million, i.e. $27.5 million above the expense figure in the annual plan, and $10.5 million above the revised, higher year goal?

If so, why are you currently fundraising in pandemic-stricken Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay)?

The WMF is a Foundation staffed by people living for the most part in the world's richest countries. For example, it takes 200,000 people in India donating the suggested 150 Rupees ($2) just to pay the annual compensation of the WMF CEO.

Based on the above figures, it seems the WMF has already taken tens of millions more this fiscal year than it spent. And yet it's still fundraising in countries that have been hit far worse by the pandemic than the US and Europe. In Brazil the pandemic has been a disaster. Uruguay currently has coronavirus case rates that are nearly 7 times higher per capita than in the US.[5] In Argentina, they are 4 times higher than in the US. In Brazil, Colombia and Chile, 2 to 3 times higher. In Peru, 1.5 times higher.

These are countries with weak economies that have suffered enormously, whose social security systems are far less well equipped to help people deal with this tragedy.

And we're asking them for money? Is this really who we want to be?

Best, Andreas

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/A... [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_... [4] https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv [5] https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-...

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:52 AM Julia Brungs jbrungs@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Dear all,

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 [1]. 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 [2] and talk:endowment [3]

Best wishes, Julia

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_E...) [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Questions_(from_Wik...) -- *Julia Brungs* Senior Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:39 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Dan,

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:19 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

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[1] 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?[2] (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[3]. 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 November.

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 can "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;[2] 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[3]. 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 exactly?

...

(I'll ignore your nonsenscial remark about the WMF somehow profiting from this.)

Well, let's look at the video[4] 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[5] 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 have ads.

I am reminded of a Middle Eastern parable:[6]

*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[1] 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 space.

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.

Best, Andreas

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124621.html [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-ha... [3] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Banner_solicita...)

[4] https://youtu.be/MKdn1s9Sjfo?t=270 [5] Katherine's annual compensation alone was about $400,000, equivalent to 200,000 Indian readers donating the suggested 150 Rupees [6] Idries Shah, The Sufis, p. 59 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi Gerard,

I don't recall us ever agreeing on much, so this is not unexpected. :)

But, to be clear: I am not against Wikimedia having or being given money.

I am against Wikimedia raising money in ways that generate the widespread impression among readers that funds are urgently needed to keep Wikipedia up and running ("Wikipedia really needs you"), or needed to protect Wikipedia's independence, as the banners are telling readers in Latin America. This applies all the more when revenue goals have long been substantially exceeded, as they have this year.

The WMF has great plans. It should speak about those plans in its fundraising banners, and explain how it hopes donations will help realise them.

Also respectfully, Andreas

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 5:00 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

Hoi, I respectfully totally disagree. My response you find on my blog.. Thanks, GerardM

https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/05/wikimedia-needs-your-support-be...

On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 16:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi again, Julia and Pats,

I've written an article for The Daily Dot, based on our conversations on Meta. You can find the article here:

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/

In response to my questions on Talk:Wikimedia Endowment, Pats pointed me to the FAQ at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audit... ?

and a link to that FAQ is included in the article's penultimate paragraph ("official answer"). If you would like to add any further comment to the article, please let us know, and we'll be happy to add it!

To anyone who thinks the article raises an important issue about Wikimedia fundraising, I'd be grateful if you shared it online.

Best wishes, Andreas Kolbe

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 8:30 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Julia,

That's great. One other question:

Looking at the first quarter Advancement tuning session[1], the July 2020 – June 2021 fiscal year started out with a WMF fundraising year goal of $108 million (+$5 million for the Endowment).

$108 million is also the total Expense figure in the 2020/2021 annual plan.[2]

By the time of the second quarter tuning session[3], the WMF year goal had increased by $17 million to $125 million.

And according to that same page[3] the WMF had almost met that goal at the end of the second quarter, standing at $124 million (a little over, actually, summing the component amounts).

The Endowment had taken $17.5 million by the end of the second quarter, $12.5 million above its $5 million target.[3]

I am reading this correctly, aren't I?

Now, according to the public fundraising data Excel file[4], the WMF has taken $11.5 million in the calendar year to date (i.e. in the fiscal year's third and fourth quarters running from January to June 2021).

So, if you were at $124 million by the end of December, and have taken another $11.5 million since, would it be correct to conclude that the WMF (excluding the endowment) is now at $135.5 million, i.e. $27.5 million above the expense figure in the annual plan, and $10.5 million above the revised, higher year goal?

If so, why are you currently fundraising in pandemic-stricken Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay)?

The WMF is a Foundation staffed by people living for the most part in the world's richest countries. For example, it takes 200,000 people in India donating the suggested 150 Rupees ($2) just to pay the annual compensation of the WMF CEO.

Based on the above figures, it seems the WMF has already taken tens of millions more this fiscal year than it spent. And yet it's still fundraising in countries that have been hit far worse by the pandemic than the US and Europe. In Brazil the pandemic has been a disaster. Uruguay currently has coronavirus case rates that are nearly 7 times higher per capita than in the US.[5] In Argentina, they are 4 times higher than in the US. In Brazil, Colombia and Chile, 2 to 3 times higher. In Peru, 1.5 times higher.

These are countries with weak economies that have suffered enormously, whose social security systems are far less well equipped to help people deal with this tragedy.

And we're asking them for money? Is this really who we want to be?

Best, Andreas

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/A... [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_... [4] https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv [5] https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-...

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:52 AM Julia Brungs jbrungs@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Dear all,

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 [1]. 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 [2] and talk:endowment [3]

Best wishes, Julia

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Questions_(from_Wikimedia_E...) [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Questions_(from_Wik...) -- *Julia Brungs* Senior Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:39 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Dan,

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:19 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

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[1] 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?[2] (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[3]. 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 November.

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 can > "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;[2] 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[3]. 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 exactly?

...

(I'll ignore your nonsenscial remark about the WMF somehow profiting from this.)

Well, let's look at the video[4] 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[5] 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 have ads.

I am reminded of a Middle Eastern parable:[6]

*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[1] 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 space.

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.

Best, Andreas

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124621.html [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-ha... [3] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Banner_solicita...)

[4] https://youtu.be/MKdn1s9Sjfo?t=270 [5] Katherine's annual compensation alone was about $400,000, equivalent to 200,000 Indian readers donating the suggested 150 Rupees [6] Idries Shah, The Sufis, p. 59 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

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 To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 2:00 PM Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:

...

A portion of our grant to Tides Advocacy will be used to launch the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund, a new fund that the Wikimedia Foundation is establishing this fiscal year to invest in new grant-making opportunities in support of groups that are advancing equitable, inclusive representation in free knowledge.

Does this mean that funds will be used for work not related to Wikimedia

...

projects?

since our goal is to "freely share the sum of all knowledge" anything that leads to that goal does benefit the projects, there are place and reasons thats not happening because of other issues so if this is a solution to some of those then its worth the effort. Everything that is freely licensed becomes available to the Movement anyway

I assumed that was the rationale behind the wording. It's just an assumption, so I'm asking for clarification.

During the Strategy discussions it became clear that part of the community is concerned about the WMF moving from support to the Wikimedia movement to a grant-making organization for external projects.

Best,

MarioGom

Hi Andreas,

Thanks for your email. As Lisa shared in response to the original thread and question, the $8.7 million was used to set up a grantmaking fund at Tides Advocacy to fund two areas: 1) Funding Annual Plan Grants (APG) to the affiliates and 2) creating a $4.5 million Knowledge Equity Fund. To the first area, $4,223,994 of the Tides Advocacy Fund is planned to be distributed to the Annual Plan Grant affiliates https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals (chapters) [1] this fiscal year. In the link above you can find the APG grantees from Round 1 and the amounts given, and the proposals for round 2, which will be approved this week.

Regarding the $4.5 million that we set aside for the Equity Fund, We will have more details to share on the Equity Fund, and the plans for providing grants from the Equity Fund, within the next week.

Thanks,

Nadee Gunasena

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals

ᐧ

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:47 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all,

Yair Rand (quoted below) inquired last December about a 2019/2020 WMF expenditure item, the $8.723M the WMF transferred to a "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund managed and controlled by Tides Advocacy".

The 2019/2020financial audit FAQ[1] said, "The Wikimedia Foundation is still setting up the specifics of the Knowledge Equity Fund and will share more information *in late 2020*."

Replying to Lair last December, Lisa updated this[2], saying, "We intend to announce the Knowledge Equity Fund *in early 2021*, once we have a bit more details and specifics worked out."

Inquiring for this information again *in April*, I was told by Kassia on Meta[3] that there had been delays, but "We will be able to share more information *in May* about the Equity Fund, its structure and eligibility for the Fund, and we will also have materials on Meta with more detail."

If any such information was published in May (I may possibly have missed it), could you please provide a link, and if not, could you please publish it now?

Or could you at least answer the following:

1. Are the entire $8.723M, sent to Tides almost a year ago now, still with

Tides? If yes, where will the money go?

2. What public reporting will there be of how the funds are used?

3. If any of this money has been spent over the past year, where has it

gone?

On a related matter, note the thread on Hacker News that kicked off yesterday.[4] It contains a useful microcosm of public responses to the current fundraising paradigm and is well worth studying.

Best wishes, Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audit... ’s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund? [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Knowledge_Equity_Fu... [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27339887

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 8:54 AM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

...

According to the recent Independent Auditors' Report of the WMF [1], at some point prior to the end of June 2020, an entity called the "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" was established, and $8.723 million was transferred to it by the WMF, in the form of an unconditional grant. The Fund is "managed and controlled by Tides Advocacy" (a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit previously led by the WMF's current General Counsel/Board Secretary, who served as CEO, Board Secretary, and Treasurer there). Given that a Google search for "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund" yields zero results prior to the release of the report, it is clear that the WMF kept this significant move completely secret for over five months, perhaps over a year. The Report FAQ additionally emphasizes that the WMF "has no right of return to the grant funds provided, with the exception of unexpended funds."

The WMF unilaterally and secretly transferred nearly $9 million of movement funds to an outside organization not recognized by the Affiliations Committee. No mention of the grant was made in any Board resolutions or minutes from the relevant time period. The amount was not mentioned in the public annual plan, which set out rather less than this amount for the entire grantmaking budget for the year. No application was made through any of the various Wikimedia grants processes. No further information has been provided on the administration of this new Fund, or on the text of the grant agreement.

I am appalled.

-- Yair Rand

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

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 To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org