I've split this from a more general thread, for convenience...
On 3 December 2014 at 01:16, Megan Hernandez mhernandez@wikimedia.org wrote:
Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift Aid"[*] tax releif?
[* Gift AId is a UK scheme where the government gives, to a charity, tax paid by a donor. For every £80 such a donor gives, the charty would receive £100]
Hoi, A similar possibility is in existence in the Netherlands... National charities can easily get such a status. It is possible for international organisations but it is more difficult..
In order to optimise fundraisers it is extremely relevant that we optimise it for our donors. That makes it very much in need of local efforts.
As it is we lose 50% of the giftst of our donors in the Netherlands to the taxman. Thanks, GerardM
On 4 December 2014 at 22:10, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I've split this from a more general thread, for convenience...
On 3 December 2014 at 01:16, Megan Hernandez mhernandez@wikimedia.org wrote:
Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift Aid"[*] tax releif?
[* Gift AId is a UK scheme where the government gives, to a charity, tax paid by a donor. For every £80 such a donor gives, the charty would receive £100]
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
All
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift Aid"[*] tax releif?
I've seen figures of $500,000 being mentioned in relation to lost gift aid. And also consider that with gift aid being taken out of the equation this will likely result in a drop in donations.
It's not chump change that has been lost, so there has to be some serious issues within WMUK that need fixing. Let's hope that chapter can get its act together in the future.
Russavia
Hoi, It is NOT the chapter that has to change its ways. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 December 2014 at 11:27, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
All
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift Aid"[*] tax releif?
I've seen figures of $500,000 being mentioned in relation to lost gift aid. And also consider that with gift aid being taken out of the equation this will likely result in a drop in donations.
It's not chump change that has been lost, so there has to be some serious issues within WMUK that need fixing. Let's hope that chapter can get its act together in the future.
Russavia
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 5 December 2014 at 10:50, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is NOT the chapter that has to change its ways. Thanks, GerardM
Actually, under Sue Gardner, the offer was that if the chapter did change its ways, it would become a payment processor again. As a trustee at that time, who was sent all the correspondence, this was exactly what was put in writing.
Presumably the WMF still have serious concerns about WMUK, otherwise this would have happened in 2014. Perhaps a current trustee could confirm the situation openly and transparently?
Fae
----- Mail original -----
De: "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com
Actually, under Sue Gardner, the offer was that if the chapter did change its ways, it would become a payment processor again. As a trustee at that time, who was sent all the correspondence, this was exactly what was put in writing.
And did you believe her ?
Mathias
On 5 December 2014 at 14:12, mathias.damour@laposte.net wrote:
----- Mail original -----
De: "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com
Actually, under Sue Gardner, the offer was that if the chapter did change its ways, it would become a payment processor again. As a trustee at that time, who was sent all the correspondence, this was exactly what was put in writing.
And did you believe her ?
Mathias
No, I and another trustee made that exceedingly clear.
Though I was a trustee, I was excluded by the then Chairman from the vote on how we proceeded. It was a truly nasty way to conduct the matter. A procedurally and legally recorded vote of the board was never held, something that I strongly complained about at the time. This was never corrected nor was there ever a personal apology. I would hope that the current board behaves differently with trustees who might oppose the "party line", though as that same trustee is still on the board, I guess meaningful governance reform has yet to happen. Every indication shows that politics and PR are still considered more important than public transparency and honesty to the community.
I have raised this before, but I think it's too "non-positive" a "non-success" to get anywhere with the way the charity that I helped to create works today. My reward for being concerned about the organization, is that I am no longer allowed to be a voting member of the UK charity.
Fae
I regret that Fae has thought it necessary to bring his personal grievance against the UK chapter and one specific individual over to the Wikimedia-l mailing list now that he is unable to make such comments on the Wikimedia-UK list or the WMUK website. I would hope that the moderators will consider whether providing a platform for this type of attack is conducive to the health of the Wikimedia movement.
Best regards
Michael
____________ Michael Maggs Chair, Wikimedia UK
Fæ mailto:faewik@gmail.com 5 December 2014 14:30
No, I and another trustee made that exceedingly clear.
Though I was a trustee, I was excluded by the then Chairman from the vote on how we proceeded. It was a truly nasty way to conduct the matter. A procedurally and legally recorded vote of the board was never held, something that I strongly complained about at the time. This was never corrected nor was there ever a personal apology. I would hope that the current board behaves differently with trustees who might oppose the "party line", though as that same trustee is still on the board, I guess meaningful governance reform has yet to happen. Every indication shows that politics and PR are still considered more important than public transparency and honesty to the community.
I have raised this before, but I think it's too "non-positive" a "non-success" to get anywhere with the way the charity that I helped to create works today. My reward for being concerned about the organization, is that I am no longer allowed to be a voting member of the UK charity.
Fae Fæ mailto:faewik@gmail.com 5 December 2014 10:56
Actually, under Sue Gardner, the offer was that if the chapter did change its ways, it would become a payment processor again. As a trustee at that time, who was sent all the correspondence, this was exactly what was put in writing.
Presumably the WMF still have serious concerns about WMUK, otherwise this would have happened in 2014. Perhaps a current trustee could confirm the situation openly and transparently?
Fae
Michael,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name wrote:
I regret that Fae has thought it necessary to bring his personal grievance against the UK chapter and one specific individual over to the Wikimedia-l mailing list now that he is unable to make such comments on the Wikimedia-UK list or the WMUK website. I would hope that the moderators will consider whether providing a platform for this type of attack is conducive to the health of the Wikimedia movement.
Best regards
Michael
I don't really see any sort of attack in what Fae has written; but is posting his opinion and information gained from his own time as trustee of Wikimedia UK. If you want to refute what he has to say, then do so. But what you are essentially asking for is an echo chamber.
A question has been raised on this list as it relates to WMUK, so all and sundry should be able to provide information relating to it.
Perhaps, you as Chairman of WMUK, could explain to us all publicly why the WMF is willing to forego approx $500,000 in gift aid and has pulled WMUK's ability to accept donations, and therefore still be eligible for that gift aid. Fae was essentially blamed, at least in the public eye, for all the failings of WMUK in the past, however the decision by the WMF is only a recent one, so there are still obvious failings at WMUK, and it can't be attributed to Fae. It is absolutely right that questions be asked; but your solution is to ban those who are asking the questions. That is not on.
I'd appreciate some sort of response from you Michael that does include ad hominem attacks. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement... for where we should be (the top) and where we're at.
Regards,
Russavia
Sorry, that of course should have read:
"I'd appreciate some sort of response from you Michael that does NOT include ad hominem attacks."
I guess I've been a Wikimedian so long that ad hominem attacks are often the norm, rather than the exception. Or it could have just been a brainfart. I'll let the reader decide.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Michael,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name wrote:
I regret that Fae has thought it necessary to bring his personal grievance against the UK chapter and one specific individual over to the Wikimedia-l mailing list now that he is unable to make such comments on the Wikimedia-UK list or the WMUK website. I would hope that the moderators will consider whether providing a platform for this type of attack is conducive to the health of the Wikimedia movement.
Best regards
Michael
I don't really see any sort of attack in what Fae has written; but is posting his opinion and information gained from his own time as trustee of Wikimedia UK. If you want to refute what he has to say, then do so. But what you are essentially asking for is an echo chamber.
A question has been raised on this list as it relates to WMUK, so all and sundry should be able to provide information relating to it.
Perhaps, you as Chairman of WMUK, could explain to us all publicly why the WMF is willing to forego approx $500,000 in gift aid and has pulled WMUK's ability to accept donations, and therefore still be eligible for that gift aid. Fae was essentially blamed, at least in the public eye, for all the failings of WMUK in the past, however the decision by the WMF is only a recent one, so there are still obvious failings at WMUK, and it can't be attributed to Fae. It is absolutely right that questions be asked; but your solution is to ban those who are asking the questions. That is not on.
I'd appreciate some sort of response from you Michael that does include ad hominem attacks. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement... for where we should be (the top) and where we're at.
Regards,
Russavia
On 4 December 2014 at 21:10, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift Aid"[*] tax releif?
Unless I've missed it these questions have not yet been answered.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org