Wonderful news, and an amazing set of board members. Thanks to the team for making the endowment a steady and growing pillar of support, and tending to its governance too with care :) 🌍🌏🌎🌑 On Wed., Sep. 22, 2021, 10:58 a.m. Lisa Gruwell, <lgruwell(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Thank you, Christophe and SJ. You both were great supporters of this effort when you were on the WMF board and it wouldn't have gotten off the ground without you. It takes a lot of vision and trust to do something long-term like an endowment. Thanks for giving that to us! Best, Lisa On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 1:52 AM Christophe Henner < christophe.henner(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Lisa Seitz Gruwell Chief Advancement Officer Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>

Great now but now... (https://imgflip.com/i/5o0v9y if you don't want to download the attached picture) Vito

Thanks Christophe, SJ and all! Lisa, agreed - it's taken a lot of work over the years from many people to get here. A big thanks to all of the endowment staff past and present and especially to you Lisa, who has been there as an advocate from the very beginning "what if we made an endowment?!" days. Also thanks to my fellow current and former trustees on the WMF & Endowment boards who have supported this effort. I'm honored and excited to be a part of the next chapter of the endowment, and I hope to hear community members' thoughts on the best way an endowment could support the very long term future of the Wikimedia projects and free knowledge too. Galder -- though the endowment may only ever indirectly support this, yes to a wishlist system that fulfills more wishes. I want to see this too. Cunctator -- this seems like a different topic for a different thread? Vito -- Good meme usage. I can't find the perfect meme to answer so I'll just say that (as I expect you know) the endowment is meant to support the projects in perpetuity, which means it isn't there to replace daily operation funding or annual fundraising. The 100M is meant to generate investment income (which best case scenario will still only be a fraction of the current WMF budget.) Changing fundraising strategies really means changing the size and scope of the WMF annual plan, including affiliate grants; the need for fundraising follows from the budget. While that's a good conversation to have, I don't think the existence of the endowment will direct it (or our larger movement strategy conversations). cheers, Phoebe On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 1:21 PM Lisa Gruwell &lt;lgruwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *

I know the purpose of the endowment, but our fundraising relies upon a sense of urgency which is, simply, fake. It was already not true before, but now that we have a massive endwoment it became even more untrue. I was once told "I see Wikipedia is in a financially dire situation" "heck! where did you read this?" "in a banner". Each year fundraising surpasses its goals, the endowment itself reached the 100M goal in roughly half the expected time. Do we really seek an infinite growth? Vito Il giorno ven 24 set 2021 alle ore 01:17 phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto:

I will answer to the end of your email only as it shocked me. Le ven. 24 sept. 2021 à 10:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : This is totally out of place. First of, it's their work and praising on their achievements is nothing shameful. I hope they see their work as good work. Second, the Fundraising team is made of deeply engaged people. I will not list them all, but I am pretty sure that teams have some of the "older" employees in the Foundation. If you take the three first names of the staff list, the three (Lisa, Megan and Guillaume) all have been at the Foundation for over 10 years. So your attack is out of place, unfounded and totally wrong. They are staff, they are professionals, they are highly engaged people and part of our movement as we all are. So please, stop attacking people.

Sorry for not being explicit; the connection is that protection of copyleft would be inconvenient to major endowment donors such as Google and Amazon. WikiData is a Wikimedia project that converts copylefted content into (what Wikimedia asserts to be) copyright-free content. On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote:

The Cunctator's point about Wikidata's copyright-free CC0 licence is actually one issue that I had meant to include in the list of WMF ethical lapses in my other post . Wikidata has imported very large amounts of content from Wikipedia, which, as The Cunctator points out, has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. This was not the original plan, as it was thought doing so would infringe the licence under which Wikipedia contributors had released their contributions. In 2012, for example, while he was still a Wikimedia Deutschland employee, Denny wrote on Meta,[1] Alexrk2, it is absolutely true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will ''provide'' data that can be reused in the Wikipedias. And a CC0 source can be used by a Share-Alike project, be it either Wikipedia or OSM. But not the other way around. Do we agree on this understanding? --[[User:Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)|Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)|talk]]) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Denny then moved to Google in October 2013, and subsequently argued strongly in favour of making Wikidata CC0, which is the viewpoint that prevailed and led to large-scale importation of Wikipedia content in Wikidata. The legal situation is admittedly fairly complex[2] but it stands to reason that when a person moves from Wikimedia to Google, loyalties and priorities will change along with such a move. That is only natural. Nobody would or should make such a move if they weren't prepared to be loyal to their new employer. (I've cc'ed Denny as a courtesy.) What is equally certain is that the CC0 licence served the interests of Google and other Big Tech companies. All of this of course happened at a time when Google and Silicon Valley were particularly strongly represented on the WMF board.[3] As far as the Wikimedia projects are concerned, Wikidata's shift to CC0 substantially increased the risk of disintermediation that Guillaume mentioned in his post. If content is CC0, there is no need for attribution, so unlike the present Knowledge Graph panels, which at least have a link to Wikipedia, there is no need for any attribution to a Wikimedia site at all when others use Wikidata content. Content is then widely disseminated and presented as truth without any indication that it comes from a Wikimedia volunteer project. As Heather Ford has pointed out in her chapter of the Wikipedia @ 20 book, "Rise of the Underdog"[4], this obscuring of provenance is undesirable for other reasons as well – it becomes harder to contest information. Users lose agency. Now, in the context of the grand aim of Knowledge Equity, I believe it is absolutely the wrong thing for the WMF to enter into any association with Big Tech companies that results in any preferential treatment being extended to them. Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook are surveillance capitalists. Their entire business model is based on tracking user behaviour. It is diametrically opposed to professed WMF core values concerning privacy and data protection. Moreover, these companies have become trillion-dollar companies – really the 21st-century equivalent in many ways of what oil companies were in the last century, and wielding the same kind of covert influence – in part because of their diligent effort to avoid paying taxes in the countries they operate in. The way these companies are set up, this will never change: shareholders will always demand maximum return on their investments, which necessitates minimising tax. I believe anyone who would try to change these companies' tax-avoidance behaviour, volunteering to pay the billions of dollars of tax these companies morally owe the global south and other jurisdictions, would simply be axed. What this means, given that all these companies are based in the US, is that as their already overwhelming market share grows globally, the economic imbalance disadvantaging the global south – which is the root cause of unequal access to knowledge – will only grow. It's a bit like 21st-century colonialism: wealth streaming out of poor countries into a rich one. For both of these reasons, privacy and tax avoidance, I believe the WMF has absolutely no business aiding these companies to any extent where it would give them any additional advantage over regional or global competitors. Of course I acknowledge that it is impossible to avoid interacting with Big Tech, but where competitors such as DuckDuckGo are available whose values are at least partially more aligned with the WMF's own, they should be clearly preferred as WMF partners. For that reason I was really glad to read about a joint WMF/DuckDuckGo study the other day that shed some interesting light on another aspect of disintermediation. This study found that knowledge panels increase rather than diminish click-throughs to Wikipedia[5], much the opposite of what I and others thought a few years ago. While this is a single study whose conclusions may not necessarily hold true in all contexts, it is an interesting and encouraging result. Andreas [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikidata&diff=3876137… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights#Conclusion [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/News_… [4] https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/fcgjp9ul/release/2 [5] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/09/23/searching-for-wikipedia-duckduckgo-an… On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 7:35 AM Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hi Andreas and Cunctator, I partially agree with you with the WMF's budget and fundraising. It's a lot of money that is being raised, and there seems to be a big disconnect between the fundraising messages being used and the actual expenditure. The money is being well spent and on worthwhile things, though, which mitigates - but doesn't solve - the issue. It's a big ethical problem that I hope the WMF can improve on in the near future. With CC-0, though, I disagree. From my perspective/understanding, it's not about supporting big businesses, and I think your comments about Denny and Google are off the mark. A key part of the Wikimedia movement is that we understand, and follow, copyright law. We may not like it much, but we follow it as accurately as we possibly can (given legal ambiguities etc.). When it comes to Wikidata, we're storing factual information in short segments (triples), which by law can't be copyrighted. It doesn't matter where the information comes from - whether CC-BY-SA, full copyright, or elsewhere. You can argue about database rights, but on the whole, it's not information that *should* be CC-BY-SA, it's public domain information, so CC-0 makes the most sense. It's like planting trees. They produce oxygen, which benefits us all. They may also benefit big tech as well, but that's not why we plant them. (Full disclaimer: I run bot scripts that copy info from Wikipedias into Wikidata, including short descriptions, via Pi bot. My understanding is that none of the information copied is copyrightable. Feel free to argue about this on-wiki if you want.) Thanks, Mike On 27/9/21 14:02:23, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The Cunctator's point about Wikidata's copyright-free CC0 licence is > actually one issue that I had meant to include in the list of WMF > ethical lapses in my other post . > > Wikidata has imported very large amounts of content from Wikipedia, > which, as The Cunctator points out, has a Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike License. This was not the original plan, as it > was thought doing so would infringe the licence under which Wikipedia > contributors had released their contributions. > > In 2012, for example, while he was still a Wikimedia Deutschland > employee, Denny wrote on Meta,[1] > > Alexrk2, it is absolutely true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be > allowed to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does > not plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will > ''provide'' data that can be reused in the Wikipedias. And a CC0 source > can be used by a Share-Alike project, be it either Wikipedia or OSM. But > not the other way around. Do we agree on this understanding? > --[[User:Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)|Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)]] ([[User > talk:Denny Vrandečić (WMDE)|talk]]) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) > > Denny then moved to Google in October 2013, and subsequently argued > strongly in favour of making Wikidata CC0, which is the viewpoint that > prevailed and led to large-scale importation of Wikipedia content in > Wikidata. > > The legal situation is admittedly fairly complex[2] but it stands to > reason that when a person moves from Wikimedia to Google, loyalties and > priorities will change along with such a move. That is only natural. > Nobody would or should make such a move if they weren't prepared to be > loyal to their new employer. (I've cc'ed Denny as a courtesy.) > > What is equally certain is that the CC0 licence served the interests of > Google and other Big Tech companies. All of this of course happened at a > time when Google and Silicon Valley were particularly strongly > represented on the WMF board.[3] > > As far as the Wikimedia projects are concerned, Wikidata's shift to CC0 > substantially increased the risk of disintermediation that Guillaume > mentioned in his post. If content is CC0, there is no need for > attribution, so unlike the present Knowledge Graph panels, which at > least have a link to Wikipedia, there is no need for any attribution to > a Wikimedia site at all when others use Wikidata content. > > Content is then widely disseminated and presented as truth without any > indication that it comes from a Wikimedia volunteer project. As Heather > Ford has pointed out in her chapter of the Wikipedia @ 20 book, "Rise of > the Underdog"[4], this obscuring of provenance is undesirable for other > reasons as well – it becomes harder to contest information. Users lose > agency. > > Now, in the context of the grand aim of Knowledge Equity, I believe it > is absolutely the wrong thing for the WMF to enter into any association > with Big Tech companies that results in any preferential treatment being > extended to them. > > Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook are surveillance > capitalists. Their entire business model is based on tracking user > behaviour. It is diametrically opposed to professed WMF core values > concerning privacy and data protection. > > Moreover, these companies have become trillion-dollar companies – really > the 21st-century equivalent in many ways of what oil companies were in > the last century, and wielding the same kind of covert influence – in > part because of their diligent effort to avoid paying taxes in the > countries they operate in. > > The way these companies are set up, this will never change: shareholders > will always demand maximum return on their investments, which > necessitates minimising tax. I believe anyone who would try to change > these companies' tax-avoidance behaviour, volunteering to pay the > billions of dollars of tax these companies morally owe the global south > and other jurisdictions, would simply be axed. > > What this means, given that all these companies are based in the US, is > that as their already overwhelming market share grows globally, the > economic imbalance disadvantaging the global south – which is the root > cause of unequal access to knowledge – will only grow. It's a bit like > 21st-century colonialism: wealth streaming out of poor countries into a > rich one. > > For both of these reasons, privacy and tax avoidance, I believe the WMF > has absolutely no business aiding these companies to any extent where it > would give them any additional advantage over regional or global > competitors. Of course I acknowledge that it is impossible to avoid > interacting with Big Tech, but where competitors such as DuckDuckGo are > available whose values are at least partially more aligned with the > WMF's own, they should be clearly preferred as WMF partners. > > For that reason I was really glad to read about a joint WMF/DuckDuckGo > study the other day that shed some interesting light on another aspect > of disintermediation. This study found that knowledge panels increase > rather than diminish click-throughs to Wikipedia[5], much the opposite > of what I and others thought a few years ago. While this is a single > study whose conclusions may not necessarily hold true in all contexts, > it is an interesting and encouraging result. > > Andreas > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikidata&diff=3876137… > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikidata&diff=3876137&oldid=3875379> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights#Conclusion > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights#Conclusion> > [3] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/News_… > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/News_and_notes> > [4] https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/fcgjp9ul/release/2 > <https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/fcgjp9ul/release/2> > [5] > https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/09/23/searching-for-wikipedia-duckduckgo-an… > <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/09/23/searching-for-wikipedia-duckduckgo-and-the-wikimedia-foundation-share-new-research-on-how-people-use-search-engines-to-get-to-wikipedia> > > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 7:35 AM Gerard Meijssen > &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hoi, > Facts are in and of themselves not copyrightable. Collections of > data may be copyrighted.We choose not to and as a result Wikidata is > the powerhouse that it has become.The CC-by-sa license is our > license of choice for Wikipedia however, the way it has been > enforced so far has been defensive, we are quite happy when our > material is used. > > At Wikidata we are long past the point where the majority of the > data is from a Wikipedia. From day one Wikidata has provided > essential services to every Wikipedia,  Wikidata can provide > superior services to Wikipedia. Because like Commons, we have to > maintain the data only once and have it available everywhere. > Wikidata is instrumental in sychronising death information among our > projects. It has been shown over and over again to have more > complete information as can be found in Wikipedia lists and > categories. Wikipedians choose to stick with their arguably > substandard practices. > > The notion that a Google or an Amazon are not capable of extracting > facts from a Wikipedia is silly. They have the capacity and the > skills and the software to do just that. Wikidata provides them > additional information making their information more complete. They > have their reasons to be model citizens and contribute to the > Wikimedia Foundation. We now provide paid for services to them > making their bot activity less of a strain to our services and > provide them a (paid for) service. > Thanks, >        GerardM > > On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 04:32, The Cunctator &lt;cunctator(a)gmail.com > <mailto:cunctator@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Sorry for not being explicit; the connection is that protection > of copyleft would be inconvenient to major endowment donors such > as Google and Amazon. WikiData is a Wikimedia project that > converts copylefted content into (what Wikimedia asserts to be) > copyright-free content. > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Mabbett > &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk <mailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> > wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 19:27, The Cunctator > &lt;cunctator(a)gmail.com <mailto:cunctator@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > It's really disappointing to me that the Structured Data > work has been used to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft. > > 1. Your message has nothing to do with the endowment > > 2. You offer no evidence that "the Structured Data work has > been used > to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft." > > 3. You do not explain what you mean by "blow up Wikipedia's > copyleft." > > If you wish to discuss copyright and/or structured data, > please start > a new thread; and be clear there about the point you wish to > make. > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > https://pigsonthewing.org.uk <https://pigsonthewing.org.uk> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ME3ZHE4EKPUG6XA3N53YWGZMCE7XBZKN/> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWN3E4ORWWLDHQ7PBX675KBQV5BAUPBV/> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BN5BMT6YPILRPMZJQX4MJQDUL7DXP7BV/> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >

Hoi, Again, your English Wikipedia background shows. Wikipedia exists in 200+ languages, knowledge panels in English are of interest to some 50% of our public. The aggregated data at Wikidata is able to service all the languages we support. For the nds.wikipedia.org just recently, it was announced that they now support Listeria lists. Given a mission of "sharing the sum of all knowledge", there is more data to share in Wikidata than there is in all the Wikipedias combined. When you consider the data stream provided to those who want to pay for it; this data stream makes much of the bot traffic we used to have redundant. So it is not as if any party could not get at the data, this way is more convenient to us and to them. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 15:03, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Dear Lisa and all, According to Meta and the just-released WMF Advancement fourth-quarter tuning session deck, the Endowment actually passed the $100-million mark not this month, but three months ago – in June, before the start of this current financial year. The Meta page e.g. says: The Endowment reached our initial $100 million goal in June 2021. The goal was set as part of a ten-year plan from 2016-2026. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=2… This means the Endowment grew by around $40 million in the 2020/2021 financial year alone – about as much as in the three previous years together – based on this Meta edit by Endowment Director Amy Parker, who stated that on June 30, 2020, the Endowment stood at $62.9 million: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=n… I say "around $40 million" because if the Endowment grew from $62.9 million on June 30, 2020, to over $100 million sometime during June, 2021, at least $37.1 million (and probably a little more) must have been added to it in the 2020/2021 financial year. Now, according to the just-released WMF Advancement fourth-quarter tuning session deck, in the 2020/2021 financial year the Foundation raised ... – $154 million for the Foundation (vs. an initial target of $108 million) – $18.9 million (vs. a target of $5 million) for the Endowment https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation… I've been told by WMF staff that the WMF receives two kinds of moneys for the Endowment: – Some are "pass-through" donations to the Endowment. These are moneys received by the Foundation that are passed straight on. They enter the Endowment directly and do not appear in the Foundation's Revenue, Assets or Expenses figures. – Some are ordinary WMF revenue, reflected in WMF Support and Revenue totals, which is then used to make a Foundation grant to the Endowment. Such WMF grants to the Wikimedia Endowment are included in the Foundation's expenses total, under Awards and Grants. My understanding was that this has been $5 million per annum (equalling the target mentioned in the above slide), for the past six years. So what are the $18.9 million for the Endowment in the tuning session deck? Does that mean that the WMF, in the last financial year, took $172.9 million in revenue ($154M + $18.9M) and made an $18.9 million grant to the Endowment? Or are these $18.9 million pass-through gifts to the Endowment, which won't show up in the Foundation's financial statements at all, and the annual $5 million came on top of that, out of the $154 million? At any rate, given that the Endowment evidently grew by at least $37.1 million in the last financial year, the $18.9 million mentioned in the tuning session deck are about $20 million short. Where did the other money come from, given that it seems to have been so much more than in previous years? Were there any particularly large gifts from companies or foundations? The only major gift mentioned on the Meta page is a $1 million gift from Amazon. I am sorry for the many questions, and apologise in advance for any errors or misunderstandings on my part, but I find the Endowment set-up completely impenetrable and non-transparent. There is no Form 990 documentation, because the Foundation says on the Form 990 it does not have any Endowment assets, and there are no timely updates or audited financial statements about money going into the Endowment or coming out of it. I wish this were different. I will copy these questions to the Endowment talk page as well. Regards, Andreas On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:58 PM Lisa Gruwell &lt;lgruwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: