On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:44 PM effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: This last point—that we can’t fund everything we directly need but are giving funds to only tangentially related special interest groups—hits home for me. With the money allocated to Knowledge Equity in the last couple years, we could have hired at least a couple more software engineers to do work like fulfill community wishlist requests. Especially in the context that we have had to slow growth in the overall WMF budget and hiring, this program feels particularly absurd. The simple fact is that this program is being pointed to within the community (at least on English Wikipedia) as a key example of how some believe the annual fundraising campaigns are misleading to donors and collecting funds that go to waste. There are editors gearing up yet again to potentially run RFCs and pick a fight, despite thoughtful, diligent work by the fundraising team to do outreach early and work collaboratively with the community. It will be sad if we end up having to scale back our primary fundraising campaign a second year in a row, particularly if it’s over one relatively small grant program. We should have just stopped this after a first pilot year and moved on to try less controversial methods to improve knowledge equity. There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it

++. Anything we can learn + apply from Outreachy (and their own community of mentors, alums, and practitioners!) would be wonderful. Their impact per unit of funding seems, at very casual inspection, well ahead of all comparable initiatives. And we could even fund them directly, who have often helped us in turn. ;) On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:13 AM Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

This is all extremely helpful information. I am grateful for the with you have done and I think this is an excellent project. On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 6:41 AM Biyanto <biyanto.rebin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Biyanto, Thanks for your reply on this, very much appreciate the context and more information. On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:41 AM Biyanto <biyanto.rebin(a)gmail.com> wrote: This budget context is pretty critical context, and as far as I can tell isn't clearly communicated on Meta or in the blog posts about the program anywhere. Is it somewhere already and I have missed it? I would suggest putting something almost exactly like this in an FAQ, because your statement here is the clearest thing I've read to date on it. Ultimately I think to the community of editors and donors it isn't super convincing to say "we allocated this $4.5 million (which, to the average person who doesn't read our global movement budget and grant reports, sounds like an enormous sum of money) and therefore we have to stick to that plan despite the fact that we can't measure the impact of this work at all". In any healthy functioning organization, if you couldn't get results from investing a few million dollars, you'd change the plan and consider moving the funds elsewhere after a year. It would help if the blog post about learnings from the first year ( https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/04/12/what-weve-learned-from-the-equity-fun…) and a first year report on Meta acknowledged the major gap in ability to measure impact. None of the previous communication really acknowledged this issue in any serious way. If the folks working on this at the WMF and the committee do agree it is an area for improvement, we should have said that in the communication about evaluating the first year and talked openly with the community (i.e. on wiki ideally) about potential strategies for improving the measurability of the program. Instead the blog post pretty much ignored any objections about the effectiveness and impact of the program, and just talked about visibility into the work. Examples like the one you gave really help, because it points to a clear theory of change (we fund investment in potential source material on underrepresented topics, Wikipedians use those sources eventually) that could actually be measurable. Today the time horizon might be very long, but maybe that's okay. I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in the I do not agree that generically "building relationships" is worth funding $4.5 million of grants. I think Erik makes some really good points previously that if we funded specific Wikimedian in residence / fellowship type programs that were more akin to the GLAM movement or related movement work on Art+Feminism then we could get both relationship building with sister organizations *and* some kind of clear direct impact on Wikimedia projects.

This is fair comment, but the lack of transparency makes it impossible to make a fair judgement. These things are not sufficiently obvious to just do them without adequate explanation. Cheers, Peter From: effe iets anders [mailto:effeietsanders@gmail.com] Sent: 17 August 2023 05:44 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some of the tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that we can't fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own work, and yet fund projects that don't feel like they directly support other activities our movement is deploying. There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it is, but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century, there was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific progress. Some of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to support also more fundamental research that did not necessarily always have a direct feed into their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program has the same vibe to me: we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to develop areas that we know are underserved (which may well be an understatement), without always having a direct connection to how that will feed into our projects, into our activities or communities. There is little doubt in my mind though, that in the long run the ecosystem will benefit from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our work in turn. So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to help society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the ecosystem that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors donating for' is equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate to us to help achieve the mission and trust us to make the choices that best serve this big picture. We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to worry about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most important funder, but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are many other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this is likely very subjective :) Warmly, Lodewijk On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner &lt;christophe.henner(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line. But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you were saying ?we all should want?. I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity and that probably require outside of the projects programs. As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic discussion but I don?t find where we had it. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ? On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner &lt;christophe.henner(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi Steven, If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical. If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the project we would actually be missing so much. I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement. As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia Organisations. @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with us? Thanks a lot :) Christophe Christophe, Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the boundary of acceptable initiatives end? For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it possible for more people to edit the projects. The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to support the projects. On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ? This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that. If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons? Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics? If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when they give us money. A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but this is not the way. On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena &lt;ngunasena(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Hi all, As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/Goals/Equity#Equity_Fund> goal around supporting knowledge equity by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund. Earlier this year, the Foundation shared <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/04/12/what-weve-learned-from-the-equity-funds-first-round/> learnings from the first year of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects. With these learnings in mind, today we are <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/08/03/announcing-the-second-round-of-grantees-from-the-wikimedia-foundation-knowledge-equity-fund/> announcing the second round of grantees from the Knowledge Equity Fund. This second round includes seven grantees that span five regions, including the Fund?s first-ever grantees in Asia. This diverse group of grantees was chosen from an initial pool of 42 nominations, which were received from across the Wikimedia movement through an open survey in 2022 and 2023. Each grantee aligns with one of Fund?s <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Criteria_for_grantees> five focus areas, identified to address persistent structural barriers experienced by communities of color that prevent equitable access and participation in open knowledge. They are also recognized nonprofits with a proven track record of impact in their region. The grantees include: Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, Indonesia: The <https://aman.or.id/> Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, or the Alliance of the Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN for short), is a non-profit organization based in Indonesia that works on human rights, journalism, and advocacy issues for indigenous people. Black Cultural Archives, United Kingdom: <https://blackculturalarchives.org/> Black Cultural Archives is a Black-led archive and heritage center that preserves and gives access to the histories of African and Caribbean people in the UK. Create Caribbean Research Institute, Commonwealth of Dominica: <https://createcaribbean.org/create/> Create Caribbean Research Institute is the first digital humanities center in the Caribbean. Criola, Brazil: <https://criola.org.br/> Criola is a civil society organization, based in Rio de Janeiro, dedicated to advocating for the rights of Black women in Brazilian society. Data for Black Lives, United States: <https://d4bl.org/> Data for Black Lives is a movement of activists, organizers, and scientists committed to the mission of using data to create concrete and measurable change in the lives of Black people. Filipino American National Historical Society, United States: The <http://fanhs-national.org/filam/> Filipino American National Historical Society has a mission to gather, document and share Filipino American history through its 42 community based chapters. Project Multatuli, Indonesia: <https://projectmultatuli.org/en/> Project Multatuli is an organization dedicated to non-profit journalism, especially for underreported topics, ranging from indigenous people to marginalized issues. The Equity Fund Committee, made up of five Wikimedia community members and five Wikimedia Foundation staff, have also connected each of these grantees with regional and relevant partners in the Wikimedia movement, including local and established movement affiliates who can support knowledge equity work and help grantees learn about how to connect back to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects. We continue to look for ways to increase these connections and welcome your input. This second round of grants was administered by the Wikimedia Foundation, after all remaining funds for the Equity Fund were transferred back from Tides Advocacy to the Foundation earlier this year. We welcome thoughts and questions about the Equity fund and the second round of grantees on <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund> Meta. Thank you, Nadee Gunasena On behalf of the <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#The_Knowledge_Equity_Fund_Committee> Equity Fund Committee Biyanto Rebin, Emna Mizouni, Gala Mayi Miranda, Kelly Foster, Maari Zwick-Maitreyi, Aeryn Palmer, Jorge Vargas, Kassia Echavarri-Queen, Nadee Gunasena, Sandister Tei -- <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Wikimedia-logo_black.svg/54px-Wikimedia-logo_black.svg.png> Nadee Gunasena Chief of Staff <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com

Steven, I've been thinking about your points here and I wonder if it's worth zooming out a little bit on what Wikimedia is trying to achieve. The classic slogan of making the sum of all human knowledge accessible to all is an incredibly broad and ambitious goal. Since the WMF was founded, the primary implementation of that goal has been the various projects (anchored by Wikipedia's, the initial innovation). But how convinced are we that this is and will always remain the best way to achieve WMF's actual mission? If we're completely sure that any distraction away from the WMF projects, and the model of collecting and distributing knowledge that they represent, would be harmful to that goal... then I would agree that the approach taken by funding these grants is taking us down the wrong road. If we admit to ourselves instead that Wikimedia's projects represent a great model now, and hopefully for many years to come, but that more or better ways of achieving the mission may surface... Then perhaps its worthwhile to invest persistently in supporting other approaches, to create opportunities for the same innovation and discovery behind Wikipedia to uncover what model may best meet future moments in delivering knowledge to all. ~Nate On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 1:08 PM Steven Walling &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: