On 21.05.2014 03:09, Stevie Benton wrote:
Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser.
On 21.05.2014 09:37, Michael Maggs wrote:
This has been the case for the last two years, so although the decision for this year is disappointing in practice nothing has changed.
We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our letter to Sue can be found here [1] on the Wikimedia UK wiki. [1] https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-...
On 21.05.2014 09:10, Deskana wrote:
For those not up on the governance, what are the practical ramifications of this for the chapter?
On 21.05.2014 09:37, Michael Maggs wrote:
The major effects are the movement will still not benefit from the available Gift Aid of perhaps £300,000 annually, and that donor details remain held by the WMF in the US. The charity’s lack of access to donor details hinders us from engaging with UK donors, keeping funds flowing without repeated public appeals, and converting donors into supporters and volunteers.
On 21.05.2014 09:39, rexx wrote:
There are two practical implications:
- It means that nobody receives Gift Aid on the donations taken by
the WMF which originated in the UK. Our donors who wish to make use of Gift Aid are denied the opportunity and the movement as a whole loses around £200,000 - £300,000 which would be claimable from HMRC
Given we're not a <cough> 'large multinational online retailer' <cough>, what's claimed can't exactly be taken and spent outside the country.
(obviously monies that are claimed back by WMUK would reduce the amount that we ask for from the FDC).
Perhaps 'chump change' in-comparison, but in-country processing is fractionally cheaper. Once set up, it is less-likely to put 'fraud prevention' hurdles in front of potential donors.
- It insulates us from our donors. We have no means of establishing
a relationship with the huge donor base in the UK, which prevents us from encouraging them into playing more of a role in the Wikimedia movement.
This is the most-damaging aspect of not trusting WMUK to act as a fund processor.
On 21.05.2014 11:43, Charles Matthews wrote:
Heres an argument on your side of the case, though: the feedback from the fundraiser, particularly from old dears who have sent a cheque "because Wikipedia is the best thing on the Internet", is motivating like little else.
Of course it would be an improvement if WMUK did payment processing, but, as I must have said before (on the wiki), not going to happen simply by playing the "autonomy" card, because that has been done.
I think the 'open letter' is the only reasonable response Wikimedia UK, as a registered charity, can give. They can hardly boycott Wikimania in protest, can they?
The Charities Commission can't help here either; all they can do is stand on the sidelines, shaking their heads, as the WMF rejects hundreds of thousands of pounds of British taxpayers' money. Money that, given the rich multicultural nature of our society, could be used to help increase contributors across poorly-served languages.
I hope the WMF are keeping their fingers, and toes, crossed about none of the UK's capricious press picking this up and running with it. All I can see are the highly-negative ways in which they could spin it, and damage public goodwill towards the movement.
Brian McNeil