[Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

Greetings.

The Charity Navigator site has evaluated and rated the Wikimedia Foundation:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212

Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two
stars for Organization Efficency.  This is described by Charity Navigator as
"Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities
in its Cause".  The Charity Navigator site further states:

"Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least
75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And
9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a
third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their
missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero
points for their overall organizational efficiency score."

While the WMF seemed to be narrowly meeting these guidelines (according to
the site's "Revenue/Expenses Trend" histogram) in perhaps 2007, it appears
that in 2008, the trend got decidedly worse.  Perhaps I am misinterpreting
the criteria and/or the graphic.  But, the 2-out-of-4 stars rating is
decidedly clear.

For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as
"similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses
are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star
rating:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481

I am wondering (and I suppose others may be, too) whether the staff and
board feel that Charity Navigator is a reputable and credible measurement
service, and if so, are you satisfied with receiving two out of four stars
in this area, and if not what do you plan to change to improve the rating
next year?
Gregory Kohs