[Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> WMF could no doubt spend a lot more in program expenses, though
> defining exactly what those are is a pretty fun game. But it's
> certainly not spending as inefficiently as the histogram might seem to
> suggest.

Right. What's a program expense? What *should* be a program expense?
* keeping servers online?
* Wikimania?
* producing how-to guides?
* improving mediawiki?

Most of what we've had the Foundation do, historically, don't count as
'programs' in the traditional charity sense; the WMF started simply to
make administrative tasks easier (e.g. running the site, running the
office). By that measure, many of us have historically felt that
having the WMF mostly spend money on administrative tasks, and very
little on 'programs', is *ideal*. But that seems quite difficult to
measure by traditional charity-assessment standards. Even the Red
Cross puts a great deal of money into running their emergency
missions, even if the personnel on the ground are volunteers. Our
infrastructure that makes it possible for volunteers to participate is
relatively steady-state, by contrast, and low-cost.

Since all the documentation is readily available, like Mike Snow said
it seems like a more valuable discussion to talk about what we are
actually spending money on and what we should be spending money on (cf
strategic planning) than to talk about what a 3rd party's rough
assessment of what we're spending money on. What should WMF money go
towards?

-- phoebe