12 ms·

You're trying to calculate costs from an annual plan and match them directly to a quote from an executive, from an article that obviously has a bias against Wik

You're trying to calculate costs from an annual plan and match them directly to a quote from an executive, from an article that obviously has a bias against Wikimedia. The executive may not have properly quoted expenses. You may be reading the data incorrectly as well. In either case, it seems that you have a bone to pick with specific programs the foundation is funding, which happen to be diversity related, which lets me know that I shouldn't be engaging with you.

akolbe 4y ago
The problem is not the type of causes funded, it's that the money was collected under the premise that it was urgently needed to "keep Wikipedia online", "ad-free" and "independent" - including from people in India and South Africa whom I'd rather see funding local causes, supporting people who are in real poverty, than have them sending money to a wealthy country like the US to support diversity causes there.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  The diversity spending is also geographical, you realize? Most of the money that goes into the fundraising is from wealthy countries, and quite a bit goes into areas like India and South Africa. I agree that their messaging is deceiving, but essentially everything you're discussing is misinformation, sourced from extremely biased sourced.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Two months ago, I looked at the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990 for the Signpost (Wikipedia's volunteer newspaper) to see how much money the WMF actually spends in the developing world. My report is here, on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/News_and_notes#Where_does_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_spend_its_money%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... This was after an interview with a Wikimedia Foundation trustee in an Indian national daily claimed that "Although a lot of the money is raised in the more developed Western markets, most of it is actually flowing into the global south, where the growth will come in languages and users." https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/raju-narisetti-interview-wikipedia-trust-transparency-7940621/ https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-techn... After I complained on the Wikimedia mailing list – https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/OVT3MRNP6VELKPSJAMWB3SOCESKLOPX7/#ZS5LWKIFJXTRRATNNMF6SBI3GNZIEWAO https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list... – the WMF said that their trustee had been misquoted, and the Indian Express added a correction to the article a week later (see note at the bottom). It now says, "Although a lot of the money is raised in the more developed Western markets, a lot of it is actually flowing into the global south, where the growth will come in languages and users." Now, "a lot" is an elastic term. What I found, and you are welcome to check my numbers, is that the Wikimedia Foundation, according to its most recent Form 990, spent a total of $3.8 million (2.4% of revenue) in the Global South. That is less than it invested in the Knowledge Equity Fund, which primarily supports US organisations (three of the six grantees to date are in the US, and they account for well over half the money given out to date). Of the $3.8 million the WMF spent in the Global South, "Grantmaking" accounted for $1,953,708, or 1.2% of the Wikimedia Foundation's $159 million revenue. The "Grantmaking" total in all of South Asia, according to the Form 990, was $78,537 ($75,198 + $3,339 on the page following the one linked below): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=31 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim... Those are the realities vs. the PR.

akolbe 4y ago

The problem is not the type of causes funded, it's that the money was collected under the premise that it was urgently needed to "keep Wikipedia online", "ad-free" and "independent" - including from people in India and South Africa whom I'd rather see funding local causes, supporting people who are in real poverty, than have them sending money to a wealthy country like the US to support diversity causes there.

ryan_lane 4y ago
The diversity spending is also geographical, you realize? Most of the money that goes into the fundraising is from wealthy countries, and quite a bit goes into areas like India and South Africa. I agree that their messaging is deceiving, but essentially everything you're discussing is misinformation, sourced from extremely biased sourced.
- akolbe 4y ago
  Two months ago, I looked at the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990 for the Signpost (Wikipedia's volunteer newspaper) to see how much money the WMF actually spends in the developing world. My report is here, on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/News_and_notes#Where_does_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_spend_its_money%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... This was after an interview with a Wikimedia Foundation trustee in an Indian national daily claimed that "Although a lot of the money is raised in the more developed Western markets, most of it is actually flowing into the global south, where the growth will come in languages and users." https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/raju-narisetti-interview-wikipedia-trust-transparency-7940621/ https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-techn... After I complained on the Wikimedia mailing list – https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/OVT3MRNP6VELKPSJAMWB3SOCESKLOPX7/#ZS5LWKIFJXTRRATNNMF6SBI3GNZIEWAO https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list... – the WMF said that their trustee had been misquoted, and the Indian Express added a correction to the article a week later (see note at the bottom). It now says, "Although a lot of the money is raised in the more developed Western markets, a lot of it is actually flowing into the global south, where the growth will come in languages and users." Now, "a lot" is an elastic term. What I found, and you are welcome to check my numbers, is that the Wikimedia Foundation, according to its most recent Form 990, spent a total of $3.8 million (2.4% of revenue) in the Global South. That is less than it invested in the Knowledge Equity Fund, which primarily supports US organisations (three of the six grantees to date are in the US, and they account for well over half the money given out to date). Of the $3.8 million the WMF spent in the Global South, "Grantmaking" accounted for $1,953,708, or 1.2% of the Wikimedia Foundation's $159 million revenue. The "Grantmaking" total in all of South Asia, according to the Form 990, was $78,537 ($75,198 + $3,339 on the page following the one linked below): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=31 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim... Those are the realities vs. the PR.