Wikipedia and Wikimedia, Where's your money going Options

[Peter Damian]

How many people who donate to Wikimedia think that their money is going to Wikipedia. I never realised this until recently (not that I have donated any money anyway).

I am still struggling to understand what Wikimedia is for, other than hosting all those servers. In particular, now that Wikimedia UK is registered as a charity, I am wondering what the money is for.
Wikimedia UK has 'raised' £500,000, but I understand this is a cheque from the parent WMF. It took me a long time to find out how it is actually being spent, but the page linked to below explains some of it. I itemise them below (I didn't finish it, it being far too boring). The CEO salary is about right for London charity director, but I don't understand what he (Jon Davies) is doing, apart from raising money to pay his own salary. The Office Manager is also about right, but, again, what are they actually doing? The other stuff is impenetrable, apart from the second "Wikipedians in Residence" which is (because of the Bristol connection) is probably a nice cheque for Martin Poulter for being a good all-round nice guy.

The whole thing seems to be to raise money for 'mates' - the various ne'er do wells and useless people that hang around the WMF.

Further investigation, followed by a letter to the charities commission, would seem to be in order.

Chief Executive 60,000
Office Manager 25,000
Events Manager 30,000
Communications 20,000
Developer 30,000
Train the Trainers Programme 20,000
Outreach merchandise & publications 5,000
Extended Reach programme 10,000
Technical development to support cultural outreach 80,000
GLAM-Wiki Conference Autumn 2012 10,000
Outreach Events 10,000
Wikipedians in Residence 15,000
Digitization 20,000
World Wars I and II project 30,000
University outreach events 10,000
Wikipedians in Residence 10,000
[etc]

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Activity_Plan

[dogbiscuit]

Peter, if you do get anything, do share it. I'm a charity trustee myself and have a pretty good idea of what is allowed and what is not.

If they are getting money for the UK charity and it is not entirely clear, and reading the page, there is no indication at all that the money is going to a nefarious bunch of British ner-do-wells, then that could be construed as fraud. The Fraud Act of 2002 is really clear on what constitutes fraud, and it includes the sin of omission of information. If I thought I was donating to Wikipedia and discovered that 50% of it had been filtered off to support Wikimedia UK I would be rather put out.

I also think that the Charities Commission would look rather dimly on a fundraising system that gave no indication of what that money was for.

What I really don't understand is why WMF would use its website to divert 50% commission to Wikimedia UK. If they were getting 10% to cover Gift Aid administration, it would make sense - WMF getting more money by using the charity front in the UK and Wikimedia UK getting some funds - a win for both, but why give away half your UK income? Bizarre.