| |
|
  |
 The WMF Audit, presented before 2008 or not? |
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Let's get a pool going -- when will the WMF audited financial statement for fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, actually be posted to the public by the WMF? Everyone who makes a pick is honor-bound to wager a $5 sum. The person who comes closest (over or under) to the actual date and time of the first public release will win all wagers. The winner will then name a registered and recognized non-profit charity of their choice, and all participants will be honor-bound to apply their $5 as a donation to that charity, in the name of "Mimbo Jimbo's Irresponsible Wikimedia Foundation Audit Contest". That should raise some eyebrows at the recipient non-profit, don't you think? " Hey, Lucille, what are all these $5 PayPal donations from this 'Mimbo Jimbo' group about?" My prediction (and my $5 pledge) are riding on: January 21, 2008; 17:11 UTC (Greenwich mean time) Cumulative pledges = $5. ( each subsequent pool participant should update this total) Good luck and good wagering! Greg P.S. The auditing firm of Gregory, Sharer & Stuart boasts a motto of: Right Answers. Right Now. I guess they've failed on at least one of those brand promises already. This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 26th December 2007, 11:04am)  Let's get a pool going -- when will the WMF audited financial statement for fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, actually be posted to the public by the WMF? Everyone who makes a pick is honor-bound to wager a $5 sum. The person who comes closest (over or under) to the actual date and time of the first public release will win all wagers. The winner will then name a registered and recognized non-profit charity of their choice, and all participants will be honor-bound to apply their $5 as a donation to that charity, in the name of "Mimbo Jimbo's Irresponsible Wikimedia Foundation Audit Contest". That should raise some eyebrows at the recipient non-profit, don't you think? " Hey, Lucille, what are all these $5 PayPal donations from this 'Mimbo Jimbo' group about?" My prediction (and my $5 pledge) are riding on: January 21, 2008; 17:11 UTC (Greenwich mean time) Cumulative pledges = $5. ( each subsequent pool participant should update this total) Good luck and good wagering! Greg P.S. The auditing firm of Gregory, Sharer & Stuart boasts a motto of: Right Answers. Right Now. I guess they've failed on at least one of those brand promises already. Some audits are more problematic than others. February 9, 2008, 11:00 GMT +0. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Time to really do something for that African kid. |
|
|
|
|
|
| KamrynMatika |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 626
Joined:
Member No.: 1,776
|
Haha, good one. Hmm. March 11, 2008 at 11:00AM GMT +0. Oxfam. Cumulative pledges = $15 (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Is it normal for audits to take this long to be published? This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Wed 26th December 2007, 12:13pm) Haha, good one. Hmm. March 11, 2008 at 11:00AM GMT +0. Oxfam. Cumulative pledges = $15 (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Is it normal for audits to take this long to be published? About as common as the COO gut shooting someone, committing credit card/check fraud and having a enough DUIs to be arrested as a felon, I suppose. Oxfam is a good choice, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 26th December 2007, 1:21pm) QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 26th December 2007, 1:14pm) $50 on Jan 25, 5pm EST - donations to benefit ACLU Foundation. Total now = $65 I mis-read and thought all pledges where $5.00 so didn't explicitly state an amount, making mine not show in total. I re-made the pledge $10.00 so the total is now $75.00. I thought all the donations would be $5, too. And I anticipated that they would all be directed to one charity -- to be chosen by our contest winner. That way, one organization will suddenly see a bunch of $5 donations under the rubric of "Mimbo Jimbo" and at least raise some eyebrows. Of course, there's nothing wrong with pledging more than a sawbuck, and you're at liberty to send them wherever you wanted them to go, being that this is just an "honor-bound" contest. But, I really think we'll have the most impact if we deluge one charity with our "Mimbo Jimbo-tagged" contributions. (And it might as well be a high-profile one that might actually look into what's "wrong" with Wikipedia, thus making my choice of a local children's camp a poor one. Now I'm leaning more toward Public Information Research or some such non-profit that already has a bent against Wikipedia and might even run a press release about this contest result.) Greg |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Okay, I would say that the betting is closed. There is a hint that we'll see the audit before the end of January. QUOTE AUDIT
The auditors' field work is complete, and I believe Oleta has now
responded to all their outstanding questions and requests. This means
the auditors will now begin to compile their report. Ordinarily this
would take about two weeks, but in this case it may take slightly
longer: 1., they still may come up with additional questions as they put
it together, and 2., because we didn't expect the audit to take so long,
they may have unavoidable commitments they need to juggle along with us
- so, we may not have their full attention. Regardless, the audit report
will be completed pretty soon - they say, before the end of the month. We have the following contestants and pledge amounts: Jan 21 thekohser $25 Jan 25 Gomi $50 Jan 31 the fieryangel $5 Feb 09 GlassBeadGame $10 Feb 29 dogbiscuit £5 Mar 11 KamrynMatika $5 Apr 08 Badlydrawnjeff $5 Jun 29 Alkivar $10 So, that's a total of about $120. My clock is ticking best right now, but Gomi and TFA look to be the better bets, if one is to believe Sue. P.S. We need a nickname for Sue Gardner, similar to FloFlo and Mimbo Jimbo. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 13th January 2008, 10:41pm)
We need a nickname for Sue Gardner, similar to FloFlo and Mimbo Jimbo.
« The Inconstant Gardner» or « Tigs», for short. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| KStreetSlave |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 352
Joined:
Member No.: 4,123
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th January 2008, 6:33am) QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 14th January 2008, 1:22am) Jan. 29. $20. http://www.childsplaycharity.org/ (since Wikipedia is an MMORPG anyway). Also, it'd be nice if we could make multiple picks. I'd like to make a pick in February too, with a second bet. KStreet, have you no sense of fairness? What, you've never made super bowl picks? You get one pick for every say, 5 dollars you throw in the pot. It's fair because the more picks you make, the more money you have in the pot, which dilutes your earnings, and also increases the attractiveness of a cheap pick by others in case they win on a long shot, because they'll win big. QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th January 2008, 12:20pm)
Yes, waiting until the last minute (when more information is available) generally yields a more accurate prediction. Then again, as long as there is no limit to the number of times a person can enter, those who entered early guesses (which are clearly losing entries) can still re-enter and stake out a later date. To maintain fairness, it should be allowable for more than one entrant to pick the same date (in which case the winnings are split).
A split winning goes to both charities right? |
|
|
|
|
|
| gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Samuel Culper Sr. @ Mon 14th January 2008, 7:06am) Although it might be more nteresting on which day of the week they release the information. People are more likely to release a story that reflects badly on them on a Friday afternoon or Saturday ... Hence my selection of a Friday afternoon, 5pm EST (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th January 2008, 9:20am)
Yes, waiting until the last minute (when more information is available) generally yields a more accurate prediction.
Except, of course, that no information is forthcoming. In fairness, I would suggest that the lottery be deemed closed prior to any substantive information on the subject from the WMF or its minions. As regards multiple "tickets", I think that is fine, but you should also allow people to change their vote (provided its date has not passed) before closing. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 14th January 2008, 2:34pm)
What, you've never made super bowl picks?
Don't trifle with me. I run an intellectually formidable NFL pool every year. If a Super Bowl pool is announced after Week 17, and people make picks for a winning team for $5 each, it does not stand to reason that the pool becomes a better pool if some lard-ass ponies up $60 and puts a bet on every single playoff team to win the Super Bowl. I can't believe you're even using that as a valid analogy. I guess I'm the only one who sees these 11th-hour, multiple pickelly-dickelly-doos as being absolutely corrosive to the original intent and spirit of this pool. If you want to run it now your way, feel free to do so. Just tell me where to send my $25 pledge after my single, solitary grown-ass-man pick of January 21st fails to win. I won't be a spineless chicken and start throwing out extra picks to cover my losses. Ruin it as you see fit. I'm not letting this turn into a Blissy/Kato slugfest. You're wrong, but I forfeit. Greg This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| KStreetSlave |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 352
Joined:
Member No.: 4,123
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th January 2008, 4:23pm) QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 14th January 2008, 2:34pm)
What, you've never made super bowl picks?
Don't trifle with me. I run an intellectually formidable NFL pool every year. If a Super Bowl pool is announced after Week 17, and people make picks for a winning team for $5 each, it does not stand to reason that the pool becomes a better pool if some lard-ass ponies up $60 and puts a bet on every single playoff team to win the Super Bowl. I can't believe you're even using that as a valid analogy. I guess I'm the only one who sees that these 11th-hour, multiple pickelly-dickelly-doos as being absolutely corrosive to the original intent and spirit of this pool. If you want to run it now your way, feel free to do so. Just tell me where to send my $25 pledge after my single, solitary grown-ass-man pick of January 21st fails to win. I won't be a spineless chicken and start throwing out extra picks to cover my losses. Ruin it as you see fit. I'm not letting this turn into a Blissy/Kato slugfest. You're wrong, but I forfeit. Greg Cover what losses? Isn't all this money going to charity anyway? |
|
|
|
|
|
| KStreetSlave |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 352
Joined:
Member No.: 4,123
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 15th January 2008, 9:10am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 15th January 2008, 7:46am)
Even the weatherman updates his own forecast at the last minute.
He doesn't get a massive financial bonus if he changes his sunny forecast at the moment he hears thunder over the horizon. Come on, Moulton. I know we're just having fun here, but some of you guys seem to have no common sense about how a reputable prediction market is run. Greg Neither do we ( get a massive financial bonus). Charities do. The way super bowl picks are made where I'm from, is that X number of weeks before the game, you can pay 5 dollars per pick, as many picks as you want, but you have to pick the both teams, and the score. You can make as many picks as you want, but the more picks you make, the more it costs you so you win less money, and stand to lose much more if you get bad luck. The winner is determined first by seeing how many people picked the right teams (if only one, they win). If more than one person picked the right teams, it moves to winner: if only one person picked the winner, they win. If more than one person picked the winner, it goes to score: closest score wins. Pretty much every pool I know operates the same way. March Madness pools? You can submit as many brackets as you want, but you pay for each one. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
I presented this concept on December 26, 2007. The subtitle of the thread was asking if we might see the audit completed before the end of 2007 or not. A good number of people picked up on the thread and made picks. The picking completely stopped between January 2nd and January 13th. No picks for eleven days.
I assumed that the picks were complete, and so I began to tally them in order.
A few of you came along and decided that this pool should be run in some newfangled way, where picks can just keep rolling in, whenever they damn well please.
Therefore, I am changing my $25 pick for January 21st. I am taking away $20 from that pick, and then placing $5 on each of:
January 18 17:00 UTC
January 20 14:30 UTC
February 1 19:00 UTC
February 6 17:30 UTC
I am also making 3 more picks for an additional $15, but these picks I will be mailing to myself in a sealed envelope which will be postmarked tomorrow. I will not be revealing these picks to anyone, unless one of them becomes the closest pick to the actual Audit publication date and time, at which point I will post a videotape of myself on YouTube, opening the sealed envelope and proving my pick was the winner. I will be deducting 41 cents (for postage) from the $15 for the prize pool, so that portion will constitute $14.59. Plus my original $5, which was bumped up to $25, but then parceled out to five unique picks.
I nominate Moulton and KStreetSlave to update the tally of everyone's picks and stated charities, along with total dollar amounts.
Thank you. This will be a lot more fun. You guys were right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
This is probably why it's taken so long for the audit to be completed. (Note that all documents are in OpenOffice format.)QUOTE WMF Fundraising Tax Receipts Process Context and Background: Historically, the Wikimedia Foundation has not consistently issued tax receipts for donations. It appears that the decision to issue a receipt has generally been prompted by a donor’s request. If receipts were issued, it was generally done in the form of a physical copy being mailed to the recipient; however, it was not tracked sufficiently by the office – i.e. with a receipt number, amount, address, etc. These receipts were not always issued in a timely manner (even when requested), and several follow-ups have frequently been required on the part of the donor. ... Current state and next steps: In October 2007, the Foundation began issuing standardized thank-you letters / tax receipts for all donations above $100.00, and for all donations for which the donor requested a receipt. This is a manual process: with the Office Manager customizing, printing and mailing a letter ( WMF Fundraising TEMPLATE Donation Tax Receipt Letter.odt) for each donation. Currently, records of these receipts are are not consistently maintained. Also, a major donor commitment letter ( WMF Fundraising TEMPLATE Donation Commitment Follow-up Letter.odt) was developed in September 2007, and since that time has routinely been sent out to confirm all donation commitments in excess of $10,000. Next steps: beginning in February, under the guidance of the new CFOO, the Head of Development and the Office Manager should develop and implement a tax receipts process consistent with the recommendations above. Also, the new Head of Development should develop a library of standard donation documents, which should include revising and refining the donation commitment follow-up letter as required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 24th January 2008, 5:15am)
It is no surprise to me that the organization running a Top Ten website would not have figured out a way to automatically produce a printable PDF receipt for every donor, at the time of the transaction. This is the Wikimedia Foundation way -- spout off about freedom and knowledge, head up ass on all practical matters of the real world operation of a non-profit organization.
Wikipedia is just a web site. All you need is a heap of servers. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone that they would need business skills. Hey, this is Web 2.0 - JFDI. It reminds me of the .com boom where people were writing columns about how stupid old fashioned businesses were because they were bound in bureaucracy, whereas the likes of <name your favourite .com failure> didn't need that because they could just Do_It! Ernst Young were quite happy to lend 3 noobies £250k with an idea as long as we delivered it in March, when we said we needed November. We walked away, especially after realising that EY made money regardless, we signed our lives away and the VCs knew they were looking for the 1 in 100 punt. WMF is the same - on the surface it is successful, but even after 4 years it hasn't dawned on them that they need business people to run the business. Sand and foundations, me thinks. PS Yea, OpenOffice is an open source copy of Office, with a surprising number of carry-overs of bad ways to do things (like how pictures leap about the page if you are foolish enough to want to save or edit your document), however, for Windows users it is useful does include a free PDF generator. If OpenSource is so great, why are all their products clones of commercial ideas, often blatant rip-offs? I like FireFox, it went its own way, but why didn't someone sit down and start with a blank sheet of paper? |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 24th January 2008, 5:15am)
Tarantino, I have no idea what OpenOffice software is, but I'll assume it's some hippie-dippy Freelove version of Microsoft's monolithic Office suite. Is what you quoted above the sum total of the message? If there's more, please post it in its entirety.
It is no surprise to me that the organization running a Top Ten website would not have figured out a way to automatically produce a printable PDF receipt for every donor, at the time of the transaction. This is the Wikimedia Foundation way -- spout off about freedom and knowledge, head up ass on all practical matters of the real world operation of a non-profit organization.
Greg
OpenOffice"OpenOffice.org is a multiplatform and multilingual office suite and an open-source project. Compatible with all other major office suites, the product is free to download, use, and distribute." Complete text of WMF_Admin_Fundraising_Tax_Receipts_process.odt Created 1/10/2008 09:43:21 Modified 1/10/2008 10:00:33 no author listed QUOTE WMF Fundraising Tax Receipts Process Context and Background: Historically, the Wikimedia Foundation has not consistently issued tax receipts for donations. It appears that the decision to issue a receipt has generally been prompted by a donor’s request. If receipts were issued, it was generally done in the form of a physical copy being mailed to the recipient; however, it was not tracked sufficiently by the office – i.e. with a receipt number, amount, address, etc. These receipts were not always issued in a timely manner (even when requested), and several follow-ups have frequently been required on the part of the donor. The physical mailing of tax receipts also appears to be a cumbersome process, and is not clearly associated with the issuance of donation “thank you letters.†For tax deductibility in the U.S., the IRS requires the donor to maintain a record of the donation, and for there to be a receipt for amounts in excess of $250 (For reference, see: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf). If this does not occur, donors may be disallowed from deducting their contributions to the Foundation, which may impact their willingness to donate in the future. As a 501©(3) organization, it’s important that the WMF maintains clear records of all of its tax receipts and donations. It’s important from an IRS record-keeping standpoint, but also from an internal controls perspective. Providing a receipt for a contribution is a matter of important record, as it tracks important details with respect to donations, and also provides a reference for future follow-up questions from the donor community. If WMF is slow and inaccurate in processing such requests for donors, it may discourage future contributions. Recommendation: * WMF needs to create a tracking system for its tax receipts. This should work in lockstep with donation “thank-you†letters, and should be an automatic process. If the Foundation is investigating the implementation of a new online donation tool, it should also consider donation software that allows for electronic copies of thank-you letters and donation receipts to be automatically issued via e-mail to a donor. The receipt needs to contain a receipt number, the donation amount, the date the donation was made, and the name of the charity, accompanying tax identification number, as well as a written acknowledgement from the organization of the receipt of the funds (and whether anything was provided to the donor, in exchange for the contribution). The IRS will acknowledge an e-mail receipt as an acceptable record of donation. * The Foundation needs to maintain a listing of all of its issued receipts. If the process is automated (using software as described above), the information should be maintained in a database. The information that needs to be recorded should contain: Tax Receipt Number, Donor Name, Amount of Donation, and Donation Date. * In the interim period (before an automated process is established), the Foundation should track all of the receipts manually, for record-keeping purposes. This can be done on a spreadsheet, with all of the required categories of information being captures. * The Foundation also needs to establish better processes for major donation solicitation: for example, it needs to institute a process for confirming donation commitments once they occur. Current state and next steps: In October 2007, the Foundation began issuing standardized thank-you letters / tax receipts for all donations above $100.00, and for all donations for which the donor requested a receipt. This is a manual process: with the Office Manager customizing, printing and mailing a letter (WMF Fundraising TEMPLATE Donation Tax Receipt Letter.odt) for each donation. Currently, records of these receipts are are not consistently maintained. Also, a major donor commitment letter (WMF Fundraising TEMPLATE Donation Commitment Follow-up Letter.odt) was developed in September 2007, and since that time has routinely been sent out to confirm all donation commitments in excess of $10,000. Next steps: beginning in February, under the guidance of the new CFOO, the Head of Development and the Office Manager should develop and implement a tax receipts process consistent with the recommendations above. Also, the new Head of Development should develop a library of standard donation documents, which should include revising and refining the donation commitment follow-up letter as required. |
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 24th January 2008, 1:57pm) [ QUOTE WMF Fundraising Tax Receipts Process
* The Foundation needs to maintain a listing of all of its issued receipts. If the process is automated (using software as described above), the information should be maintained in a database. The information that needs to be recorded should contain: Tax Receipt Number, Donor Name, Amount of Donation, and Donation Date.
* In the interim period (before an automated process is established), the Foundation should track all of the receipts manually, for record-keeping purposes. This can be done on a spreadsheet, with all of the required categories of information being captures.
* The Foundation also needs to establish better processes for major donation solicitation: for example, it needs to institute a process for confirming donation commitments once they occur.
Next year's Audit will probably contain words like. * The Foundation needs to maintain a system of backups to protect against the loss of financial information on databases. * The Foundation needs to maintain a ledger of income and expenditure so it can keep a proper track of its finances. No doubt they have a computer system for doing their accounts at the moment - another Wiki.* *If you know accounting, that thought might bring tears to your eyes - and the thought that it might just be true, more so. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 24th January 2008, 3:44pm)
Why do they use a wiki for absolutely everything? Did Jimbo decide that everyone should use tools ill-designed for the purpose at hand, just because they are "free"?
That would explain the GFDL licensing, actually. Now, I'm going to go inflate my car tire with a free content, non-patented rock. That way I don't have to finance the evil air pump conglomerates who want to take my free rock.
Actually the audit exposes something more basic. They are running a million dollar business, and they do not have a competent accountant to manage it. (It's Web 2.0 - who needs accountants - anyway, Jimbo will just dip into his pockets and sort out any problems). Clearly, the business is just a Wiki farm, why would it need anything else? I don't know how it works in the States post-Enron, but in the UK, no chartered accountant would sign off the sorts of things hinted at above without some major qualifications. Basically, the foundation has not grasped it needs to spend money on the basics. It is so amateurish that they really don't understand the essentials of running a business. If I was the IRS, I'd be having a field day. I hope Jimbo hasn't upset them in a former life (well, I hope he has, actually). |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 24th January 2008, 4:04am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 24th January 2008, 5:15am)
It is no surprise to me that the organization running a Top Ten website would not have figured out a way to automatically produce a printable PDF receipt for every donor, at the time of the transaction. This is the Wikimedia Foundation way -- spout off about freedom and knowledge, head up ass on all practical matters of the real world operation of a non-profit organization.
Wikipedia is just a web site. All you need is a heap of servers. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone that they would need business skills. Hey, this is Web 2.0 - JFDI. It reminds me of the .com boom where people were writing columns about how stupid old fashioned businesses were because they were bound in bureaucracy, whereas the likes of <name your favourite .com failure> didn't need that because they could just Do_It! Ernst Young were quite happy to lend 3 noobies £250k with an idea as long as we delivered it in March, when we said we needed November. We walked away, especially after realising that EY made money regardless, we signed our lives away and the VCs knew they were looking for the 1 in 100 punt. WMF is the same - on the surface it is successful, but even after 4 years it hasn't dawned on them that they need business people to run the business. Sand and foundations, me thinks. PS Yea, OpenOffice is an open source copy of Office, with a surprising number of carry-overs of bad ways to do things (like how pictures leap about the page if you are foolish enough to want to save or edit your document), however, for Windows users it is useful does include a free PDF generator. If OpenSource is so great, why are all their products clones of commercial ideas, often blatant rip-offs? I like FireFox, it went its own way, but why didn't someone sit down and start with a blank sheet of paper? Issuing serially numbered receipts for all donations should be a done as a matter of course. This is a basic control that assures the validity of the documentation. Being a web site I can't imagine that they receive many paper checks or cash. An audit trail should be easy to establish. But the lack of serially numbered record of donations might still provide avenues of abuse. It is the kind of thing that you would have to give some thought to imagine how bad actors might exploit the weakness. Not to mention the just plain common sense good practice of being able to thank donors. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aloft |
|
Please stop trying to cause trouble!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 322
Joined:
Member No.: 3,239
|
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ary/038203.htmlQUOTE Sue Gardner wrote: > Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> Any update on the audit? >> >> Months ago we were hoping for completion during the fundraiser. How >> are things going? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> > The audit is done; we're just waiting for board approval to release the > financial statements. That'll probably happen within a few days :-) Yup. I just came back from Davos last night, pretty tired. I published a resolution on the board wiki, for the board to approve the release. We have a board meeting the 31st. I expect this resolution will be approved at that meeting. Ant
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
FloFlo is teasing the peanut gallery with off-stage rumblings of a release of financial data. However, usually-spot-on Anthony is warning us that we may only be privy to the financials this year, and not the audit firm's "recommendations for the future" document. Surely, we could practically write that document ourselves with two key points: (1) Are you f**king serious that you hired a convicted felon to mangage your operations? (2) Jimbo needs to stop comingling his self-dealing Wikia activities with those of the Foundation. I love how this audit was supposed to be ready in late October, then before end of December, then before end of January, and now we're nearly a week into February and still no audited financials. Greg |
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th February 2008, 6:23pm) FloFlo is teasing the peanut gallery with off-stage rumblings of a release of financial data. However, usually-spot-on Anthony is warning us that we may only be privy to the financials this year, and not the audit firm's "recommendations for the future" document. Surely, we could practically write that document ourselves with two key points: (1) Are you f**king serious that you hired a convicted felon to mangage your operations? (2) Jimbo needs to stop comingling his self-dealing Wikia activities with those of the Foundation. I love how this audit was supposed to be ready in late October, then before end of December, then before end of January, and now we're nearly a week into February and still no audited financials. Greg Note that the resolution "be and hereby are" is not understood and turned into a typo which the edit supposedly is removing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
