The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wikimedia Foundation's new CharityNavigator rating
kaldari
post Wed 21st September 2011, 9:59pm
Post #1


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue 27th Nov 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 3,961

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Thanks to last year's higher program expense ratio and improvements in CharityNavigator's rating methodology, the Wikimedia Foundation is now given 4 stars (the highest possible rating) in all categories: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?...ary&orgid=11212
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 21st September 2011, 10:03pm
Post #2


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
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(kaldari @ Wed 21st September 2011, 3:59pm) *

Thanks to last year's higher program expense ratio and improvements in CharityNavigator's rating methodology, the Wikimedia Foundation is now given 4 stars (the highest possible rating) in all categories: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?...ary&orgid=11212


Well, I guess we were wrong.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 21st September 2011, 10:32pm
Post #3


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 21st September 2011, 6:03pm) *

QUOTE(kaldari @ Wed 21st September 2011, 3:59pm) *

Thanks to last year's higher program expense ratio and improvements in CharityNavigator's rating methodology, the Wikimedia Foundation is now given 4 stars (the highest possible rating) in all categories: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?...ary&orgid=11212

Well, I guess we were wrong.

Is charitynavigator related to S&P?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Thu 22nd September 2011, 2:26am
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 21st September 2011, 10:32pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 21st September 2011, 6:03pm) *

QUOTE(kaldari @ Wed 21st September 2011, 3:59pm) *

Thanks to last year's higher program expense ratio and improvements in CharityNavigator's rating methodology, the Wikimedia Foundation is now given 4 stars (the highest possible rating) in all categories: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?...ary&orgid=11212

Well, I guess we were wrong.

Is charitynavigator related to S&P?

Yes, in that people cite it when they agree with it and ignore it/laugh at their methodology when they don't.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 22nd September 2011, 10:56am
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



And to think, it only took them 3 or 4 years of 1-star organizational efficiency ratings to finally learn how to game the Charity Navigator system so that things looked better on the books.

Leave it to Ryan Kaldari to conveniently not mention the fact that despite any reforms or improvements in how they categorize their cash, the WMF still spends on program expenses only 46% of its revenues. In other words, "We need your money, everyone! (But not really.)"

And, of course, very little examination of exactly what Charity Navigator just did -- they reconfigured their rating system so dramatically, "Using the expanded and more in-depth rating system, fully half the charities evaluated (more than 2,700) received new star ratings." Does anyone else wonder what sort of changes would cause 50% of the "old" ratings to now be wrong?

You can easily see why the new ratings system has so dramatically altered the scores -- a new-found emphasis on "transparency" issues (WMF's strong suit, unless you're asking how much they paid Q2 Consulting for the no-bid research contract) can severely punish organizations that are more "closed". See this one, for example, which despite financials about on par with the WMF, now gets only 1 star out of 4 because of all the red X's in their accountability section. On the flip side, there's no explanation for why this charity jumped from 1 star overall to 4 stars overall.

It seems to me that we're wise to keep focusing on the federal Form 990, as the WMF can't really cheat on that one (unless you're trying to disguise that 60% of early boards were composed of business partners). The Form 990 numbers continue to clearly show that program expenses receive less than half the money that's given to the WMF by donors, while other more reputable charities manage to deliver upwards of 85% of revenues to the causes they uphold.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 22nd September 2011, 11:15am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cino
post Thu 26th January 2012, 10:32pm
Post #6


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue 24th Jan 2012, 11:43am
Member No.: 75,073



Is this rating only done once a year, or do we see some timeline for the ratios changing now there is more cash in the bank?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd 9 14, 6:49pm