I'd like to try something here.

Moderators, if you will be kind enough to help maintain that this page remain 100% free of sniping, snarking, trolling, and bile, we might have an interesting result.

I have a simple question:

Why doesn't the Wikimedia Foundation consider and adopt a "100% model" for its own charitable organization?

Some charities that do this include:

• Charity: water
• Danceaid
• Latter-Day Saint humanitarian services
• Project Harar Ethiopia

I'd like to discuss the reasons why and why not here, then invite the Wikimedia Foundation to weigh in on the discussion, with the assurance that it won't turn into a hate-fest.

To clarify your point (as I understand it). Each charity should have some clearly-stated purpose ('mission statement') which tells donors what it is going to use the money for. In Wikipedia's case, it is 'bring the sum of all human knowledge to every person on the planet'.

So if Wikipedia was a '100%' charity, it would donate every penny towards that goal (or anything that would reasonably and efficiently achieve that goal).

Is that your point? If so, is Wikipedia a charity in this sense? Or is it a movement? Or a cause? Or a community?

We need to look at the evidence for and against.

[edit] I had a post here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...imedia+movement , sadly rather ignored, about what Wikipedia spends a lot of its money on. This picture is supposed to explain it

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wi...ualization2.jpg

Sorry, I should have elaborated better.

The "100% model" is that all public, small-donor contributions go 100% toward the program mission.

All of the costs for overhead (staffing the operational aspects that don't support the mission), fundraising, marketing, etc., are covered by wealthy trustees, corporate sponsors, and deep-pocketed high-profile donors who (usually) receive special recognition.

I think the key problem is that the Wikimedia Foundation is kind of caught in a situation that their "mission" is to generate and distribute free content to the world, and so it would be about equally easy to say that "everything" they do supports that mission, or that "nothing" they do supports that mission.

When you dig drinking wells in Africa, it's pretty easy to partition the expenses for that from the expenses incurred by an office manager buying water bottles for the office water cooler.

But when you're just hosting a computer server to which volunteers are adding the content, how do you partition the expenses for hosting the computer server against the expenses of flying a manager to Harvard to talk about a student-recruitment program that will lead to higher-quality content being put on those servers?

Odd how small is the "Office" component, and interesting that "Jimmy" (who is only a mere board member, among many) gets a sort of "uber" role in the diagram.

I can see some potential advantages in a 100% model, but a base level it's really only a marketing tool. At some point the administrative costs of the organisation have to be paid and all that a 100% model does is hypothecate the income from a given set of donors or income sources other than from donors to meet those costs. On balance I see the 100% model as a sleight of hand because it actually serves to disguise the overall costs of the organisation, this is particularly problematic where the 'charity' operates a 'for profit' business. If the income from the business is the sole source of funding for the adminstrative functions of the non profit, the business operation can become the predominant activity because without it there would (notinally) be no non profit.

There is a different issue (which I think, if I've understood him properly, that PD has picked up on) which is organisations identifying a core activity and giving a commitment to donors that it is that core activity which will be the focus of funding, and not some other activity which may (or may not !) happen to be allowed under the organisation's document of incorporation/governance. Certainly making an orgaisation like Wikipedia stick to a tightly defined activity is more likely to protect the donor interest, if that itself is defined as "money for purpose". In the case ofWikiedia however I'm not sure it's donors have a clear sense of the purpose that they are donating to achieve, nor even tha they are concerned that here should be one. It's more that they are paying dues to a club so that they have a sense of membership and Wikimedia has fulfilled all expectations merely by accepting the money.

Puting Wikimedia into a 100% model would force it to be more explicit about what Wikimedia is for and how it uses its $millions, but it is precisely that which I suspect would make the 100% model unattractive to the Wikimedia board. As it stands Wikimedia is answerable to no one, and so long as it avoids the most egregious breaking of IRS regulations, then the board is free to continue to operate how it pleases.

A.virosa

Actually the ghastly banner does say



but is anyone clear what these 'global projects' actually are?

The problem Wikimedia has is that it is demanding huge amounts of money to support its "mission" but cannot elaborate how most of that money will be used toward that mission. If they were serious about their mission they would be spending donor money on fostering the creation, collection, and management of "knowledge", but they have shown little willingness, and absolutely no talent, at doing so; what few efforts they've made in this area have been spectacular failures. The Foundation is demonstrably unable to foster either content creation or content management through the expenditure of donor cash, reducing their role in their "mission" to basically one of being a hosting service. Which is fine, I suppose, but it's not clear to me that they deserve charity status for that. The unincorporated and not-really-recognized Association of Wikipedia Editors seems to be more qualified as a charity, although really I think it should be more properly designated as a club, eligible for tax exemption but not for tax-free donation status.

This is extremely well-put and apposite. Someone needs to hold down Jimbo Wales or Sue Gardner and tattoo this in mirror-writing on his or her forehead. Oops, does this violate Greg's no-sniping rule?

It's clear to me they're talking about a New World Order. Wikipedia's exactly the tool they've needed to finish the job.

The problem I see with a 100% model is that it's a sleight of hand somewhat similar to saying that "all state lottery revenues go to schools"... that just results in the general budget of a state being freed up to be spent on other things that might actually be less worthy. Money is money, and a better metric is how much overall overhead there is.

Maintaining the world's largest collection of images of unremarkable white penises?

Yes, this.

The lack of a clear mission came up briefly on foundation-l last month during the PediaPress discussion. This was the response I got. Given that I have a pretty good knowledge of how the strategy process operated, it seemed like a rather hollow answer.

Anyway, I'm surprised you even linked to charity: water given "We've find another way...."

My e-mail to them on that went out earlier this morning, just before this post. It was a near miss for their inclusion.

Or a vast database of English-language trivia about the Mexican professional-wrestling scene?

Or scores of megabytes of trivia about Macross?


And that's likely all the answer you'll ever get out of Tim, or anyone else there.

The vaguer they can make WMF's "mission", the freer they can be in redefining it. (To their own benefit, of course.)

thousands of maps without a scale