WMF Endowment

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:22 pm

Amusing that now that I'm off this forum, things are happening and people are talking to me openly.

Did anyone notice this? Because there was almost no discussion about it before.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment

Apparently there is some kind of "buzz" that the WMF will now set up an endowment. There was no "official" announcement and there's nothing on the mailing lists.

And I know this because I just had a phone call from an Associated Press reporter, asking my opinion of it as a "Wikipedia critic". He called ME and none of you because the original WO press release from 2012 listed my business phone as a contact. You might want to do something about that -- many journalists don't do interviews via email, okay? Needless to say I gave him a load of quotable comments: "Jimmy Wales is a slime", the WMF has never ever been "transparent", they are rolling in dough, etc.

Also, the reporter knew nothing about the Heilman and Geshuri scandals. Because no one told him. So I did.

You're welcome.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:46 pm

Thanks for stopping by, Eric, and thanks for rubbing our faces in our own ineptitude here, based on your one conversation with an AP reporter who showed a profound ignorance about Wikipedia current events.

Last week, I was having more continuing conversations (answering follow-up questions) with a multi-Emmy award-winning investigative journalist who will be broadcasting a story about Wikipedia very soon. It will air on TV in over 70 US markets.

Thanks for helping our cause.

P.S. My phone number is in the press release, also.

greybeard · Unread post by **greybeard** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:04 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Amusing that now that I'm off this forum, things are happening and people are talking to me openly.

Which is itself amusing, as you continue to log in and read this forum regularly. (This is information available to all users from your member profile.) It's like a country song "You Say You Wanna leave, But You Never Go Away."

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:09 pm

Don't listen to these haters, Eric.

Come on back and let's have it out.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:44 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Did anyone notice this? Because there was almost no discussion about it before.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment

Apparently there is some kind of "buzz" that the WMF will now set up an endowment. There was no "official" announcement and there's nothing on the mailing lists.

Thank you for calling that page on meta to my attention. The best quotes are two of the listed disadvantages for establishing a WMF endowment:

meta endowment proposal wrote:* "Please give us the money to keep going for another year" is an easier sell for some than "Please give us so much money that we can invest it and keep going forever".
* Foot voting (or Dollar voting) is the only way the public has to affect the Foundation's decisions: reducing reliance on the annual fundraising would make the WMF less accountable and democratic.

Of course, given recent events, I can't imagine how the WMF could possibly be "less accountable and democratic."

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:54 pm

eagle wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Did anyone notice this? Because there was almost no discussion about it before.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment

Apparently there is some kind of "buzz" that the WMF will now set up an endowment. There was no "official" announcement and there's nothing on the mailing lists.
Thank you for calling that page on meta to my attention. The best quotes are two of the listed disadvantages for establishing a WMF endowment:
meta endowment proposal wrote:* "Please give us the money to keep going for another year" is an easier sell for some than "Please give us so much money that we can invest it and keep going forever".
* Foot voting (or Dollar voting) is the only way the public has to affect the Foundation's decisions: reducing reliance on the annual fundraising would make the WMF less accountable and democratic.
Of course, given recent events, I can't imagine how the WMF could possibly be "less accountable and democratic."

If they had a fuckton of money in the bank and never had to ask anyone for anything ever again.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:14 am

Stick around Eric, I'd rather have you in the tent peeing out than outside peeing in.

Plus you're more interesting than a lot of the single-issue members who have joined here since you went away for a while.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:34 pm

Zoloft wrote:Stick around Eric, I'd rather have you in the tent peeing out than outside peeing in.

Plus you're more interesting than a lot of the single-issue members who have joined here since you went away for a while.

I resemble that remark

I also say welcome back Eric, we Wikipedia criticizers need to stick together. Individually wolves can survive but they are better off hunting in packs!

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:24 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Apparently there is some kind of "buzz" that the WMF will now set up an endowment. There was no "official" announcement and there's nothing on the mailing lists.

It was mentioned here over a month ago, but not paid a whole lot of attention because it's a perennial discussion that pops up in the WMF community, but never goes anywhere.

Those of us who are knowledgeable of US nonprofit law understand that it would be a major undertaking for the WMF to establish an endowment, especially given that there are strict limitations on the ability of a public charity to transfer funds to an endowment. The differential reporting rules that apply to a private foundation instead of a public charity will probably keep the WMF from converting to a private foundation; for example, it would have to list in its public reports the identity of everyone it pays out a grant to along with the amount granted. Do you really think Wikipedians want the amounts paid to them, along with their full legal names, published? Nor can the WMF establish a foundation that provides the bulk of the WMF's support; that would terminate the WMF's status as a public charity and again force them to report the identity of everyone they make a grant to. In addition, a public charity cannot use unspent reserves to create a private foundation or other form of endowment; they would have to raise the funds to establish the endowment separately and independently. So while the community-initiated babbling about the idea is vaguely amusing, it's almost certainly guaranteed not to happen, not once the Board gets briefed on the legal issues in play, and assuming that the Board can remain focused on the issue long enough to bother.

But feel free to chide us for ignoring this eminently ignorable issue.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:05 pm

Perhaps there are a number of options that Kelly Martin did not include in her analysis. For example, the WMF could start soliciting gifts with the option that the income would be spent but that the principle would be restricted. ("Write the WMF into your will, and we promise that your edits will remain visible to the Internet on the article history page forever, or at least until the Revdel.") No transfer to a separate "endowment corporation" would be needed.

So long as WMF makes the required expenditures from its investment and gift income and distributes its expenditures in a way that benefits the general public, the WMF does not have to become a private foundation under the Internal Revenue Code.

Another gift option is the life income account or charitable gift annuity. This is where the donor gives $X this year and gets to deduct $X from his taxes. In exchange, WMF promises to pay the donor $Y per year for life. If the donation is in the form of appreciated stock, a portion of the $Y would be subject to capital gains tax. While I do not know about Florida, for NY charities, the charity is regulated as if this was a life insurance policy, with the charity required to post reserves in an escrow account to assure the donors that enough assets would be available to make the $Y payments for the rest of the donor's life. The IRS has tables to calculate the $Y payments based on current interest rates and life expectancies.

A final option, which does not involve any external restrictions on WMF operations is to make a business decision to set aside $X for very long term goals and to try to invest the money on a long term basis, in stocks and bonds. (In theory, one could even invest it in illiquid assets such as real estate or Silicon Valley startups.) I thought that I read that WMF was going to invest $3 million and was conducting an RFP for an outside investment advisor. Some people would call this an "endowment fund." The Long Term Reserve Fund currently has link https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index ... pdf&page=9[/link] $8.1 million, which includes $5.3 million in equities and $1.5 million in hedge funds. ("For the price of a cup of coffee, you can keep our servers going and our hedge funds funded for another year.")

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:16 pm

I also can't help wonder, given the large number of Google employees now on the board, if this isn't a step towards making the WMF more of a for profit entity instead of a non profit.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:12 pm

The endowment was just formally announced on the mailing list and foundation wiki.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:47 pm

tarantino wrote:The endowment was just formally announced on the mailing list and foundation wiki.

Oh, good -- it's through the Tides Foundation. Guess who they're affiliated with?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:19 pm

Google I am guessing?

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:30 pm

The Tides Foundation is a very unusual group. Its business model is not clear. Will it collect an administrative overhead charge on the donations that it receives or on the value of the endowment it is administering? Will it solicit the money on behalf of the WMF? Tides offers the following services:link http://www.tides.org/about/[/link]

We work in innovative ways with various partners, prioritizing ideas that can scale. Our services include:
* Charitable Giving, Grantmaking & Advising
* Fiscal Sponsorship and Management Services for Social Ventures
* Collaborative Workspaces for Social Ventures
* Social Impact Consulting
* Impact Investing
* Tides Innovation Lab

Tides brags that they "solve society's toughest problems" and I assume that includes intractable governance issues at WMF.

Their senior leadership is all female except for one African-American male. link http://www.tides.org/about/leadership/[/link]

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:52 pm

This appears to me to be basically a fundraising vehicle; it allows the WMF to use a number of common strategies for raising funds on a long-term basis (things like the annuities that eagle mentioned above) without having to build the internal staff or bookkeeping to manage them themselves. They will have to careful to avoid failing the public support test, but in practice they can probably take as much as 60% or 70% of their revenue from money collected via Tides without breaching the public support test.

It is doubtful that the WMF will reduce its customary fundraising drives because of this; rather, the purpose of this relationship is to make it easier for the WMF to gain access to donor-directed funds, corporate giving, and various forms of bequests that the WMF is presently not well-structured to receive. If handled well, it should significantly increase revenue for the WMF; if handled poorly, it should at least increase revenue for the Tides Foundation....

Tides also serves the purpose of allowing donors to donate to something without leaving a clear paper trail. This will, for example, make it much harder for Greg to tie editing activity to donations, something which I am sure has irritated many corporate donors who have made donations to Wikipedia as part of a quid pro quo, only to have that quid pro quo be made obvious due to WMF disclosure of donors. The way Tides operates makes it significantly harder for outside parties to follow the trail from donor to ultimate recipient (something that is really true of most donor-directed funds, but Tides is especially good at it).

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:01 pm

Kumioko wrote:Google I am guessing?

Heh, no. Tides is arguably best known for their close relationship with ACORN.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:53 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Google I am guessing?
Heh, no. Tides is arguably best known for their close relationship with ACORN.

Well, Eric Schmidt's family foundation has funneled a bit of money through Tides to fund various causes.

Tides' latest financial statement says the have total net assets of $218 million. Schmidt's contributions over the years is a small fraction of that, though.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:04 pm

Kumioko wrote:Google I am guessing?

My understanding is that Google's major gifts to the Wikimedia Foundation have ever come through the Tides white-washing machine, so Google is what I had in mind.

It may rather be that Google simply is a client of Tides, just as WMF is now a client of Tides.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:26 pm

I'm not surprised that Google has used Tides to whitewash donations. But Schmidt is relatively small potatoes in the ecosystem that is Tides, at least in comparison to George Soros.

By aligning with Tides, the Wikimedia Foundation is essentially declaring their political alignment with a whole bevy of organizations generally regarded as "left wing", "progressive", and occasionally "radical". A very interesting choice to make in the ramp up to what has already been an unusually contentious campaign season in the United States.

That said, it is likely that the Board chose to go with Tides precisely because Tides will facilitate passing funding into WMF from Silicon Valley interests in an opaque way, and I tend to agree that the reason for this is to facilitate Google's fairly obvious intentions to capture overall effective control of the WMF.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:35 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:That said, it is likely that the Board chose to go with Tides precisely because Tides will facilitate passing funding into WMF from Silicon Valley interests in an opaque way, and I tend to agree that the reason for this is to facilitate Google's fairly obvious intentions to capture overall effective control of the WMF.

In a transparent world, we would have some sense as to who made the decision and how the decision was reached. What is the compensation scheme for Tides and were in-house and outside alternatives to Tides considered? I don't see any Board resolution addressing the relationship with Tides and the WMF Advancement team shows six staff members working on "Foundations and Major Gifts" as well as Marc Brent, Endowment Director. How will Tides work along-side the existing staff?

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:35 am

The fascinating tension surrounding the WMF Endowment is that each annual banner fundraiser is an attempt to panic users into contributing by begging to keep the servers funded for another year. The endowment implies wealth to the point of securing Wikipedia into the indefinite future.

I had assumed that the WMF's annual operating fund would continue to be solicited from small donors and that the WMF Endowment would come from larger gifts, perhaps in conjunction with deferred gift annuities or bequests.

However, the WMF Endowment rollout is a part of a slick 15th Anniversary campaign page. link https://15.wikipedia.org[/link] This offers a mix of cute young kids and a message of "donate for that little girl in Africa" or "some WMF staffer will kill a cute puppy if we run out of money."

The WMF Endowment page link https://15.wikipedia.org/endowment.html[/link] is clearly an appear to the same types of donors that are the target of the annual banner ads, which surprised me.

Soft squishy endowment introduction wrote:This Endowment will serve as a perpetual source of support for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. It will empower people around the world to create and contribute free knowledge, and share that knowledge with every single human being.

With your support, we are only getting started. Help us ensure that Wikipedia lives forever!

Under the appear are photos and short bios for Darya Ganor, an Israeli; Emna Mizouni, a Tunisian; and Ziyad Alsufyani, a Saudi.

The call to action is to contact the new point-person on the Endowment Marc Brent, who will discuss with you "planned giving" -- a code word for writing WMF into your will or holding your annuity.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:09 pm

The endowment announcement is drawing some press coverage, including an AP tech writter that was picked up by ABC News: link http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... y-36287333[/link]

Wikipedia still plans to ask its users to donate money to keep advertising off its website. The additional income from the endowment will help insulate Wikipedia from economic turmoil and other potential threats to its survival, said Lisa Gruwell, chief advancement officer for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia's growth has spurred criticism that its parent foundation has become bloated and doesn't need to raise so much money.

Wikimedia generated revenue of $76 million while its operating expenses totaled about $53 million in its last fiscal year ending June 30. The $23 million surplus contributed to the foundation's cushion of about $65 million in cash and short-term investments — enough to cover its projected operating expenses for all of the current fiscal year.

Wikimedia is "very good at begging for money, but the bottom line is they could go another 10 years without raising another dime," said Eric Barbour, a former Wikipedia editor who is working on a book about the encyclopedia and Wikimedia's business practices.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales says the recurring fundraising campaigns and future money from the endowment are needed to run one of the Internet's busiest websites and realize its ambition to become even more comprehensive as more people get online.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:43 pm

Some discussion happening on Facebook.

Stuart Prior
It seems like a low fundraising target tbh. Especially given that the ask to major donors/corporates is a compelling, "If you give us $$$, your will contribute to keeping Wikipedia going *forever*, and we'll never. ask. you. again."

And depending on the risk appetite of the Foundation, it's likely that the fund would yield only ~5% per annum consistently, which at 100m, plus the % they will be paying for portfolio management, isn't enough to run WMF or much at all.

Andrew Lih
Agree it is a low target, though for a kickoff number it's probably the right size. Honestly, if we cannot raise $100 million given the billion dollar brand value of Wikipedia, and the current goodwill, then something is wrong.

Around $5-7 million could probably keep the servers and bandwidth running on a shoestring, though it'd be painful.

Liam Wyatt
yes. it does sound low as a 'real' endowment. But it's also the first step in this direction - trailing a brand new process to build a separate pot of money that is intended for long-term sustainability. (the big risk of which is that it might cannibalise the annual fundraiser). In that context, I think $100m seems like quite a sensible number at this point in time.

Stuart Prior
Oh I'm very happy with the direction, but less so with the arbitrary nature of the target number.

Andrew Lih
Stuart Prior I suppose it would have looked odd if it was more than that amount, given that the Tides Foundation (if Google is to be believed) had assets and income of less than $100 million.

Also, the [[Tides (organization)]] article is, let's just say, suboptimal.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:50 pm

I am a fan of the project but there is no way its a Billion dollar brand. I would say 300-400 million, but not a billion.

Its also interesting that there will almost certainly be some article improvement for the Tides organization article in this.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:14 pm

Kumioko wrote: Its also interesting that there will almost certainly be some article improvement for the Tides organization article in this.

(Image by Bruce Krasting, CC-BY 2.0.)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:31 pm

eagle wrote:However, the WMF Endowment rollout is a part of a slick 15th Anniversary campaign page. link https://15.wikipedia.org[/link] This offers a mix of cute young kids and a message of "donate for that little girl in Africa" or "some WMF staffer will kill a cute puppy if we run out of money."

Think we could take this lovely photo and superimpose a big red X over every staff member that is no longer with the WMF? I see MoleMan there, looking really happy -- I'd start with him.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:51 pm

thekohser wrote:
eagle wrote:However, the WMF Endowment rollout is a part of a slick 15th Anniversary campaign page. link https://15.wikipedia.org[/link] This offers a mix of cute young kids and a message of "donate for that little girl in Africa" or "some WMF staffer will kill a cute puppy if we run out of money."
Think we could take this lovely photo and superimpose a big red X over every staff member that is no longer with the WMF? I see MoleMan there, looking really happy -- I'd start with him.

I had noticed the photo as well. Is there any way for you to superimpose one of those football play diagrams to draw arrows to show which staff members are about to shove another staff member over the edge and into the water? Long live MoleMan and Ironholds.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:28 pm

So many problems could have been solved with a bulldozer right there.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:23 pm

Kumioko wrote:its a Billion dollar brand.
Its also interesting that there will almost certainly be some article improvement for the Tides organization article in this.

Please write out all the words rather than write contractions.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:33 pm

Vigilant wrote:So many problems could have been solved with a bulldozer right there.

I was thinking offshore meteor strike....

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:09 pm

Media is exploding with stories about the 15th anniversary, plus the endowment. AP affiliates are running it "blind", esp. small local papers. Obviously the WMF were spoon-feeding info to this AP reporter days prior. It was coordinated to run today. Also, I'm quoted in many of the stories.

http://mashable.com/2016/01/15/wikipedi ... a.T3aV88qC
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/0 ... urce-cash/
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/technology ... 71126.html
http://www.phillyvoice.com/wikipedia-ge ... -15th-bir/
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ ... 759986.php
http://lompocrecord.com/business/techno ... _form=true
http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/bus ... 55dee.html

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:21 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:
Kumioko wrote:its a Billion dollar brand.
Its also interesting that there will almost certainly be some article improvement for the Tides organization article in this.
Please write out all the words rather than write contractions.

Yule bee fine, you got the gist of what I sed! ;-p

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:21 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Media is exploding with stories about the 15th anniversary, plus the endowment. AP affiliates are running it "blind", esp. small local papers. Obviously the WMF were spoon-feeding info to this AP reporter days prior. It was coordinated to run today. Also, I'm quoted in many of the stories.

http://mashable.com/2016/01/15/wikipedi ... a.T3aV88qC
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/0 ... urce-cash/
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/technology ... 71126.html
http://www.phillyvoice.com/wikipedia-ge ... -15th-bir/
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ ... 759986.php
http://lompocrecord.com/business/techno ... _form=true
http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/bus ... 55dee.html

Good for you, Eric. With all tihs press attention, you'll soon get a proper BLP, not just a passing reference in Metasonix (T-H-L)!

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:49 am

WO should examine the structure of the relationship between Tides and WMF:link https://15.wikipedia.org/endowment.html[/link]

Tides is a public charity with a 40-year track record of holding and managing charitable funds for nonprofit organizations. The purpose of the Wikimedia Endowment is to act as a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity. An Advisory Board, nominated by the Wikimedia Foundation and appointed by Tides, will make recommendations to Tides related to the Endowment. Tides or the Wikimedia Foundation may choose to transfer the Endowment from Tides to the Wikimedia Foundation, or other charities identified by the Wikimedia Foundation. At that point, the Endowment would continue to be a permanent, income-generating fund to support the Wikimedia projects.

Why the separation? On the one hand, would you trust your retirement income (your charitable gift annunity) or your financial legacy (your estate after you die) to Mr. Wales and a rag-tag internet start-up Board? On the other hand, if you are a die-hard WP activist, you believe in the need for a "freedom to fork" and although you worship the WMF Board, you don't want to see the $100 million locked with the WMF in an unforkable way. Both concerns dictate someone other than the WMF Board holding the endowment.

The goal. The separate control appears to be tied to the $100 million goal. In other words, Tides will hold the funds until the $100 million is reached and then Tides and the WMF will mutually decide where it goes from there. This might make some sense because the administrative costs on an endowment of less than $100 million may take up an undue amount of the annual income. Some folks have expressed doubts that the $100 million will be reached. (Others would say that Wikipedia will be a dead project by the time that the $100 million is reached.) The press releases are not clear what would happen if the goal is not reached, but I assume that the money would stay with the Tides Foundation, rather than being returned to the donors. We do not know if Tides will accept contingent pledges to donate only when the $100 million goal is reached.

Is $100 million an unrealistic goal? I would assume that an elderly Wikipedian will have saved up an average $1 million in retirement savings. If 100 Wikipedians are willing to purchase an annuity with their savings, or write the endowment into their wills, then over time as they die off, the $100 million would be realized. In 2007, this would be an easy goal, but I question whether the toxic environment at Wikipedia has disproportionately alienated the population of Wikipedians near retirement age. In other words, anyone smart enough to have saved considerable assets, is too smart to want to leave it to the WMF as his/her legacy. Even if the goal is achieved, how will the Endowment fundraising affect the annual fundraising to cover operating expenses? Does publicizing the $100 million endowment drive prevent future banner ads begging to keep the servers running?

How was the Tides Foundation selected? Tides has donated a lot of money to WMF in the past. $2 million in 2010.link https://www.tides.org/fileadmin/user/pd ... s-2010.pdf[/link] I find it odd that I have not been able to locate any public WMF Board resolution designating the Tides Foundation as the group to administer the Endowment or outlining the relationship between the two groups.

Advisory Board. Finally, how will the endowment advisory board be selected? The WMF Bylaws requires a majority of the WMF Board to be community-selected. Will the WMF Board designate itself to serve as the advisory board, or will the new group be just folks from the WMF Advancement Office? Will the committee members be community-selected or in any way answerable to the Community? Will it be designed to represent the donors?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:20 am

eagle wrote:How was the Tides Foundation selected? Tides has donated a lot of money to WMF in the past. $2 million in 2010.link https://www.tides.org/fileadmin/user/pd ... s-2010.pdf[/link] I find it odd that I have not been able to locate any public WMF Board resolution designating the Tides Foundation as the group to administer the Endowment or outlining the relationship between the two groups.

The $2 million was simply a gift from Google to the WMF, passed through Tides. I'm about 90% sure of this, but too lazy to confirm again.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:13 pm

thekohser wrote:
eagle wrote:How was the Tides Foundation selected? Tides has donated a lot of money to WMF in the past. $2 million in 2010.link https://www.tides.org/fileadmin/user/pd ... s-2010.pdf[/link] I find it odd that I have not been able to locate any public WMF Board resolution designating the Tides Foundation as the group to administer the Endowment or outlining the relationship between the two groups.
The $2 million was simply a gift from Google to the WMF, passed through Tides. I'm about 90% sure of this, but too lazy to confirm again.

But the SOPA/PIPA boycott was on January 18, 2012.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:06 am

thekohser wrote:
eagle wrote:How was the Tides Foundation selected? Tides has donated a lot of money to WMF in the past. $2 million in 2010.link https://www.tides.org/fileadmin/user/pd ... s-2010.pdf[/link] I find it odd that I have not been able to locate any public WMF Board resolution designating the Tides Foundation as the group to administer the Endowment or outlining the relationship between the two groups.
The $2 million was simply a gift from Google to the WMF, passed through Tides. I'm about 90% sure of this, but too lazy to confirm again.

Found it:link http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.c ... ecret.html[/link]

3/10/2011 WMF Secret Donor List wrote:-498677, Google Inc. Charitable Giving Fund of Tides Foundation,,,Organization

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:28 am

In my comment above, I raised the question of the role of the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board and how it would be selected. The Advisory Board will speak for the community regarding how the endowment is to be solicited, managed, and paid out. If I were a WMF Board member, I would make the Advisory Board co-extensive with the WMF Board. Instead, the initial press materials said that the Advisory Board would be nominated by the WMF and appointed by Tides.

So far, three people have been appointed (in some undocumented process) to the Advisory Board: Jimmy Wales, Annette Campbell-White link https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/11/a ... endowment/[/link] and Peter Baldwin link https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/09/p ... ent-board/[/link]. In case you are wondering what these three have in common and the criteria used to select them, we are assured:

WMF Blog Post wrote:Endowment Board members are selected based on active involvement in philanthropic endeavors, prior nonprofit board experience, fundraising expertise, and a strong commitment to the Wikimedia Foundation’s mission.

Personally, I would not see how Jimmy Wales would fit those criteria.

Since WMF staff have been hired to solicit funds for the endowment, and Tides Foundation staff provides the bookkeeping and day to day management, it is not clear what the Advisory Board will do. For example, will it say, "Please reinvest all earnings until the $100 million is reached -- we are doing fine begging with banner ads." Or will it address requests for a quid pro quo from a prospective Endowment donor (a la Belfer Center)? Or will it decide whether or not Tides is doing a decent job of investing the funds (using Mr. Wales' trading expertise) and threaten at some point in the future to take the money elsewhere? Or will it decide where the money should go when the $100 million is reached if Jimmy Wales has a falling out with WMF sometime in the interim?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:54 pm

eagle wrote:...it is not clear what the Advisory Board will do.

Sage analysis, Eagle -- thank you. I think one thing we can look for is at least an annual in-person meeting of the Advisory Board in an interesting city or resort town. I'm thinking Altapura, Jimbaran Bay, Necker Island, Reykjavik... you know the drill.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:08 pm

thekohser wrote:
eagle wrote:...it is not clear what the Advisory Board will do.
Sage analysis, Eagle -- thank you. I think one thing we can look for is at least an annual in-person meeting of the Advisory Board in an interesting city or resort town. I'm thinking Altapura, Jimbaran Bay, Necker Island, Reykjavik... you know the drill.

Speaking of junkets, do you know if Cape Town, SA Wikimania is gonna be in the middle of their winter, or is it gonna be scheduled for January of the following year to give those hard working bureaucrats in San Francisco a well needed holiday in the sun?
RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:49 pm

...if there is one criticism of Campbell-White as a businesswoman, it is that she has failed to build a team and create a lasting institution, say associates.
"I regard Annette as a friend and I have high respect for her, but I do think it is difficult for her to find partners because of her strong personality," said Robert Kibble, a former Paragon partner, now with Mission Ventures.
"I once told Annette that she's the Lady Margaret Thatcher of the VC world - - if you're not competent, she's going to eat you up."
(link)

I wonder how quickly she'll devour Jimbo, then?

No mention of her in all of Wikipedia, except a throwaway line in the lede of Women in venture capital (T-H-L).

+++++++++++++++

Peter Baldwin is notable primarily because he married Lisbet Rausing, who is fabulously wealthy thanks to her father's invention of a cardboard milk carton that replaced glass bottles. Her money funds the Arcadia foundation, which Baldwin helps direct.

Baldwin's Wikipedia article was created by a single-purpose account that basically installed Baldwin's and Rausing's biographies on Wikipedia in 2009 then disappeared. But not to worry, Rausing still tends personally to her Wikipedia bio, with the account OfficialRausing (T-C-L), which has never been warned, admonished, or educated about COI editing by any other Wikipedians.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:52 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Speaking of junkets, do you know if Cape Town, SA Wikimania is gonna be in the middle of their winter, or is it gonna be scheduled for January of the following year to give those hard working bureaucrats in San Francisco a well needed holiday in the sun?

Don't know, but Cape Town isn't exactly frigid in August.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:43 pm

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Speaking of junkets, do you know if Cape Town, SA Wikimania is gonna be in the middle of their winter, or is it gonna be scheduled for January of the following year to give those hard working bureaucrats in San Francisco a well needed holiday in the sun?
Don't know, but Cape Town isn't exactly frigid in August.

Dunno, six hours of sun and 60 degrees doesn't sound like a five star paid vacation to me.

RfB

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:22 pm

eagle wrote:
WMF Blog Post wrote:Endowment Board members are selected based on active involvement in philanthropic endeavors, prior nonprofit board experience, fundraising expertise, and a strong commitment to the Wikimedia Foundation’s mission.
Personally, I would not see how Jimmy Wales would fit those criteria.

He's chairman of TPO, which so far as I know isn't making a profit. He seems to be raising a lot of money for TPO though. He also raises money for himself by giving paid talks.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:04 pm

If the entire WMF Board cannot be the interface with the Tides Foundation, it is clearly wrong for Jimmy Wales to be a part of this separate three-member "Advisory Board" appointed by the Tides Foundation.

Remember that Jimmy Wales continues on the WMF Board subject to re-election by the Board every three years (until recently it was every year.) Nothing would prevent Mr. Wales from continuing to serve on the Advisory Board even after the WMF Board had enough of him and terminated his Board tenure. So, consider the fantasy situation where the WMF Board says, "We have had enough of your Russian massage parlors, your conflicts of interest with Wikia and TPO, your giving Heilmann and Lila Tretikov the boot, your scandalous personal life, and your general oafishness." There does not appear to be any documented method of removing Advisory Board members and in theory he could continue to serve and to lobby against the reformed WMF getting the Endowment at the time the $100 million goal is reached.

If the "Advisory Board" is a way to acknowledge big donors like Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin for their $1.25 million, then Wales does not fit either because he has not donated money to the WMF.

Are the architects of this Endowment scheme trying to build donor confidence in the long term viability by distancing the Endowment from the WMF and its Board or instead limiting its viability by emphasizing that this project is independent of the community and the WMF?

Because there are no metrics for measuring successful progress toward the $100 million goal, we can't judge whether this is working. The seed money for the Endowment came from the WMF designating a bequest that it already received. The WMF 2016-17 Plan set a goal of raising an additional $5 million for the Endowment separate from the annual fund raising targets. Let's see how fast we are moving toward the $100 million goal.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:20 am

Welcome back, eagle.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:25 am

Niels Christian Nielsen appointed to Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board link https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/13/n ... ent-board/[/link]

A Danish business man has been added to the Endowment Advisory Board. Aside from loyal British cell phone executive Jimbo Wales, they probably felt that the United States was over-represented.

The fundamental question remains: what is the role for the Endowment Advisory Board that is separate from the WMF Board of Directors? Is it fundraising, because I suspect that given the tax laws, most of the donations will come from US taxpayers -- so there is little need for an International Board.

Is it developing confidence of prospective big donors, because they did after all include the soon-to-be-former Chairman of the Peoples Operator.

Is it deciding the fate of the WMF Endowment when it reaches $100 million, because that should be the job of the community or the WMF Board.

Is it to keep the Tides Foundation honest and to provide oversight, because it makes no sense to pick an over-committed Danish businessman to be the watchdog.

Is it to make a hand-picked set of WMF donors feel they are on the A-list while relegating the real WMF Board to the B-list?

Please explain why this is happening.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:34 pm

eagle wrote:it makes no sense to pick an over-committed Danish businessman to be the watchdog.

How do we know he's over-committed?

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:00 pm

Nonetheless, eagle's questions are well-posed and deserve consideratipn. This certqainly looks like a coup against the Board by a set of ultra-insiders led by Jimbo. Recent events suggest that the Board is being downgraded to a consultative role, with policy being delegated to Katherine, and Board membership criteria being more about community engagement.