Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-09-26/News from Diff

Knowledge equity "around the world" actually means 3/6 of the grantees are American focused on American issues and a complete ignorance of the Indian subcontinent. This is obviously because America is the most important and worst country in the world. Also pretty much everyone in the Indian subcontinent is brown anyways right?? So they must all love each other and are basically the same why would there ever be equity gaps between different communities over there that need to be remediated? After all skin colour appears to be the overriding factor, given that in America it is the number one separator between communities it follows that the rest of the world also has that exact same issue. I hope the WMF in the future switches to spending all of their money on America, after all, how else are they supposed to get street cred at their San Francisco parties? 🇺🇲 🇺🇲 🇺🇲 🇺🇲 Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you are trying to say and I do agree as an Indian, but it sounds (reads?) like you are ranting instead of calmly explaining your point (but then again your mood is understandable given that it's been years). Tube·of·Light 04:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While I sympathize with Chess that much of what the WMF does these days plays very well in "woke" virtue signaling circles (the blurb for SeRCH Foundation checks all the boxes a San Fran PR person could ever dream of), I'm willing to give the organisation some of the benefit of the doubt here. The favoring of US organizations probably emanates some from practical concerns; the US nonprofit community talks to each other and there are interlocking boards of directors and staff connections, so making those grants was probably relatively easy, not to mention the WMF and Wikipedia have higher standing in the US (both at a common social level and among the media and professional nonprofit sector) relative to some other places in the world. That said, I think it is totally appropriate to push for more grants to different organizations and initiatives around the world, the foundation certainly has the money for it! I for one am excited about the grants to the Arab & West African investigative journalism centers. And on the whole, the end goal of these grants should be to produce more reliable secondary sources that can be used to build Wikipedia articles about undercovered subjects. I think that is cause for celebration! I hope the WMF will make sure of that. Chess' criticism of the focus on racial matters is fair enough in the sense that the WMF is tackling something from a very US point of view. Race and the challenges it can present vary across the world, and it many places it is eclipsed by more pressing social categories and concerns. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the sarcastic part of skin colour appears to be the overriding factor ... it follows that the rest of the world also has that exact same issue given that, from the experience of people I know, across Asia and Africa there is often more overt colourism than in America, whether that manifests as a small amount of white people in the country experiencing immense privilege (South Africa) or discrimination against darker-skinned people in a country of more homogeneous race (India, Jamaica). I might say it's internalised prejudice as a consequence of European colonialism, but regardless of the cause, I have to say that Black, Indigenous, and communities of color around the world seem like a good focus for the WMF globally. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-transparent process
The way this fund came about was highly irregular. $5 million were diverted to non-WMF ends at some point during the 2019/2020 financial year. This decision was taken without community involvement, bypassed all the usual grants processes, and only became public months later, when the audited financial statements were published. See discussion on Meta for further details (including a little more info on the grantees): meta:Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund. --Andreas JN 466 20:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. While all projects seem like worthy causes, I am concerned that many do not seem to have much connection to the Wikimedia movement. Who approved this? Community or just the board? Ping User:Pundit, maybe you can answer my question? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too. I'm puzzled that the Foundation would fund these outside groups before even acknowledging the obvious & growing need for resources to write articles. Which, IIRC is what draws people to Wikipedia & our related projects.Over the years I've had to use my own money to obtain books, articles, & more recently interlibrary loan materials. Which has blocked be from writing any number of articles. Meanwhile, the Foundation grants process appears aimed at every conceivable needs except enabling access to information. You want to have an Edit-thon? The Foundation will buy you pizza & drinks, no problem. You need an expensive book to write a series of articles? There is no hint the Foundation will even consider the request. -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion here seems stalled, but I think we need to continue it somewhere. Village pump, anyone? Or meta? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, it's stalled on Meta as well. If you'd like to raise community awareness of the equity fund and related issues, beyond the individuals who have commented on Meta and Wikimedia-l to date, one of the busier Village Pump sections probably makes the most sense at this point.
 * llywrch, I feel you ... much the same sentiments here. However, the WMF and/or affiliates do occasionally approve microgrants for expensive books. Here is an example: https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Microgrants/KFC And you're probably aware of the Wikipedia Library, the offer of free JSTOR subscriptions etc. It's not nothing, though it all seemed "little and late", almost like an afterthought, when one might have thought it would have been one of the first things to come to mind. Best, --Andreas JN 466 13:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jayen466 Can you link the meta discussion?
 * @Llywrch Are you aware of Z-library? Great resource. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Piotrus: See meta:Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund Best, --Andreas JN 466 14:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I posted some questions there. I am in general quite pro-WMF, but this strikes me as a terrible idea that was very badly executed. I don't wan to say "corruption", but this is far from "best practices". Frankly, what it looks to me would be plainly described as "irresponsible waste of money" tied to some very bad "mission creep", and WMF should apologize, perhaps fire whoever was responsible for this, and introduce regulations that community money is not wasted like this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , great. It will be good to have a bit more discussion. However, note that in one of her earlier replies Nadee Gunasena clarified that there was no open call for applications, and in fact no organisations submitted any grant applications. The entire process was driven by WMF staff, who invited two community members to join them on the EF committee. As for diverting funds away from the Wikimedia Community, you might find this mailing list post from Guillaume Paumier (Principal Program Manager, WMF Advancement) of interest: The way I understand his post, Wikipedia is to serve as a cash cow, with a medium-term goal of having it bring in as much as a billion dollars per year (the goal for next year is $150M, up from $108M), most of which will go to initiatives outside the Wikimedia universe. Would you agree that's a reasonable inference? --Andreas  JN 466 11:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jayen466 This is... not the direction for the WMF that I support. Not unless we really exhaust options for spending funds to improve Wikimedia community (and software). Which, IMHO, we are still far from. This needs a major community review. Will you start an RfC in the Village Pump? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see and contribute to any further discussion of this topic, but I don't think I should be the person starting a Request for Comment process on the Village Pump. I've already written about this off-wiki, on the mailing list and on Meta ... it becomes counterproductive (not to mention exhausting ...) if it's "always the same guy" banging on about this. Actually, from the WMF's point of view, I believe this is all part and parcel of the 2030 Strategic Direction, and it's taken as read that this expresses the will of the community, or the "Wikimedia Movement" as a whole. Best,  --Andreas  JN 466 15:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A number of people have questioned the amount of money the Foundation raises besides Andreas, but these discussions have never coalesced into any grass-roots action because, like the RfA process, no one has come up with a workable proposal to address the issue. But unlike the RfA process, for the average volunteer it's easy to overlook or ignore the Foundation's pile of cash & how it is harming the projects: we don't see the money, so we don't think about it.IMHO, one reason the Foundation keeps raising more money is the inherent structure of the fundraising department. In order to keep their jobs &/or receive money, the fundraisers must raise more money this year than last, despite the fact the Foundation has no need of more money. Then faced with this excess money -- which can't be distributed to the volunteer base for numerous reasons (some reasonable, some not, & which I won't go into here) -- the response of Foundation management is to use these excess funds to hire more employees, which encourages empire-building inside the Foundation. (As well as dubious activities as "re-branding" the Foundation.) Which all would agree is not a healthy path to take. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Llywrch I think it's totally fine for WMF to raise funds, the more the better, since I see plenty of ways in which such funds can be spend. To just name one example that I suggested in my peer reviewed research about Wikipedia, WMF should hire therapists/mediators/etc. who would carry out an active outreach targeted at volunteers who have been burning out. They could also fund more physical awards (clothing, plaques, etc.) that could be given out to prolific volunteers. Etc. There's plenty of ways to spend $$$ on the community before we have the need to disperse it among random social justice projects, which while in general commendable have little to do with Wikimedia. The goal of WMF is to make the world better through improving Wikimedia projects, not by becoming some fort of disbursement funds for random other NGOS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the WMF raising funds to provide services to the volunteer communities. That is a big unmet need, & here we are in agreement -- especially on your examples. But what I've seen is that (1) the fundraising group increases the amount they take in without any idea what the money will be used for (IMHO, they raise more money to justify raises in their pay); (2) all of the projects more or less muddle on without receiving services from the Foundation other than hardware/software support (at least in the short term); (3) it is difficult for Foundation employees to identify how which services they should provide without encountering legal issues (most notably section 230); thus (4) the extra money ends up spent on internal Foundation stuff (e.g. more pay, more headcount, re-branding, donations to outside groups).I believe that, in the short term, the Foundation needs to put a cap on their fundraising, perhaps even cut back on staff, until they find a way to constructively engage with the volunteer communities, thus knowing exactly what needs to be done to (if I may quote you) "make the world better through improving Wikimedia projects". -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that link, very informative. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft RfC
I don't mind being the person to start a WP:VP RfC about this. Below is my short draft, please let me know if anyone has any remarks/comments, I'll review them before starting the RfC in a few more days (maybe I got some of my facts wrong, which would be good to catch before RfC starts...). Ping editors involved in the discussion here and on meta:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Piotrus. I've made some copyedits below, in particular integrating what transpired in the WMF responses in the Meta discussion (i.e. that none of the grantees applied, so there were none that were rejected, etc., as outlined in this reply on Meta). I will also ping User:Theklan who I believe might also be interested in this topic. Best, --Andreas JN 466 17:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Draft 1:
 * Recently the Signpost published an article (Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund) about the WMF's pilot program, the meta:Knowledge Equity Fund, in which the WMF disbursed some funds (~1M USD total) to several grantee NGOs. This was done with what I and some others believe may be insufficient transparency and oversight, coupled with mission creep, i.e. 1) there was no open competition for the funds; 2) their recipients were chosen based on unclear criteria in a non-public discussion by WMF staffers - no scoring criteria were published; and 3) the chosen recipients are both unlikely and in fact not required at all to produce any tangible benefits for our community - there is no indication that any of the grantees will produce content usable on Wikimedia projects (be it Wikipedia articles, images or other media, code, or whatever). Please note that I am speaking as someone who in the past and even now is still pro-WMF in general, but from where I am sitting this looks like a few WMF staffers and two arbitrarily chosen volunteers constituting the Equity Fund Committee decided to give away over a million dollars (with at least three more earmarked for further rounds) that people donated to Wikimedia to a few random organizations with zero oversight involved. This is a far cry from any best practices I can imagine (it seems extremely unprofessional and even corruption-prone) and should lead to both tightening the oversight on how WMF money is spent to avoid any malpractices, as well as cutting down on mission creep (WMF goal is to make the world better through improving Wikimedia projects, not by becoming some sort of disbursement fund for random other NGOs). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)