Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Argentina/Proposal form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikimedia Argentina received a funds allocation in the amount of 146,854 in 2012-2013 Round 1. This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 15 November 2012 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 1 December 2012.


Please note that the proposals are now closed to community response. Thanks to all for your engagement with the Community Review process, and for your questions. FDC members, FDC staff, and entity representatives will still be communicating on these discussion pages over the next few weeks, but entities will not be responding to questions from anyone other than the FDC or FDC Staff.


This page should be used to discuss the entity’s submitted proposal. This includes asking questions about the content of the proposal form, asking for clarifications on this proposal, and discussing any other issues relating to the proposal itself.

To discuss other components of this proposal please refer to the discussion links below.

  • This proposal has not yet been created.
  • This proposal form has not yet been created.
  • Staff proposal assessments have not yet been published for this round.
  • FDC recommendation discussion page: discuss the recommendation that the FDC gives to the Board regarding all requests.
  • Board decision discussion page: discuss the board's decision.
  • An impact report has not yet been submitted for this funds allocation.




Clarifying questions from FDC staff[edit]

Please confirm the following information:

  1. Current year budget: USD 101,537
  2. Proposed year budget: USD 143,956
  3. Current year grants received from WMF (includes annual grants and project grants): USD 99,451
  4. Proposed year funds requested (from FDC): USD 143,528

Please explain your entity’s cash reserve position.

  1. How much do you have in your reserves now?
  2. How much do you expect to have by the start of the planning year period?
  • About the budget details:
  1. Confirmed.
  2. Confirmed.
  3. Wikimedia Argentina received a total of USD 103.255 (101,537 from the Annual Plan and 1,718 from Wikigénero grant).
  4. Confirmed.
  • About reserves:
  1. On September 1st, we have a total reserve of ARS 265.853,18 (USD 56,685.11), which includes the part of the Annual Grant not yet spent.
  2. We expect to maintain our reserves from past year balance, which were ARS 106.433,44 (USD 22.693,7). --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    Please explain how WMAR defines "total reserves". Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    It includes all current assets of WM-AR, excluding fixed assetts. Currently, we only have money in our bank account (in the past, there were some deposits but it is not the case anymore). --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions from FDC staff about the content of WMAR's proposal form[edit]

Questions about WMAR's proposed budget and staffing plan[edit]

  1. Detailed budget: Is WMAR able to link to a detailed budget description?
  2. Reserves: How does WMAR think about maintaining / building reserves? WMAR has a 10% reserve line-item in the budget, but also a reserve balance of USD 22,000.00 at the end of the year: what are WMAR's reserve goals, and why?
  3. Budget: Please explain why the line item "Techno Conference" is mentioned twice and calculated twice in the budget.
  4. Budget: What is "Global Engagement"? It appears to be mentioned in the budget but we are uncertain where it is included within the key initiatives.
  5. Staffing: Regarding a 30% FTE allocation, would you explain how this person will be able to effectively perform her / his tasks with this allocation?


  1. The detailed budget is available here.
  2. Wikimedia Argentina expects to maintain its reserves for the following year. These reserves are allocated only to be used for unexpected expenses, so the budget should be covered by FDC funds and member fees. The 10% reserve in the budget refers to unexpected changes related to the planned expenses, for example, due to inflation or exchange rate.
  3. It was a small mistake. The second item should be "Gender gap (Wikigénero)" according to the detailed budget.
  4. Global engagement includes the participation of Wikimedia Argentina board and staff in international events of the Wikimedia movements. It includes especifically participation of 2 Board members in Wikimanía, 2 Board members an ED in Wikimedia Conference and in GLAM WIKI 2013 in London.
  5. 30% FTE allocation represents 1,5 days or 2,5 hours per day. We think it is sufficient time for a limited and defined work to support the ED in specific projects. We expect a more flexible approach associated to each project. One of our ideas is to have someone dedicated to press and media by the end of the year and we think this allocation is ideal to try that proposal before establishing as a formal position next year. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Please go ahead and correct the item mentioned in #3 on the budget table by striking through the incorrect text and adding the correct text. Regarding our other questions, thank you for clarifying these points and adding your link to the detailed budget here on the discussion page: we will let you know if any additional clarifications are requested. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions about WMAR's strategy, impact, and activities organized by key initiatives[edit]

Outreach and organizational strengthening[edit]

  1. Question about measuring impact: Please clarify how WMAR will measure the success of its initiative targeting volunteer capacities beyond tracking the number of participants: how does WMAR plan to measure if these efforts are effective in building capacity (for example, by conducting assessments)?
  2. Question about proposed activities: In the key initiative entitled Outreach, you refer to "Workshops and Presentations". Could you be more specific about the nature of these workshops? For example, are these workshops targeting new editors or presentations to the general public? (Also, note that this item is listed twice in the activities column.)
  1. I must agree that participation in the workshops shouldn’t be the only measure, especially when the ultimate goal is to increase participation in other events. It should be included a measure of new participants supporting activities (giving presentations, leading workshops, etc.); the problem is when to measure this because it is a mid/long-term outcome. The direct or indirect impact of the proposed activities in Wikimedia projects is also to be monitored, even if measuring it is extremely difficult.
  2. We have given presentations or workshops to different audiences, large and very broad audiences or more focused ones as part of different events. In this sense, “presentations” are typically aimed at large audiences, whereas we refer as “workshops” to focalized activities aimed at building editing capacity. For example, over the last months we gave presentations in General Deheza (Córdoba), one to students and one open to all the town, while on the other hand we gave a workshop in Rosario with local journalists and Journalism students from the National University of Rosario (UNR). In both cases, our main goal is to make people aware of Wikipedia, as users and also as editors, although workshops are more focused on new editors. (I deleted the duplicate). --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation about workshops and presentations: now I understand more clearly how WMAR is using those terms and how they are linked to the goals of this initiative.
Regarding measuring midterm and longterm outcomes around building volunteer capabilities, it may be a very good idea to begin planning for this during the early stages of a program's or initiative's development in order to ensure that mechanisms for tracking success are already in place: this information may be valuable to the movement, to other organizations seeking to replicate your initiatives, and to WMAR as it makes a case for developing its programs in future years. Therefore, if you have any thoughts now about how to ensure these longer term results are tracked in the future, it may be worthwhile to share them with the FDC here.
Regards, Wolliff (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your recommendation, Winifred. We don’t think that the strengthening of our members consists of a single activity, it is instead a bigger process that works together with the rest of activities in our chapter. It is something that also has a multi-year perspective so is something that we need to keep track. One thing that is important to do that is analyze the participation of the people that assisted to the workshops in different projects. For example, if someone participated in the workshop about Education, would he do a presentation in a school or no? That is a possibility that we must consider to keep track of the results. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GLAM and federalization[edit]

  1. Question about strategy: How is the GLAM initiative related to the strategic goal of "Increased reach"?
  2. Question about strategy: WMAR has applied for funding for a GLAM initaitive that will include projects using DIY scanners, which was also a component of this year's annual plan. Would you please let us know how you have determined the need to expand and continue this program by pointing to the results of last year's activities?
  3. Question about proposed activities: Regarding the federalization initiative, would you be able to be more specific about what types of instiutions you are targeting as partners? In the case of GLAM institutions, how will this federalization overlap or relate to the GLAM initiatives?
  1. We believe that engaging with GLAM institutions is an important part in our efforts to increase reach within Argentina. Just like the Wikimedia Foundation is worried about the lack of participation of people from developing countries (the so-called “Global South”) and the absence of contents related to those countries, we are aware that the users and the content inside our projects, specifically in Spanish Wikipedia, is concentrated in Buenos Aires. Engaging with credible institutions, like museums or archives, in other places of Argentina is a good opportunity to reach people in provinces like Chaco or Chubut, where there is an important lack of participation. Experience has shown to us that we can’t always expect local communities or even isolated volunteers to organize outreach activities themselves, but volunteers are always encouraged and eager to engage when there is a local reference involved --the way most of our members from outside the Buenos Aires area contacted their provincial governments or municipalities to obtain monument lists for WLM is a good and recent example (that way we got valuable information for Salta, Chaco, Mendoza, Río Negro, and different countryside departments within Buenos Aires Province, for instance). It should also be considered that GLAM institutions in Latin America are far from their counterparts in the “Global North” in terms of opening up their heritage towards the community and digitizing their collections. We are sure that the Wikimedia projects provide a platform to make that contents available to the general public, thus helping GLAM institutions and enriching contents regarding Argentine or Latin American history and culture.
  2. As you mentioned, this year we have given three scanners in loan to the University of Buenos Aires (Faculty of Philosophy and Literature), the National University of La Plata (Faculty of Humanities and Educational Science) and Tierra Violeta, a local NGO dedicated to gender studies and led by the recognized scholar Diana Maffía. The construction of the scanners and their setup is not an easy task and we are starting the training courses that are foreseen in the free loan contracts we signed with such institutions. We have received more requests from other institutions, in particular from the Institute of Culture of Buenos Aires Province (the provincial ministry), to continue this program. We expect the first “results” to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons/Wikisource within the following months, although you can see here two tests available in Commons: 1, 2.
  3. As I mentioned before, agreements with GLAM institutions are important to engage with people in other provinces of Argentina, as they are important members of their communities and have a real connection with it. That is why we want to work with more institutions. We are in early talks with institutions in Córdoba (National University of Cordoba) and Chubut, but we need to reach them rather than expecting them to approach us. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for providing some details about the scanners, and for clarifying the link between GLAM and Increased reach.
Regarding GLAM and Federalization, I see now that you do see these programs as closely related. Now, would you please clarify how these program are different from one another: in other words, why is there a separate set of resources devoted to GLAM activities and to Federalization activities and which activities are supported through each program?
Thanks, :Wolliff (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Federalization item is transverse to all our activities, that is why we kept as a separate item. It should guarantee that Wikimedia Argentina can work regardless the location of any partner. We want to work with GLAM institutions outside Buenos Aires, but also with educational institutions, engage with the local communities, talk with their governments and so forth. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The education program[edit]

  1. Question about measuring impact: Please clarify how WMAR will measure the education initiaitive's impact on the strategic goal of improved quality. Currently WMAR states only that it will measure "Instiutions involved and participants in activities" and it is unclear how this relates to quality.
  2. Question about strategy: Would you link to additional information about the education program planning that is currently in development from this discussion page, or to provide some additional information about the programs you are planning here on this discussion page?
  1. One of the main problems about “improving quality” is that quality is not well-defined. There is no single objective quality assessment that can be used. But we can measure how many opportunities to increase quality do we open. It is well known that educational institutions, particularly universities, are leaders in knowledge development and research in most countries in the world, including Argentina. As the WMF Strategic Plan says, “we need to encourage global participation via partnerships with universities, cultural institutions and other groups who align with our mission” to improve the quality of our contents. Signing agreements with universities are great opportunities to have access to experts in different topics, including a lot of them not usually available in other situations. We know that agreements with educational institutions don’t directly guarantee this access but is an opportunity we are looking for. Regarding secondary education, which has been our main work focus up to now, our goal is not to have schoolchildren produce featured articles but rather to help teachers to develop suitable strategies to use and introduce Wikimedia projects within their classrooms (this is well summarized in our “Wikipedia en el aula” booklet; we expect to make a second version next year with advice from schoolteachers who are already working with Wikimedia projects). In that sense, quality is improved either by avoiding “suicide” editing attempts where teachers expect their students to edit Wikipedia without any previous knowledge of its dynamics, either by having the same schoolchildren to investigate and verify information concerning their hometown or their region.
  2. Wikimedia Argentina has led different educational projects in the past. Some of them includes the Wikipedia en el aula booklet, its participation in the Advisory Committee of Conectar Igualdad (the national initiative for digital inclusion), different meetings with experts and the workshops given in schools and universities. We also want to explore the idea of Campus Ambassadors and adapt it to the Argentine university system. But we lack a comprehensive “master plan” that unifies all those isolated activities and makes them work togther. That is why is our most important project about Education in our strategic plan. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information: would you point us to where discussions about the education program and the education program strategy are developing onwiki? Apologies if you have provided this already, and I have missed it. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The work on the strategy program is supposed to start in 2013 so it is not available yet. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Diversification[edit]

  1. Question about measuring impact: Are there plans to track the results of the "Diversification" initiative over time and across other aspects of WMAR's programming as well?
  2. Question about strategy: With outreach around indigenous langauges, what or whom are you targeting specifically and to which projects do you think the target groups are likely to contribute?
  3. Question about strategy: You mention you would like to "put into effect the discussion of WikiGenero". Would you be able to provide some information about these discusisons here on the talk page so that we have a better idea of what you will accomplish?

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to our comments. Please let us know if any of the questions above are unclear, and we will be happy to clarify. If any changes to WMAR's proposal form itself are required, please let us know so that we can make sure any changes to the form during this stage of the process are properly documented. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. Diversification has always been a priority in Wikimedia Argentina’s activities, especially related to female participation, which is by far the largest underrepresented group. We have been very proud with the level of female participation within Wikimedia Argentina: almost half of the Board members and half of the active members are women, and in the past year this participation has increased. We have also developed different activities, and in different action lines, aimed at attracting further female editors to Wikipedia in particular, and to help analyze the ultimate reasons of the strong gender unbalance that the project communities’ show: we hosted WikiWomenCamp, we organized WikiGénero, we organize the “Mujeres Iberoamericanas” writing contest (our members are proposing to organize a new version for next year). Now, we want to engage with other communities and certainly their participation, not only in the Wikimedia movement but also within Wikimedia Argentina, is considered.
  2. We want to continue our participation with Guaraní, which has by far the largest community of speakers (+6 million, including indigenous communities in Argentinean provinces but also by the sizeable community of Paraguayan immigrants). Other languages that are being considered are Aymara, Quechua and Mapudungun, which can be done in partnership with Wikimedia Bolivia and Wikimedia Chile. In those cases, Wikipedia is by far the most important project, but also Wiktionary can be important. Wikipedia already exists in Guaraní, Aymara and Quechua, and the Mapudungun version is already being considered by the LangCom.
  3. The results of Wikigénero in the original languages of the speakers (mainly Spanish but some in English) have been transcripted but we still need to edit the text before releasing them officially. You can see them here. Some of their accomplishment can be seen in the Anuradha Uduwage participation grant report. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the links and information. Would you let us know what metrics are in place to track the success of your diversification initiatives over time? Regards, Wolliff (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Number and percentage of female participation in activities can be measured over time, although it must be considered the nature of every activity. Regarding indigenous languages, the activity in each Wikimedia project can reflect the impact of some activities, even though not all the activity is related to WM-AR efforts. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about volunteer participation[edit]

Hello WMAR, These are some general questions that I am asking to all the EEs regarding volunteer participation. All the entities have stated in their proposals that low turnover of volunteers in both online and offline activities have been a major obstacle for them. Most of them have also expressed concerns that reducing number of volunteers is a threat to their organizational effectiveness and to the movement as a whole. I feel we need to have short term, midterm and long term plans to tackle this problem.

Does your organization have -

  1. Any short term plan to recruit new volunteers for both online and off line activities?
  2. Any midterm plan to train, motivate and convert them into regular contributors?
  3. Any long term plan to retain them and continue the growth?

If you already have any such plans, please mention them and elaborate how your plan/s is (are) going to achieve the goal of recruiting new volunteers, converting them into regular contributors and retain the volunteers as well as maintain the growth? - Ali Haidar Khan (Tonmoy) (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ali for your question. In fact, it is one of the things we have considered for this year in our annual plan. Our volunteers are, after all, our most precious asset and its one of the most defining features as a movement and what makes us different than most of other NGOs.
That’s why we have considered activities to not only foster the incorporation of new volunteers, but also to keep the current ones (we have a very good rate of retention) and strength their participation.
  1. For our short term plan, we want to continue our community activities, such as meetings, visits to museums and other activities. The main reason why people engage is because they have fun and they want to feel part of our community. We have organized several meetings, activities and projects open to the public in the past and most of our current members joined after them. One of the most important activities that we are working with is an edit-a-thon at the Bicentennial Museum, next to the Casa Rosada (seat of the government).
  2. As part of our mid term plans, we have included in the budget different activities to strengthen the capacities of our members. We want them to feel part of our activities, that they are doing something valuable for our movement. We have considered for that the “internal workshop” and also the participation of volunteers in our seminar for the creation of the Education Strategy.
  3. As we said, we haven’t faced a decline in the participation of our members, but as they are volunteers it is obvious that their participation will be sporadic, focused in the things that they are more motivated and as long as their and associated with their availability of free time (a volunteer that was a student probably won’t be able to participate after graduation as much as it was before it, for example). In any case, one of the things we want to work in the long term is the possibility to create “groups” of members in different cities in Argentina so they can continue the work of Wikimedia Argentina on a national level, engage with educational and cultural institutions and maintain the participation of the members in the zone. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

reserves[edit]

The purpose of the 10% reserve is clear and organizationally understandable. I'm only wondering what should ideally happen when the risks, against which the reserve is prepared, do not materialize (and I'm not referring just to your proposal, I'm basically generally fishing for ideas for the whole movement: how should we both make sure we minimize the risks of inflation, unexpected events, and still make budgets realistic?). Pundit (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a difficult question considering that a budget is already one of the best ways to reduce uncertainty. A good and detailed budget, considering not current prices but an estimation for them in the future (some projects will be done in 14 months from now), is a good way to tackle inflation. But in any case, it is not enough; unexpected events will happen any time, whether we like it or not.
I think that one important thing is to allow some flexibility in the usage of funds so it can be redistributed if is needed, obviously in line with the goals of our movement. Not all unexpected things should be bad: what if in August we have a big opportunity to present in front of thousands of people, something we never even dreamt before? There should be some space to take that chance and we should be able to move some funds from one not-so-important activity to this one.
An idea that we used In our budget, is to allocate general funds for some items. For example, we decided to have a general fund for printing instead of allocating money for 500 brochures. That way we can produce brochures according to each event (some will require more pages, some less) and subject to the prices at the time (probably will be able to print more in January than in December, but we will not be tied to a estimation done 14 months before).
We know that it is not perfect but it is something that should help reducing uncertainty. We will be happy to read other proposals and probably include them in next budgets. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Measuring success[edit]

I'd like to compliment you on the last column of Table 4, where you give some potential measures for the output or success of individual programs. Nevertheless, I wish they were more specific, e.g. for education you state "Institutions involved, participants in activities." It would be much better, to give us an idea of what you propose, to put something like "3 new institutions involved, 100 participants in activities." That way I could judge whether you'd achieved your goals. Of course 1 big well-known institution could be better than 3 small, less well-known institutions, but if you explain that that's what you accomplished, most people would be able to make the adjustment. Keep up the good work - just make it a bit more specific! Smallbones (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that setting a goal for each measure of success is important to finally see if a project was successful or not, but the space was supposed to be a summary of the measures for our strategy in general. As you said, these goals are not static, and as such they don't apply exactly the same way to each activity related to that strategy. For example, in our first strategic topic "Outreach", our measure is the participation in activities but the mark for each measure will be different for a contest in an university in Buenos Aires, a presentation for deputies in Tierra del Fuego Province or a workshop with female elderly in Tucumán, so it is difficult then to provide a simplified goal related to "Outreach".
Probably, this is something that can be improved in next instances of the FDC, allowing to explain more about the goals related to each project. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Raising funds from Partners[edit]

I could not locate plan for raising funds from Partners in the plan. With the kind of legacy of activities in Argentina, I thought it would be easy to raise 25% of funds from partners. Can you share your thoughts?--Arjunaraoc (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Argentina has engaged in the past years with different institutions, especially universities, museums and local governments, and we know the way they work. In Argentina (and probably also in the rest of Latin America), cultural and educational institutions lack financial autonomy and solvency to help other institutions; they are in fact struggling with their own existence in some cases. Raising 40,000 USD from "partners" is not only difficult, but rather impossible.
But, those partners are essential for the realization of our projects because they provide us a lot of non-monetary support. You won’t ever see rental of an auditorium or other logistical support for an event in our budgets, for example. We know the kind of support our partners can and do provide us, but since our budget is structured from needs you simply won't see those costs or values in it.
Working with private companies is a possibility, but it is not easy at the moment. Donations to Wikimedia Argentina are not tax exempt yet and we are working to achieve this status next year. For Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 we had early talks with some companies and we will try to finally sign a partnership for next year’s contest. In any case, we are careful to look for partnerships avoiding conflicts of interest or other kind of problems. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Osmar for the clarification. It helps a lot. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to include Accounting services[edit]

Dear FDC members,

I want to present a request to include a new item in the budget for 2013 under review of the FDC, regarding the honoraries of the Accounting company that keeps records and balances of Wikimedia Argentina. It was supposed to be included in the 2013 budget but there was a mistake and it wasn't included.

The amount requested to be added to this proposal is a total of 15,600 ARS or 3,326.23 USD (honoraries of 1,100 per month from January to July and 1,500 for the rest of the year). This would increase the total amount requested to the FDC to 680.494,70 ARS or 146,853.89 USD (+2.3%).

We sincerely appologize for this mistake and we hope you can consider this request. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about WMAR's program expenses[edit]

In table 9, WMAR lists a total of ARS 405407.70 / USD 86440.23. However, the expenses listed seem to add up to ARS413404.7 / USD 88145.96. Would you please explain the discrepancy? Please feel free to correct me if I am missing something. Thanks! Wolliff (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Winifred for pointing this mistake. The problem was that the last item (Wikigénero, per ARS 8,000) was not included in the totals of the spreadsheet, even though it was in the final budget proposal. Then, the final budget should be the second number, ARS 413404.7 / USD 88145.99. I don't know if it is possible to update the proposal according to this. Apologies for the mistake. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions about current cash positions and monthly spending patterns[edit]

Please clarify WMAR's cash position and usual monthly expenditures.

  1. What is WMAR's current cash position (as of 30 September 2012)? In other words, what is the total balance in all of WMAR's accounts (including operating reserves and cash for WMAR's programs and operations)?
  2. What are WMAR's typical monthly expenditures? We would like a sense of about how much money WMAR spends in an ordinary month during the current fiscal year.

Let us know if the questions above require any additional clarification. Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. Our current net balance in the bank account is 244.444,77 ARS (52.120,42 USD).
  2. There is no "ordinary month" for WM-AR expenses (I wish there were!). Monthly expenses are around 15,000 ARS, including honoraries (10,000 ARS), accounting (1,100 ARS), office rent (2,000 ARS), bank fees (between 200 and 600 ARS) and other small expenses (1,000 ARS). But that is a small part of our expenses, which are mostly based in projects. Here are the expenses per month in 2012:
Month Expenses
2012-01 224,71
2012-02 51.635,47
2012-03 66.251,60
2012-04 26.710,87
2012-05 56.893,69
2012-06 72.337,85
2012-07 6.664,18
2012-08 15.688,65
2012-09 21.408,41
The Annual Grant funds were received in February so most of the January expenses were paid the following month. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)