Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/2019 Community Conversations/Resource Allocation/ko-kp

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Scoping format

What is your area of inquiry?

We are investigating the following aspects of a future resource allocation system. Firstly, there are very broad, structural questions:

  1. Structures for resource allocation
  2. Decision-making and power
  3. Values and Principles (purpose)

We are also looking into more specific aspects which we need to design/decide on:

  1. Communities that have been left out
  2. User/recipients
  3. Innovation
  4. Leveraging resources (sustainability)
  5. Impact (movement and society)
  6. Accountability

These areas map directly into our scoping questions below.

Defining resources is critical to our enquiry. For us, “Resource Allocation” refers to the allocation of a small set of resources that can (or should) be allocated by the Wikimedia movement system to support the 2030 Strategic Direction. We will not consider resources that cannot be allocated in such a way (e.g. grants awarded by non-Wikimedia institutions since they are usually restricted; volunteer time; etc.), or financial resources with localized legal constraints (e.g. membership fees, direct donations beyond the banner, and the endowment).

These are the resources we will be considering in our area of inquiry, with some caveats:


  • Grants awarded by Wikimedia Foundation, or other Wikimedia Affiliates
  • All funds raised by the banners on Wikimedia sites
    • Caveat: This overlaps with the Revenue Streams Working Group. We want to be future-oriented and acknowledge that other, new sources of monetary funds may arise in the future.


  • Capacity
    • Caveat: This overlaps with the Capacity Building Working Group.
  • Staff
    • Caveat: We are still discussing this resource, as we aren’t quite clear if “staff” as a resource translates into the money to employ staff or the FTEs themselves.
  • Trademark
    • Caveat: This overlaps with the Roles & Responsibilities Working Group.
  • Platform infrastructure
    • Caveat: We are still discussing if this resource is in scope, because while it is important to enabling the Knowledge-as-a-Service part of the strategic direction, we are currently unclear about how such a resource might be allocated. This overlaps with the Technology Working Group.

What is the current situation?

Wikimedia Foundation은 현재 이 운동에서 전 세계 자원 할당의 주요 지점입니다. 대부분의 수익은 중앙에서 수집되어 자원이 풍부하고 확립된 커뮤니티에서 사용됩니다. 위키미디어 재단의 현재 예산은 미화 9,200만 달러입니다. Wikimedia Foundation이 보유한 상표의 사용을 허용하는 계약을 맺은 ~150개의 계열사가 있습니다. 이 계약은 Wikimedia의 글로벌 사명을 지원하는 것을 성문화합니다. 가장 큰 계열사로는 Wikimedia Germany, Wikimedia Sweden, Wikimedia Indonesia, Wikimedia United Kingdom 및 Wikimedia France가 있습니다.

Wikimedia Foundation의 교부금 예산은 2013년부터 연간 약 7백만 달러였습니다. 2018년에 Wikimedia Foundation은 400개 이상의 교부금을 수여했습니다. 272개의 보조금이 신흥 커뮤니티에 전달되었지만 자금의 ~30%만이 해당 커뮤니티에 전달되었습니다. 이는 2013년에 비해 50% 증가한 것으로 신흥 커뮤니티에 ~20%의 자금이 지원됩니다. 대부분의 신규 계열사는 첫 해에 지원을 받지 못하며, 이는 필요 부족 등의 문제가 아니라 구조적 문제의 결과라고 생각합니다. 그 결과, 우리의 역사적 구조와 과정은 현재 운동에서 권력과 돈의 집중을 강화하고 있습니다. 우리는 자원 할당에 대한 공평한 모델과는 거리가 멀고 자금이나 보조금에 대한 접근성을 높이는 것만으로는 충분하지 않습니다. 우리는 자원을 유치, 사용 및 보고하기 위한 역량 구축을 충분히 지원하지 않았습니다.

Most of the movement money comes from individual donors. The movement has introduced practices, structures and participation models as a first step towards better accountability. However, the system of Wikimedia Foundation grantmaking today is largely reactive, playing the role of the steward of movement money. But there is also an expectation to be grantmakers, making strategic choices and trade offs, prioritizing one issue or audience over another. These two roles create conflicting expectations. Steward’s reactive role means it is difficult to shift resources to areas of priority (e.g. underrepresented communities or content).

Through the strategy process, we now have a critical opportunity to redesign the resource allocation system in a way that will help us reach knowledge equity and knowledge as a service. The strategy process is an expedient opportunity to make radical changes in our movement, and consider the scoping document as a constantly developing guide that will steadily reflect community inputs throughout the process.


Why this scope?

We believe that in order to reach our 2030 strategic direction, we need to create an equitable system of resource allocation. While there are many definitions of equity, we understand equity to be about Opportunities (e.g. access to systems and resources), Power (e.g. ability to make decisions about resources, ability to change culture) and Outcomes.

So far, we have relied on access (e.g. “everyone can apply for grants”) as the main approach to equity, but we do not believe that is sufficient for the future.

In order to consider future systems and structures, we will be prioritizing the value of equity, along with other values such as transparency, sustainability and innovation, for how resources are allocated. Success is defined as having achieved the Strategic Direction (“By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us”).


Scoping questions

What are the key questions within the scope of the Working Group?

  1. How can resource allocation support structures that empower different actors within the free knowledge movement long-term? How is power connected to resource allocation and how can we utilize resource allocation to create change?
  2. Who makes decisions about resource allocation within the movement? How should those decisions be made (in terms of structures, criteria, priorities, accountability)?
    • How do decision making criteria and priorities get set?
    • How do we include “communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege”?
  3. What is the purpose of a movement wide resource allocation system? What should be the values and principles governing the resource allocation system, so that they support a system for equitably allocating resources in the movement?
    • Is there a hierarchy of values? What if they conflict?
    • How do we ensure that the resources we allocate help us reach the Strategic Direction of becoming the essential infrastructure of free knowledge, including both Knowledge Equity and Knowledge as a service?
  4. The Strategic Direction prioritizes “communities who have been left out …” Who are they? Who should we reach out to and on what principle?
  5. Who should be the recipients of resources? How do we determine the boundaries, who or what is included?
    • Would the rules be different for Wikimedia movement vs entities/communities from broader ecosystem of Free Knowledge?
  6. How might we allocate resources to secure innovation towards our 2030 goal?
    • How do we balance the need for innovation while supporting existing work?
    • How do we enable innovation by and for a wide range of communities?
  7. In what ways should allocated resources guarantee future resources (sustainability)?
    • How can we integrate capacity building (for sustainability) with resource allocation?
    • If we focus on the financial aspect: How do we use existing funds to create future funds? What are the contextual variations that we need to consider for this process and will this process be different for emerging and non-emerging communities?
  8. What impact should the allocated resources create within our communities and the world?
    • How do we measure impact in the long-term?
    • How do we balance the need for context-specific measurement, and consistency across the movement?
    • How can we ensure that our resource allocation is catalytic and lead to more and a faster change to free knowledge over time (and that movement resources are not the only ones being used)?
    • How do we ensure that the overall impact on society is positive?
  9. Who are we accountable to and how do we organize accountability?