Talk:Funds Dissemination Committee/Additional Information and Analysis/Interviews/Themes from Berlin Conference

Thanks for conducting those interviews and posting the notes, Bridgespan :-)

Several believed the process would favor those who write and communicate effectively in English. Others were concerned that it would not provide the stability of funding chapters would need in order to confidently hire staff.

These are both important issues. I know various groups have been talking about providing appropriate stability to eligible entities, so that they can appropriately plan their work. That's good. But I have not heard much discussion about the language issue, which is also significant. We need a strategy for this. Should the FDC accept fund requests in any language, and if so, how will it ensure accurate and timely translation? Should the WMF pay for translations, or should the FDC provide funding for eligible entities to have their proposals translated? This is a serious issue that could extend timelines, particularly if we rely on community translations, and it could have the result of disadvantaging non-English entities. I'd like to encourage people to discuss it here, and for Bridgespan to kick it around internally as well.

We have been kicking this around. My current thinking is this (as is stated in the Draft FDC proposal to the Board): "While it will be the FDC’s preference to have applications submitted in English, entities can work with the FDC to submit materials in another language if translating into English is a significant hardship or barrier to requesting funds."

It seems to me that accurate, timely translation would be critical, so that I'd suggest translation should be built into the FDC/WMF's budget to accomodate entities that choose to submit materials in a language other than English. LauraL TBG (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Several people voiced concerns that Wikimedia might become a “development organization,” raising funds in developed countries to fund projects that serve the developing world.

I am interested in, and curious about, this theme. Bridgespan, if you've got any more detailed notes or recollections, I'd appreciate if you could add them. Or if anyone else wants to talk further about this issue (whether or not you were in Berlin, speaking about it with Bridgespan), I'd appreciate that. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sue, I can provide a little more context. This came up in two different conversations I had in Berlin (which involved a total of three people) - so, this really was something raised by "several" people, it was not a theme that came up in every conversation.

I understood this to be about the principle of non-entitlement, and what that principle ulimately implies about how funds should flow within the Wikimedia movement. None of the people I spoke with argued explicitly against that principle, but I sensed they were scratching their heads a little to think about whether their was some limit to this - how much funds should flow from north to south, from "haves" to "have nots" in the movement. They were drawing a contrast between the Wikimedia movement and the UNDP or Oxfam.

As one other point of context, the people who raised this were representatives of chapters in the "Global North" that have received grants from the Wikimedia Foundation and/or who have payment processed in past years, so these are individuals who represent entities that have benefited from movement funds. Perhaps they were concerned that they would receive less funds in the future if the priority was on funding groups in other areas? Of course, that may be reading too much into their comments. Does that help? LauraL TBG (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)