Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Revenue Streams

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

We invite everyone to have a look at the existing documentation of the Working Groups, and then add comments, additional input or share concerns via this talk page. Your comments will be taken into consideration by the respective Working Groups.

Financial transparency[edit]

Per my discussion with Kaarel, I request that the Resource Allocation, Revenue Streams, and Roles & Responsibilities groups include the subject of financial transparency in their list of priorities to address. My belief is that the standard for financial transparency for affiliates and for the WMF should be very high, including transparency of all spending on salaries, bonuses, severance packages, and other benefits for individual staff. This level of transparency makes accountability easier and also facilities more thorough public reviews of organizational budgets, spending, and annual plans. Regards, --Pine 07:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation publishes its spending on salaries, benefits, etc. as part of its annual financial reports; see, for example, page 3 of the 2017-2018 financial report which gives the amount spent on salaries to the dollar. If you mean publishing these down to the individual level, then there is absolutely zero chance of that happening—personal privacy of those involved should be respected. Form 990 does report some of this information for the highest compensated staff, officers of the board, etc. as is legally required, but I am against the Foundation going beyond what is legally required in this area for the aforementioned reasons. --Deskana (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-WMF revenue sources and revenue allocation[edit]

I am very mindful for the potential of conflicts of values, priorities, and interests between WMF and affiliates and individual community members who may want to do funded work. Given WMF's history of clashing with the community on topics such as Superprotect, and its longstanding lack of apology for doing so, I simply distrust the organization to act in the community's best interest as defined by the community. For these reasons I would like there to be significant sources of revenue available for Wikimedia projects which don't go through WMF and which don't require any approvals from WMF, including trademark approvals. I ask the Resource Allocation and Revenue Streams groups to consider how to identify, develop, and facilitate revenue streams for affiliates and individuals who want to do paid Wikimedia work that is independent of WMF for the purpose of limiting conflicts of values, priorities, and interests, especially conflicts of interests arising from financial dependency on WMF. Thank you, --Pine 07:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this. The best and most innovative work in the movement is done by individuals, but for many people who would like to help, some degree of financial support at least for costs is necessary
Additionally, though many WPedians prefer to work totally anonymously, many others want to also work in groups and have at least some degree of personal contact. There needs to be a greatly increased number of meetings--including the most neglected group, WPedians on the various projects working on particular subjects (the medical people have done this , but outside the WMF with non-WMF funding; most other subject groups will not have this sort of potential ) Not just the number and type of meetings, but the available support should be greatly increased--there should be no organizational or financial reason why any highly productive WPedian should be unable to attend several a year if they desire, including at least some of an international nature. the money is available. I agree it is desirable to have an endowment, but it could grow at a slower rate. DGG (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pleasantly surprised to hear this suggestion! Still watch the folks I met at Wikimania many years ago on video and on the mailing lists. Wanted to go to Stockholm, but I'm not certain I'll ever have the funds to attend another international meeting. You're absolutely right about personal contact-- the reason my friends push me to leave Wikipedia is because I'm on the computer instead of collaborating with real living people. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interest in meeting group and maybe joining[edit]

I sent the below text to on 14 June 2019. I got no reply, so I thought that I would cross-post here.

I am writing for to express interest in meeting anyone from the "revenue streams" Wikimedia strategy working group at Wikimania, or to attend any presentation this group may give.

During or after Wikimania, if you are accepting new members, then I would like to apply to join this group.

I am generally interested in revenue into Wikimedia projects. Personally and professionally, I apply for grants and funding for wiki research and programs to foundations other than the Wikimedia Foundation. The revenue group's discussions are interesting to me because I myself often seeking funding for Wikimedia projects. I looked at your groups membership and it seems to be 5 WMF staff, 2 board members from chapters, and 1 volunteer. I would be a volunteer representative who has been getting non-WMF funding since 2012.

Thanks for your attention. I know this is an early request, but I hope that I can meet someone at Wikimania to chat.

I have not been able to find any submission in the Wikimania 2019 program which looked to include a presentation from the revenue team, but I am still interested in this, and thought that I would ask early to try to attend any updates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horrible incompetency[edit]

  • All the members shall be ashamed of writing such vague (and technically clueless) one-line/one-paragraph reports, over the course of months. I could have produced something more than the combined bunch of vague recommendations in about a hour or so; mediocrity and what not. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This response by WMDE to your scoping document (which's equally pathetic) was superbly crafted but you failed to learn/incorporate any lesson/advice. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would not us the words Horrible incompetency but I wonder how these "Recommendations" help in any way? They are unspecific, not even the slightest details and, funny or sad enough it seems there was not even the smallest research: e.g. #3 Merch: NASA makes no money of it but you put it up as an example!? And there is already a store ( - so how is it going? How much potential you asume on what asumption? What would need to change? What kind of merch is probably with the highest margin? ... these "recomendations" are not helpful at all. You could have asked at Wikimania and after half an hour you would have gotten these results as well. A pity ...Sicherlich Post 21:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maximise funds or get the funds that we need?[edit]

I added sub-questions to the question which assumed that we necessarily need to maximise revenue. Since the Wikimedia movement is not a corporation, we are not obliged to maximise returns on investments to shareholders. Purely maximising revenue rather than assessing how much we actually need is not reasonable. Boud (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit got reverted with the argument that these pages are meant to be a frozen archive of 2018-2020 thinking. Boud (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]