- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
I strongly oppose this recommendation. We should continue to use revenue from the Global North to support Wikimedia work in the Global South, for example. Libcub (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
WMF in essence is doing this, by prioritizing away from established projects. and the grant process is project not program focused. you have community health debt, and other WMF priorities that others may not fund. i.e. you may want things done that will not be done if you do not resource them. you also lose influence when you are not supporting with resources. you would need to resource training in fund raising, and in financial management going forward. Slowking4 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
How is this principle to be applied?Edit
I am struggling a bit to understand how this would be applied, although I do have sympathy for the underlying concept. For example, many affiliates (particularly those centered in the global north) could hypothetically become self-sufficient now (although probably with reduction in activity), but it would be nearly impossible for affiliates centered in other regions (particularly those in the global south) to be entirely self-sufficient while also carrying out the activities that will lead to movement-wide diversity and development. Is there provision for the idea of "seed funding" to help new groups or affiliates start up? How does this mesh with similar proposals from Resource Allocation? Risker (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Risker: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Resource Allocation/Recommendations/G mentions allocating funds for developing both "absorption capacities" and fundraising capacities for groups in the Global South. Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Revenue Streams/Recommendations/2 also mentions a "support function" for local fundraising, which may be relevant. --Yair rand (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand that this may be implied by "given the methods at their disposal", but saying that all actors should strive to be financially self-sustainable is at risk of putting at a disadvantage some organizations depending on their context. We should expect that some actors will always financially support other actors. - Laurentius (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The role of movement fundsEdit
Some of the funds we raise are linked to one specific organization, because they are a specific consequence of its activity (e.g., grants, donations for specific project, earned income, etc.). Currently, however, most of the funds are raised because of the collective effort of the movement, especially through the banners ("movement funds"). If every actor is independent, what shall we do with movement money? - Laurentius (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Independence of the Wikimedia FoundationEdit
Becoming financially independent would be difficult for many movement actors, but, because of its sheer size, it would be especially difficult for the Wikimedia Foundation, that currently has expenses for approximately 100 M$ most of which are covered with movement funds. It would probably take all the time until 2030 to make the Wikimedia Foundation financially independent!
(I've not read enough of these draft recommendations to see whether there is the recommendation to keep the Wikimedia Foundation or not, but even if it's not, its activities will be arranged in some other way, thus the comment applies anyway) - Laurentius (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems to conflict with many recommendations from other working groupsEdit
I'm sure you've already had this feedback in other forms, but many other working groups are making recommendations that assume that financial resources will flow from regions that are wealthy to regions that are "cash-poor" in order to grow the movement and support global objectives. I have a hard time seeing how many of the proposals from other groups could be carried out globally, particularly in developing communities, without financial support from other areas. For example...if a movement organization is to start in 2025, where does the seed money come from? How do they raise funds for an organization that doesn't yet exist, and has no chance of formalization until they raise a certain amount of money? Risker (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, even in globally wealthy areas there will be embryonic activities that cannot be self funded at the start. DGG (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The working group shall clarify what is "financially self-sustaining". Is it 100% of the revenues or 50%? Pyb (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan SalonEdit
Original text here.
We think it is a desirable recommendation, as long as approaches are framed in logics of sustainable growth.
Must be careful with the possible vices of economic or budgetary management, which can lead to inequal situations between affiliates when it comes to supporting less-favored affiliates or in situations of greater difficulty.