On 21.05.2014 03:09, Stevie Benton wrote:
Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the
community that the
Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has
given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF
board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us
from this year’s fundraiser.
On 21.05.2014 09:37, Michael Maggs wrote:
This has been the case for the last two years, so
although the
decision for this year is disappointing in practice nothing has
changed.
We have written an open letter to Sue about this
decision. A copy of
our letter to Sue can be found here [1] on the Wikimedia UK wiki.
[1]
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non…
On 21.05.2014 09:10, Deskana wrote:
For those not up on the governance, what are the
practical
ramifications of this for the chapter?
On 21.05.2014 09:37, Michael Maggs wrote:
The major effects are the movement will still not
benefit from the
available Gift Aid of perhaps £300,000 annually, and that donor
details remain held by the WMF in the US. The charity’s lack of
access to donor details hinders us from engaging with UK donors,
keeping funds flowing without repeated public appeals, and converting
donors into supporters and volunteers.
On 21.05.2014 09:39, rexx wrote:
There are two practical implications:
1. It means that nobody receives Gift Aid on the
donations taken by
the WMF which originated in the UK. Our donors who wish to make use
of
Gift Aid are denied the opportunity and the movement as a whole loses
around £200,000 - £300,000 which would be claimable from HMRC
Given we're not a <cough> 'large multinational online retailer'
<cough>, what's claimed can't exactly be taken and spent outside the
country.
(obviously monies that are claimed back by WMUK would
reduce the
amount that we ask for from the FDC).
Perhaps 'chump change' in-comparison, but in-country processing is
fractionally cheaper. Once set up, it is less-likely to put 'fraud
prevention' hurdles in front of potential donors.
2. It insulates us from our donors. We have no means
of establishing
a
relationship with the huge donor base in the UK, which prevents us
from encouraging them into playing more of a role in the Wikimedia
movement.
This is the most-damaging aspect of not trusting WMUK to act as a fund
processor.
On 21.05.2014 11:43, Charles Matthews wrote:
Heres an argument on your side of the case, though:
the feedback from
the fundraiser, particularly from old dears who have sent a cheque
"because Wikipedia is the best thing on the Internet", is motivating
like little else.
Of course it would be an improvement if WMUK did
payment processing,
but, as I must have said before (on the wiki), not going to happen
simply by playing the "autonomy" card, because that has been done.
I think the 'open letter' is the only reasonable response Wikimedia UK,
as a registered charity, can give. They can hardly boycott Wikimania in
protest, can they?
The Charities Commission can't help here either; all they can do is
stand on the sidelines, shaking their heads, as the WMF rejects hundreds
of thousands of pounds of British taxpayers' money. Money that, given
the rich multicultural nature of our society, could be used to help
increase contributors across poorly-served languages.
I hope the WMF are keeping their fingers, and toes, crossed about none
of the UK's capricious press picking this up and running with it. All I
can see are the highly-negative ways in which they could spin it, and
damage public goodwill towards the movement.
Brian McNeil
--
Wikinewsie.org |
http://wikinewsie.org |
https://en.wikinews.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."
GPG Fingerprint: 7C3D FFD5 5ED5 B80F 1D18 A52B E84C 8928 6ABC A7AD