Talk:2012 Activity Plan

Fundraising

The plan currently shows direct debits being a very small portion of fundraising revenue. I would advise trying to make it a very large portion. It should be the default option when people click "donate" (I would suggest radio buttons for monthly, quarterly, annually and one-off, with monthly being the default). Not everyone will want to set up a direct debit, but you should try your best to get them to. Having a large amount coming in each month from direct debits will give the chapter a lot more stability and security. It will also be less dependant on future fundraisers, making it more independent of the WMF. --Tango 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input as always. Chris is a professional charity fundraiser and is very much on top of this. I trust his estimates, and would rather the error be on the side of underestimating, rather than have "a very large portion" of our income not materialise. MartinPoulter 23:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Although you are right to think that DD is an advantage Victuallers 00:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right the ideal would be to get a higher proportion of Direct Debits, yielding the same total income. The focus on our fundraising testing will be to increase the proportion of DDs without reducing the total income, but it is really difficult to forecast whether we'll end up with 5% of donors on DD or 10% or 50%! So for planning purposes I've made a fairly cautious assumption of about 10% of value being DDs, but we can refine that rather further when we have more evidence. The Land 08:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If we get charitable status 50% ticking the UK taxpayer box strikes me as a very prudent estimate. Nothing wrong in prudence, I just hope that our aspirations are higher. I've seen this well above 50%, and I suspect that our profile is more skewed to UK taxpayers than some UK charities, aside from our age profile we hopefully don't get many nonUK donors as they'd go to the Foundation or other chapters. WereSpielChequers 09:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The sector average is 40%, according to the NCVO/CAF report on UK Giving 2010. The highest I've seen is c.80%. You're right about our donor profile - so we could certainly do better than 50%, but it's difficult to forecast before we actually do it. The Land 10:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The age profile you mention could be important. I suspect we get a lot of donations from students (the donor comments the WMF has got would support that), who don't pay tax. I think 50% is probably a good working estimate, although I certainly hope we can get more. --Tango 15:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Events

You currently have money allocated to events under the event manager and to GLAM, which I understand is mostly going to be events. You either need to divide the budget by type of activity (events, partnerships, technology, etc.) or by what it's trying to achieve (education, GLAM, etc.). At the moment, you have a bit of both, which causes double counting. I would suggest dividing things by what it achieves, although that does mean that salaries get split between different budgets if someone works on different things (you could try having an "events" budget a "GLAM" budget and then have intra-company transfers from one to the other, but that's probably best kept to the formal accounts rather than the fundraising literature). --Tango 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that dividing things by purpose is a good theoretical idea, but it can make the central role of budgeting - monitoring and controlling costs - quite difficult to do in practice. Most organisations keep salary costs together for this purpose given that they are relatively fixed and controlled primarily through HR processes, rather than those that are controlled through procurement processes. I am proposing we do it this way for 2012. We are looking to develop our systems for monitoring the effectiveness of our activities, but not all of this necessarily sits under the budgeting process. AndrewRT 00:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me

This looks good to me.

I would like to see a pilot Oral Citations project as part of the World War project - offering some money to other projects which record reminiscences if they let us put the recordings on Commons. That doesn't need a separate heading - there are a number of heading here you could make payments under.

Good Luck--Filceolaire 21:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Filceolaire. Oral citations is an interesting area as some of the Global South regard oral citation as a reliable source. The money reserved for this project should be able to include work of this type if we can integrate it into our/the projects. Victuallers 00:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Eggs, baskets, bank failures

Reserves of £145k, average cash in hand of £500k.... may I suggest that if you haven't already done so you make sure you have this split between multiple banking groups? Aside from the disruption if our banker folded, I think some of the bank rescues have fallen disproportionately heavily on larger deposits. Concentrating the money would maximise interest earnings, but at a time of low interest rates and high financial insecurity a strategy of prudent diversity is probably better than one of simplicity and revenue maximisation. WereSpielChequers 09:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes we have started that already. We are covered by the £85,000 Financial Services Compensation Scheme insurance limit, and aim to split our money so that any exposure about that level is acceptable. AndrewRT 09:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm reassured to here that. You might want to put something in your plan to the effect that rather than seeking to maximise interest the charity has a a strategy of prudent diversity in the banking of its funds. WereSpielChequers 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How is this money being spent?

I have looked carefully at this page but it is not clear exactly how the money is going to be spent. In particular, is all spending consistent with the objectives of Wikimedia UK? And is it consistent with what donors expect their money to be spent on? Given that donors are likely to have come via the WMUK banner reached from Wikipedia, they will expect their money to be spent on Wikipedia itself. Which is not the case. See my post on Beyond Necessity today. Peter Damian 17:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the plan is pretty clear. If you let us know which parts are difficult to understand, I'm sure the board would be happy to clarify them. WMUK's objectives are here (they were recently re-written to make it clearer how our work is charitable under UK law and the members approved the new version at an EGM) and I think everything in the plan falls within those objectives. Are there any specific planned activities that you think aren't within those objectives? A very large proportion of WMUK's spending is intended to improve Wikipedia or to help people make better use of Wikipedia (both through funding the WMF and through direct spending in the UK). Some things are a little more general and support free and open content on more than just Wikipedia, but they are still in keeping with the movement donors are choosing the support. This plan was published to that donors could see what we plan to do with their money, so if donors don't like what we're planning to do they are welcome to just not donate. --Tango 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you a board member? I would prefer someone from the board to start the dialogue, or someone acting for the board. Are you acting for the board? I wrote to Roger Bamkin twice, no reply. I also have contacted the trustees via Stone King, WMUK solicitors. Objective one: agree that the dialogue can be started. I am happy to visit WMUK offices (Leonard St) any time. Best Peter Damian 08:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Tango isn't a current board member, but he's very knowledgeable about what WMUK has been doing, and is planning to do - so it's worth listening to what he's saying. I think he's replied to your questions above, so I won't duplicate what he's already said. Mike Peel 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Another separate question I have is why Stone King's press release said that "Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia so that it was not easily open to abuse". This seems to contradict the statement on your Main Page that "we are a separate organization from the Wikimedia Foundation, and have no control over Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation projects. This disclaimer was added by Mike Peel in June 2009. But, as I say, we need to start the dialogue first. Peter Damian 08:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That quote isn't in Stone King's press release; it appears to come from the article in ThirdSector, and it is a misquote. It should have said something more along the lines of 'Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that high standards were in place for controlling and monitoring' etc. - the control and monitoring is done by the online community, and by the Wikimedia Foundation where needed - obviously not by Wikimedia UK. Mike Peel 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK that makes more sense. Well, slightly more. So WMUK only has to demonstrate that high standards are in place for controlling and monitoring, and not to ensure. Correct? How does it "demonstrate" this though? BTW I suggested to Bamkin on Commons that we continue the discussion more formally, now that you know what I am asking about. Can you suggest a venue? Peter Damian 13:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter, I'm not sure where these two emails to me are. I have searched my email account for your surname and not found them on a note addressed to me. I have found your comment on my account on Commons but I see that Mike has addressed your concern above over the Stone King announcement. Would it be a good idea to keep these discussions in one place? Could I suggest here. Victuallers 16:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi I sent to roger.bamkinwikimedia.org.uk. Is that not correct? Note also the correct surname in my signature below, to avoid all confusion. Mike has addressed the first question, but has not answered the second, namely to clarify whether WMUK still has to demonstrate hat high standards are in place for controlling and monitoring. Happy to keep the discussion here, but there is a bit still on your page at Commons. Regards Edward Buckner 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Charity Commission has approved WMUK's application, so they clearly feel that WMUK has sufficiently demonstrated that high standards are ensured. That involved explaining, and providing evidence for, what processes exist to ensure high standards (most of which are processes implemented by and performed by the volunteer community, with a few extra processes handled by the WMF over certain legal matters). I am unclear on why you feel a more formal discussion is required. WMUK's charity status is a matter between WMUK and the Charity Commission. You have no formal involvement in it. In the interests of transparency, I and the WMUK board are happy to answer your questions (as I believe we have now done here), but a formal discussion would suggest that WMUK has some formal duty to explain these things to you, which it does not. --Tango 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You are free not to discuss it, of course. I will then simply send my own submission to the Charity Commission without consulting WMUK. (Adding that WMUK did not want to discuss it, of course). I am still happy to consult with you first, though. Peter Damian 21:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So far though, none of you is scoring very high on "willingness to disclose basic information to the public" [1]. Public utility was the key to getting charitable status for WMUK. That requires satisfying the Charity Commission on the 'high standards and controls' of Wikipedia. Are you saying that the Commission simply took Wikipedia's word about the high standards? Or was information provided to the Commission to satisfy them? If so, I would like to see that information. That is what I call "basic disclosure to the public". I am a UK taxpayer, by the way. Peter Damian 21:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify, I wasn't saying we wouldn't discuss the matter with you. This is, after all, a discussion about it. I was saying that I don't understand your request for a "formal" discussion. I'm not aware of any formalities that exist for this kind of discussion, since there is no legal requirement for us to enter into it at all. I'm happy to continue this discussion, though. As I said above, WMUK gave the Charity Commission detailed explanations and evidence about the standards and controls on Wikipedia. Those standards and controls are all publicly available in the project namespace on Wikipedia and they are well known to you, since you've been involved in Wikipedia for a long time. I don't know if WMUK can publish the actual submissions to the CC (that would probably require the permission of the lawyers that write them), but I'm sure the board will publish them if they can. If might help, however, if you explained your concerns. Are you concerned that Wikipedia is not of a high enough standard to be of public utility? If so, then please rest assured that the Charity Commission gave that question a lot of very careful consideration and asked lots of questions about it. They wouldn't have given us charity status if they hadn't been completely satisfied that we were charitable under UK law. If you think the CC has erred, however, you are welcome to contact them. I doubt you can raise any issues they haven't already considered, though, since they considered pretty much every conceivable issue. --Tango 23:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Damian, what are you submitting to the charity commission? --Bodnotbod 11:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see below.Peter Damian 18:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Can the chapter do more?

So far, WMUK "involvement" in events has pretty much consisted of the board approving a budget and leaving volunteers to get on with it, expecting the volunteers to fork out for most things, to be reimbursed in a far-from-timely fashion. I would like two things developed in the new year:

• The first, for those of us who like (or don't mind) organising events without any logistical support from WMUK, would be the prompt repayment of expenses upon submission of receipts—with "prompt", I'm thinking within a week at the absolute maximum unless there are complications, and if that's not possible under the current set-up, I would respectfully suggest hiring an employee with responsibility for prompt checking and payment of expenses.
• The second would be more logistical support from WMUK in the setting up and running of events—once a volunteer has made initial contact, they should be able to contact the board or the events organiser once we have one and request that they handle things like recruiting volunteers, hiring venues, and actually making the arrangements, and that somebody from WMUK (volunteer, staff, or board member, but with experience of running WMUK events) turn up on the day to ensure things run smoothly.

I think that volunteers who might not want to organise and run their own event might be more inclined to make the initial first steps if the chapter provided more support, and (having attended and run several events recently) I can provide anecdotal evidence of volunteers being reluctant to come to help at events or reluctant to submit a claim because of the lethargy of the current expenses system. This is not intended as a criticism of an organisation with only a year or so of regular events under its belt, but rather something that could be improved now that the chapter has a healthy budget and plenty of event management experience among its volunteers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, you raise some very good points that we've discussed on our internal lists... Prompt repayment of expenses is something we've improved on over the past few months, but it's still not as good as it should be, and there are still delays where there shouldn't be. Part of the delay occurs in getting the expenses properly checked, and making sure we're not paying for inappropriate things like champagne dinners or first class flights. That said, there was a rather in-depth discussion of it at the board meeting that was live streamed last weekend, and the final word on the subject is that no volunteer should ever be out of pocket. I feel obliged to point out that if a volunteer is not happy to wait for re-imbursement, they can - and should - ask for the funds or the tickets/bookings to be provided in advance, which we'll happily do so. Once the permanent Office Manager is in place (which is not long now), we will have a centralised system in place, and things will move an awful lot more quickly with regard to expenses.

As to the running of events, this is something that would fall mostly under the purview of the events organiser, so I'm a little wary to dictate what might happen or how they might run things. Certainly, more logistical support at events - especially major ones - is required, but I have to admit that support of smaller events, especially those in locations like Scotland, Wales or the South Coast, might be a little haphazard until after the fundraiser finishes. Perhaps a member of the Board could elaborate further on the above points? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Further to what Richard said - we'll shortly be recruiting for an Events Manager position. This person will be able to organise a certain number of events for us, which will be helpful. The won't, however, be able to implement every great idea the community has - there is an inexhaustible supply of great ideas, but even where there is some staff resource, it won't be inexhaustible... The Land 20:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Edward Buckner

Draft of the summary of my proposed submission to the UK Charity Commission

Here is a draft of the main points of my submission to the Charity Commission, which I will send later this month, or in December. This summarises why I don't think Wikipedia serves as a 'general public utility', backed up by detailed appendices. It will be supported by detailed appendices (not supplied here).

1. Wikipedia has limited controls over slanderous BLPs, for four main reasons.
   1. Victims of BLP abuse have no right or ability to redress. WMF and WMUK have no power to control Wikipedia.
   2. 'Outing' by anonymous editors has always been part of the culture of Wikipedia, and would be difficult to eradicate without alienating a significant and vocal part of the community. (I give three examples of senior or once-senior Wikipedians who are guilty of this.
   3. BLP violations are difficult to spot anyway. I have numerous examples of violations that were only recently spotted, or have not been spotted at all!
   4. Wikipedia's administration takes an aggressive attitude towards whistleblowers. Serious or severe criticism is frequently treated as disruption or 'personal attack', and the whistleblowers are blocked or site banned. (As you know, there are interesting examples of that).
2. Wikipedia has limited control to ensure the quality of serious encyclopedic content.
   1. One reason is well-known, outlined by Larry Sanger briefly here, and in more detail in an article published in Episteme. "... many Wikipedia articles, especially outside more technical and “hard” disciplines, are persistently mediocre. The cause, I claim, is ultimately that the know-nothings can drive off the know-somethings in the inevitably many content disputes over such “soft” topics. It seems that the failure of Wikipedia to vest experts with any decisionmaking authority partly explains the intractability of disputes in Wikipedia and the allegedly observed tendency of expert-crafted articles to deteriorate over time – to descend to the level of mediocrity with which the most persistent Wikipedians feel comfortable, as it were."
   2. This hypothesis will be supported this by informal but expert evaluations of articles in my specialist area (philosophy and medieval philosophy), as well as by attestations from the subject matter experts still working on Wikipedia.
   3. I will also give numerous examples of fringe groups gaming the system, and of serious errors that took months or even years to pick up.
   4. There are also many examples of members of the administration 'gaming the system' to produce significant bias.
3. Wikipedia has a monopoly on knowledge, which is detrimental to the general public interest.
   1. I will explain the 'Google effect' to the Charity Commission. For example, Googling 'Aristotle' returns the Wikipedia article, in preference to the IEP and Stanford articles, even though it is grossly inferior, and inaccurate in parts. Similarly for William of Ockham, Duns Scotus etc. The article on Wittgenstein's Tractatus contains a gross inaccuracy introduced by an editor three months ago, and which I am watching with interest to see by who and when it will be spotted. But it is returned first by Google.
   2. Wikipedia favours outbound links to other non-profit Wiki projects, and also commercial wiki projects such as Wikia, and has even been known to delete links to other free content projects that do not fall under the 'Wikipedia' model of open (i.e. freely editable) content. This will deter those who want to provide free content, but outside Wikipedia.
   3. Wikipedia has no recognised watchdog, even though it is relied on as the main source of information for billions of people. As noted above, it is hostile to criticism, and is a closed community, with an administration promoted from 'within the ranks'. This applies to the trustees of WMUK, in my view [2].

Please note it is still in draft. Comments welcome. Edward 17:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this with us. I believe your points are all either irrelevant to WMUK's charity status or have already been considered by the Charity Commission and deemed not to be a block to that charity status. I don't think there is any point in us trying to argue against the points you make, since they are generally factually accurate (albeit with a lot of spin on them) and the only thing we disagree on is the interpretation of them and their relevance to charity status under UK law. Therefore, I suggest you simply submit your thoughts to the Charity Commission and let them decide if they have merit. Please note, I do not represent WMUK and that is simply a personal opinion. The WMUK board may wish to engage in further discussion with you - that is their choice. --Tango 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Each of the three points is clearly relevant to public utility. It is not in the public interest to have slanderous biographies published in an encyclopedia, without controls. It is not in the public interest to have poor and biased information on serious educational subjects. It is not in the public interest to have a single, closed organisation controlling content that is #1 in a Google search. We need to find out what the Charity Commission thinks, but I suspect they have only seen evidence presented by WMUK, which may not have mentioned the BLP problem, or the quality problem etc. Edward 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, the public would be better served if problematic BLPs didn't exist and if all the articles were of excellent quality, but there is no requirement in UK charity law for a charity to be perfect. Wikipedia being of public utility simply means that it is useful to the public. The Charity Commission gave a lot of consideration to whether Wikipedia is of sufficient quality to be considered useful and clearly their conclusion was that it is, since they granted us charity status. I haven't seen the final submissions by WMUK, but I did see the Charity Commission's response to the initial application and it was full of questions about quality, so there is no way WMUK could have chosen not to provide evidence on that. I can't remember if BLPs were specifically mentioned by the CC, but I would be very surprised if WMUK hadn't mentioned the BLP policies when they were explaining the controls that are in place (a member of the board can confirm that). --Tango 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"I haven't seen the final submissions by WMUK" well that is exactly what I would like to see. Regulators like the CC rely entirely on good-faith submissions by regulated entities. Of course WMUK has a vested interest in not mentioning the BLP problem. The fact that only you are replying to this immediately suggests they haven't. This is all about public disclosure.

Also, it's not just about "problematic BLPs" existing. It's that the whole structure and legal responsibility of WMUK and Wikipedia is problematic, and provides no appropriate control. That is far more telling. Do the UK CC fully understand this? When will I get a reply from WMUK, who are carefully ignoring all these questions? I appreciate eventually they will block me for asking these questions, as is Wikipedia culture, but that's not going to stop me asking. Edward 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to have a little more faith in the ability of the CC to do its job. If they had just trusted WMUK to be telling them the truth and telling them everything they needed to know, it wouldn't have taken 3 years to get charitable status. It took that long because the CC were very reluctant to recognise us as a charity until they completely understood everything about us. --Tango 21:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Peter, you seem to have a few misconceptions which I (as a member, but no official representative of WMUK) would like to discuss. The first is that you seem to be expecting some embodiment of WMUK to descend from the heavens. That's not going to happen because there is no such person—you're talking to several WMUK members and I gather you've had at least some conversation with three board members, so to say that WMUK are "carefully ignoring all these questions" is simply not true. I'm not privy to the letters between WMUK and the Charity Commission, but I would think that the CC has enough experience at what it does to not grant charity status where the requirements are not fulfilled, and I gather that some of the letters spanned multiple sheets of paper, so they were obviously keen to make sure that everything was in order. Most of the rest of what you have to say looks like bitter rambling to me. I haven't looked into the circumstances surrounding your involuntary departure from the English Wikipedia, so you may or may not have a legitimate grievance, but it has nothing to do with WMUK's charity status. I will, however, attempt to address your specific points in order:

1. "limited control"
   1. Speaking as an OTRS agent, I can tell you they have a mechanism to get the problem fixed. The courts are a final avenue through which to seek redress, and it's telling that no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS.
   2. Bollocks. There may be a few examples of that in ancient history, but it's far from common practice, and I've personally blocked editors for that sort of behaviour before.
   3. Yes, they are, and many volunteers work their arses off trying to head those sorts of problems off or resolve them once they get noticed, but nobody patrolling recent changes is going to know everything about every one of Wikipedia's ~500k living subjects. Gross errors have also been known to occur in the news media and conventional encyclopaedia—it's a fact of life that something is going to go wrong somewhere, and I think it speaks well of Wikipedia that BLP violations (however seemingly trivial) are removed on sight and that we have editors who devote a lot of their own time to investigating more complicated BLP issues.
   4. I think you may be letting perceptions of your own treatment on Wikipedia (about which I don't know enough to make a judgement) cloud your judgement, or you may be recalling the days when Jimmy Wales effectively ran the project. If you have recent examples that a neutral person would think typify Wikipedia's attitude toward "whistleblowers", I'd be curious to see examples.
2. Quality
   1. Yes, it's true, many Wikipedia articles are far from the standard they could be, or would be in a conventional encyclopaedia written by professionals, but I think the overall quality is remarkably good, especially when one considers that it was written by volunteers in their spare time. And Larry Sanger is hardly impartial—he makes an occupation out of moaning about Wikipedia to anybody who'll listen.
   2. See previous.
   3. My comments above about BLPs apply to your comments about quality
   4. That some people chose to abuse Wikipedia is not Wikipedia's fault, not the WMF's fault, and not WMUK's fault and Wikipedia is far from the only public utility that has ever been abused. I've addressed the "serious errors" part above, I think.
   5. "The administration"? That sounds like a euphemism for "cabal" to me, and that's a load of rubbish—the project works on the basis of consensus. As for the alleged abuse of Wikipedia by The Administration™, see my previous point.
3. "Monopoly on knowledge"

   That's plainly not true. If you want to read a scholarly source of information, search a scholarly database instead of Google; if you don't want to read a Wikipedia article, filter your search engine results, read a book or find some other way of getting your knowledge. A monopoly on knowledge is the antithesis of Wikipedia's aim.

4. We're discussing WMUK's charity status, not Google's. Your complaint would be better taken up with Google, because, to the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't manipulate search engine results (and Google is no the only search engine that will return a Wikipedia article in its top five results for man searches).
5. Again, I'm struggling to see the relevance of this to WMUK's charity status (and many Wikipedians would say that's a good thing, not a bad one). "Hostile to criticism", you may have a legitimate complaint, but not one relevant to charity status; "closed community" is bollocks—I've run several events recently for WMUK explicitly aimed at attracting new editors, and new editors join al the time; again with The Administration™ "this applies to WMUK trustees", they're elected from the candidates who put themselves forward and I would point out that half of the trustees don't hold any sort of position on Wikipedia—the board is elected by the membership on merit as trustees/directors and not appointed by men in grey suits in some smoke-filled room as you seem to be implying. I note with interest though, that you readily associate yourself with a website whose members are currently treating one such trustee in a manner deserving of nothing but utter contempt, and that you would criticise Wikipedia for being at least an attempt at a serious educational product while you're happy for one of its volunteers to be treated in such a way really suggests that you are on a petty, spiteful, and vindictive campaign against Wikipedia and anyone or anything associated with it rather than raising legitimate concerns which is probably why the reception you have received here thus far has been so frosty. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but

Thanks for the comments above. The submission will be supported by appendices. My main puzzle is that no one seems to know what was in the application, or what the CC asked. As far as I know, the CC does not make any independent investigation or audit, and relies entirely on the submission of the applicant, and any supporting correspondence. Let's start with the simple question of whether the CC asked about the BLP problem at all. That is surely easy to answer. Edward 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have located the application in 2009, which apparently failed. There must be a more recent application which refers to the 'monitoring and controls' aspect, and particularly the controls over BLPs. Peter Damian 20:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As I'm sure you are aware some respected law firms were involved in the submission. Are you suggesting that they would be involved in any attempt to mislead the charity commission?Geni 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter/Edward - I am surprised by your tone. You have placed here long detailed documents which have been answered to the best of people's ability. I have asked that we discuss this here but you are still leaving notes to me in several places. I can see that you may feel that you are not getting the attention that you deserve but I think that the Charity Commission would be surprised to find how quickly that the majority of your enquiries are being addressed. I realise it may be rhetorc but saying things like "no one seems to know what was in the application" is obviously incorrect and undermines other information you offer. The lawyers who received it, the CC and the many people who prepared the application were obviously aware. If you want a quick guess answer then you can have it now. If you want a more precise and cited reply then this will take time. Please show some patience. (I have asked you before). This may be very important to you, but we do have other items and people to serve. At the moment I have three urgent sounding requests in three different places to deal with and they are all from you I believe. Please be patient. Victuallers 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, nothing has been answered at all. The people who did reply (Tango, HJ Mitchell) both say they were not privy to any correspondence between CC and WMUK, so nothing they say could be relevant. Why can't this correspondence be published, in the interests of public disclosure? I simply want to understand what due diligence was performed by the CC, via the WMUK solicitors, and how it was answered. On the question of whether the solicitors "were involved in any attempt to mislead" - the solicitors will rely on WMUK to answer all questions in good faith. To be blunt, did WMUK mislead its solicitors and the charity commission? Why can't WMUK supply any form of documentation, or at least say what was in it? Is WMUK really committed to openness and transparency and public disclosure? Peter Damian 09:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's private correspondence, so I assume one would need the permission for its release from the author(s) and addressee(s), and only then if WMUK's lawyers felt it was in the charity's best interest. That's not going to happen overnight, so I can only suggest you follow Roger's advice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would it not be in the charity's best interest? Peter Damian 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

<------------ See the link here about the UK council for psychotherapy publishing their entire correspondence with the charity commission "following nearly five months of selected quotes from the correspondence being published and circulated questioning our position with the Charity Commission and damaging our reputation". "This was done in a spirit of openness and transparency". Presumably their commitement to "openness and transparency" is not shared by WMUK, despite their public commitment to 'free and open knowledge'. The point is that the longer WMUK refuses to publish any of this correspondence, the more the public will be wondering why they don't want to. We still don't even know who the correspondence was between. Peter Damian 13:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Two points here: first, "following nearly five months..." would seem to back up my above suggestion; second, you "don't even know who the correspondence was between"—please don't assume that others have paid such little attention or done such obviously little research. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean we, the taxpaying public don't know. Clearly someone knows, at least on the assumption that no one has not lost the correspondence. Peter Damian 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

On having to wait for 5 months, do we really have to go through 5 months waiting for WMUK to find bits of correspondence with its lawyers, or obfuscating or delaying or having people like you give irrelevant replies to my questions. Very well, but it seems a complete waste of time for us taxpayers. Peter Damian 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The hallmarks of a good charity

Set out by UKCC here. A good charity

• complies with its legal obligations (and best practice), as set out in the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP), to produce annual accounts and a report which includes an explanation of what the charity has done for the public benefit during the year
• explains in its Annual Report the extent to which it has achieved its charitable purposes in a way that people with an interest in the charity can understand
• has well-publicised, effective and timely procedures for dealing with complaints about the charity and its activities. These should explain how complaints and appeals can be made, and give details of the process and likely timescales ["be patient" I think is not enough. Giving a process and a delivery date would be fine ]
• can show how it involves beneficiaries and service users in the development and improvement of its services; the contribution may have been by way of the appointment of beneficiaries as trustees or their involvement through discussion, consultation or user group input;
• has a communications plan which ensures that accurate and timely information is given to everyone with an interest in the work of the charity, including the media, donors and beneficiaries.

Peter Damian 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the CC guidance. Those are not the hallmarks. Those are a breakdown of one of the hallmarks ("Accountable and Transparent"). However, it is important that WMUK meets that hallmark, so let's take them one at a time.

1. The annual report for 2010/2011 is here: File:Wikimedia_UK_accounts_31_January_2011.pdf (I'm not sure why that file is called "Accounts" and is on the "Finances" page, it's actually the annual report, of which the accounts are only one part - I'll boldly sort that out in a minute).
2. There is section in the report explaining what the chapter has done, although it is fairly brief. Now we have paid staff, it should be possible to devote the time to future annual reports that stakeholders deserve.
3. That's a good point. Do we have a published complaints procedure? If so, I can't find it. I suggest the Board instruct the CE to make sorting this out a top priority, if it isn't already (I know the CE is already prioritising sorting out our policies and procedures, so this one may well already be on his to-do list).
4. Our beneficiaries and users are, essentially, the 400+ million unique visitors to the Wikimedia sites each month. Involving them is a little tricky, since there are just too many of them. We do, however, have a very open policy on who can join the chapter and the entire board is elected by the members in a completely open election. That tends to mean we're involving our volunteers rather than our beneficiaries, since it's normally editors rather than readers than join. I don't really see how we could do much better on this point, but I would be interested in any suggestions you may have.
5. Gemma Griffiths, who has provided the chapter with a lot of pro-bono communications consulting, did put together a communications plan while I was on the board, if memory serves. I'm not sure if that was ever published (although the hallmark doesn't say it needs to be, it probably wouldn't hurt to do so) and I don't know if it has been updated since then. I do know Jon, our new CE, is planning to hire someone to concentrate on communications (with the press, volunteers, donors, etc.) soon (I can't see it being advertised yet, but I don't think it will be long) so you can expect a lot of improvement on this point.

So, in summary, we seem to be doing fairly well in terms of accountability and transparency and in those areas where we are falling short there is either a good reason or a plan to improve the situation (or both). --Tango 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot open the pdf. In any case, it is not enough to say what the chapter has done, it must "explain in its Annual Report the extent to which it has achieved its charitable purposes in a way that people with an interest in the charity can understand". On the beneficiaries of Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, not by WMUK. How are the activities of WMUK (which do not involve running Wikipedia) achieving the charitable objectives? Thanks Peter Damian 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The PDF works for me, could you try it again? I just moved it to a new name, so perhaps you tried to access it while it was mid-move and something went wrong. There is an "Objectives and Activities" section and a "Achievements and Performance" section, which are intended to show how we've furthered our objects but, as I mentioned, they are extremely short due to the board having limited time. I'm sure the 2011/2012 report, which should be published by the AGM (which seems to be planned for May, although I can't see an exact date announced yet), will be much more detailed now we have staff to help out. As the report says, WMUK's objects are primarily achieved by supporting and promoting Wikipedia. While WMUK doesn't run the site, it does support it, both through direct activities and by donating a large portion of its budget (roughly 50%) to the WMF. --Tango 17:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add to my comment about the lack of published complaints procedure: while there isn't a policy anywhere I can find, our Office Administrator, Richard, has recently (at my request) started summarising what complaints the charity is receiving and what is being done with them. You can find the summary here, particularly in the linked notes at the bottom. I think that is an excellent example of the charity behaving transparently, so thank you very much, Richard. --Tango 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look.Ed 23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tried, but still can't open it. Peter Damian 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the PDF. If that doesn't work, then I guess there is something wrong at your end - can you open other PDFs? --Tango 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP

I have managed to have a brief conversation regarding whether BLP policy was raised in our conversations with the Charity Commission and I can confirm that it was. We certainly mentioned the case of John Seigenthaler and the Commission would have been able to find our improved BLP policy. Can I also take this opportunity to thank Harry and Tango for the patient way they are dealing with your enquiries. Victuallers 17:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)