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)