Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/2019 Community Conversations/Resource Allocation

Overview

Recommendations

Implementation

Reports

FAQ

Advocacy

Capacity Building

Community Health

Diversity

Partnerships

Product & Technology

Resource Allocation

Revenue Streams

Roles & Responsibilities

Scoping format

What is your area of inquiry?

We are investigating the following aspects of a future resource allocation system. Firstly, there are very broad, structural questions: Structures for resource allocation Decision-making and power Values and Principles (purpose) We are also looking into more specific aspects which we need to design/decide on: Communities that have been left out User/recipients Innovation Leveraging resources (sustainability) Impact (movement and society) Accountability These areas map directly into our scoping questions below. Defining resources is critical to our enquiry. For us, “Resource Allocation” refers to the allocation of a small set of resources that can (or should) be allocated by the Wikimedia movement system to support the 2030 Strategic Direction. We will not consider resources that cannot be allocated in such a way (e.g. grants awarded by non-Wikimedia institutions since they are usually restricted; volunteer time; etc.), or financial resources with localized legal constraints (e.g. membership fees, direct donations beyond the banner, and the endowment). These are the resources we will be considering in our area of inquiry, with some caveats: Monetary: Grants awarded by Wikimedia Foundation, or other Wikimedia Affiliates All funds raised by the banners on Wikimedia sites Caveat: This overlaps with the Revenue Streams Working Group. We want to be future-oriented and acknowledge that other, new sources of monetary funds may arise in the future. Non-monetary: Capacity Caveat: This overlaps with the Capacity Building Working Group. Staff Caveat: We are still discussing this resource, as we aren’t quite clear if “staff” as a resource translates into the money to employ staff or the FTEs themselves. Trademark Caveat: This overlaps with the Roles & Responsibilities Working Group. Platform infrastructure Caveat: We are still discussing if this resource is in scope, because while it is important to enabling the Knowledge-as-a-Service part of the strategic direction, we are currently unclear about how such a resource might be allocated. This overlaps with the Technology Working Group.

Talk

What is the current situation?

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently the primary point of worldwide resource allocation in the movement. Most revenues are collected centrally and spent in established and well resourced communities. The current budget of the Wikimedia Foundation is USD 92M. There are ~150 affiliates with agreements which allow the use of trademarks held by the Wikimedia Foundation. These agreements codify supporting the global mission of Wikimedia. Some of the largest affiliates include Wikimedia Germany, Wikimedia Sweden, Wikimedia Indonesia, Wikimedia United Kingdom, and Wikimedia France. The Wikimedia Foundation’s grantmaking budget has been roughly ~$7M USD per year since 2013. In 2018 the Wikimedia Foundation awarded 400+ grants. While 272 grants went to emerging communities, only ~30% of the money went to those communities; this is a 50% increase from 2013, where ~20% of money when to emerging communities. Most of the newer affiliates do not receive any support in their first years and we believe this is a result of a structural problem, rather than, for example, lack of need. As a result, our historical structures and processes are currently reinforcing the concentration of power and money in the movement. We are far from an equitable model for resource allocation, and just increasing access to money or grants will not be sufficient. We have not sufficiently supported capacity building for attracting, using and reporting on resources. Most of the movement money comes from individual donors. The movement has introduced practices, structures and participation models as a first step towards better accountability. However, the system of Wikimedia Foundation grantmaking today is largely reactive, playing the role of the steward of movement money. But there is also an expectation to be grantmakers, making strategic choices and trade offs, prioritizing one issue or audience over another. These two roles create conflicting expectations. Steward’s reactive role means it is difficult to shift resources to areas of priority (e.g. underrepresented communities or content). Through the strategy process, we now have a critical opportunity to redesign the resource allocation system in a way that will help us reach knowledge equity and knowledge as a service. The strategy process is an expedient opportunity to make radical changes in our movement, and consider the scoping document as a constantly developing guide that will steadily reflect community inputs throughout the process.

Talk

Why this scope?

We believe that in order to reach our 2030 strategic direction, we need to create an equitable system of resource allocation. While there are many definitions of equity, we understand equity to be about Opportunities (e.g. access to systems and resources), Power (e.g. ability to make decisions about resources, ability to change culture) and Outcomes. So far, we have relied on access (e.g. “everyone can apply for grants”) as the main approach to equity, but we do not believe that is sufficient for the future. In order to consider future systems and structures, we will be prioritizing the value of equity, along with other values such as transparency, sustainability and innovation, for how resources are allocated. Success is defined as having achieved the Strategic Direction (“By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us”).

Talk

Scoping questions

What are the key questions within the scope of the Working Group?

How can resource allocation support structures that empower different actors within the free knowledge movement long-term? How is power connected to resource allocation and how can we utilize resource allocation to create change? Who makes decisions about resource allocation within the movement? How should those decisions be made (in terms of structures, criteria, priorities, accountability)? How do decision making criteria and priorities get set? How do we include “communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege”? What is the purpose of a movement wide resource allocation system? What should be the values and principles governing the resource allocation system, so that they support a system for equitably allocating resources in the movement? Is there a hierarchy of values? What if they conflict? How do we ensure that the resources we allocate help us reach the Strategic Direction of becoming the essential infrastructure of free knowledge, including both Knowledge Equity and Knowledge as a service? The Strategic Direction prioritizes “communities who have been left out …” Who are they? Who should we reach out to and on what principle? Who should be the recipients of resources? How do we determine the boundaries, who or what is included? Would the rules be different for Wikimedia movement vs entities/communities from broader ecosystem of Free Knowledge? How might we allocate resources to secure innovation towards our 2030 goal? How do we balance the need for innovation while supporting existing work? How do we enable innovation by and for a wide range of communities? In what ways should allocated resources guarantee future resources (sustainability)? How can we integrate capacity building (for sustainability) with resource allocation? If we focus on the financial aspect: How do we use existing funds to create future funds? What are the contextual variations that we need to consider for this process and will this process be different for emerging and non-emerging communities? What impact should the allocated resources create within our communities and the world? How do we measure impact in the long-term? How do we balance the need for context-specific measurement, and consistency across the movement? How can we ensure that our resource allocation is catalytic and lead to more and a faster change to free knowledge over time (and that movement resources are not the only ones being used)? How do we ensure that the overall impact on society is positive? Who are we accountable to and how do we organize accountability?

Talk