Jump to content

Page:Funding Free Knowledge the Wiki Way - Wikimedia Foundation Participatory Grantmaking.pdf/14

From Wikisource
There was a problem when proofreading this page.

If the largest organization, Wikimedia Deutschland, is removed from the survey sample, the median budget of the other 13 organizations funded by the Annual Plan Grant is around $215,000.[1] If the Annual Plan Grants were removed from the survey altogether, Wikimedia Foundation would measure very similarly with the sizes of the other foundations we analyzed.

The Wikimedia Foundation has proven a powerful capacity to effectively steward an innovative Participatory Grantmaking model, with a very large budget, diverse volunteer committee structures, and a wide range of applicants from individuals to large, formal organizations.

Wikimedia Foundation Operations Align with a Flexible and Diverse Model

The eight funds surveyed for the original "Who Decides" study represent a sample of international Participatory Grantmaking Funds, illustrating the considerable variation among funds using peer review as a method for dispersing grants. Wide variation within overall budget size, grantmaking budget totals, geographic focus, and funding priorities demonstrate diverse applications of the PGF model. We also found great variation among some of the processes the funds used to do their work, including: frequency of reassessing funding priorities, size of peer review panels/committees; and the gender, age and geographic make-up of panelists/committee members.

Despite the diversity of the groups featured in "Who Decides," we also found many strong similarities between them.

Most importantly, Wikimedia Foundation aligns with the groups included in the "Who Decides" Report along the most essential quality of a Participatory Grantmaking model: Grantmaking Panelists/Committee Members are made up of individuals directly impacted by, or program clients of, the applicants they review.

The Wikimedia Foundation also aligns across many attributes with the majority (88% or more) of the other Participatory Grantmaking Funds we analyzed.

For example:

  • Funds have stated funding priorities.
  • Funds have a written conflict of interest policy.
  • Funds reported that their organizations are fiscally sound.
  • Funds reimburse panelists for travel costs.
  • Funds do not have an endowment.
  • Funds follow up with grantees via interim reports and/or phone calls, and also follow up with site visits, technical assistance and other types of ongoing communications. For Wikimedia Foundation this also includes virtual meetings and video conferences, connecting grantees to resources, mentoring grantees in programmatic expertise areas, and providing support with project evaluation.

32 We did not receive feedback from WMF staff regarding the age and eographic distribution of WMF committee members. Staff report that 23% of committee members are women and 77% men.

13