Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 25 August 2023

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, you can leave a message here

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization: Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Endowment

Mr. Wales, do you know the current value of the Wikimedia Endowment? If so, can you share it? Why is it so secretive about its value and holdings? Sandizer (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Secretive, Sandizer? Not really. It took me less than one minute on Google to find this WMF document. Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a year old, has a single digit of precision, and says nothing about holdings. What does it invest in? What has it invested in in the past? How often does it change investments? What are the criteria for how and how often to do so? These questions are important because as the next generation of AI billionaires attempt to launder their reputations through philanthropy, the Endowment is likely to benefit. Sandizer (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Per its Forms 990N (available by searching "87-3024488" on https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/), it had "Gross receipts not greater than" $100,000 from 07/01/2021-06/30/2023, so I'm not sure where the $100 million number in the Foundation's annual report is coming from. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that may be because the bulk of its funds were held for management by the Tides Foundation, presumably until a few weeks ago(?) Sandizer (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not personally know the day to day valuation of the endowment - it fluctuates of course with market conditions. I think it highly unlikely, as a side note, that AI billionaires seeking to launder their reputations would start with the WMF Endowment fund, since the endowment clearly has no ability to impact that whatsoever. At the last board meeting, I advocated (with universal agreement from the rest of the board) that we should publish more information, more often, because the accustions of "secrecy" do give rise (unfairly) to strange ideas that are not true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

While I was being somewhat facetious, I am still very curious as to why there's never been a published comprehensive financial and investments statement. I understand "an update on the Endowment's activities" is expected by the end of the year. But, for example, do you think the total donations to date should be published on https://wikimediaendowment.org? Do you think the operational and investment update mentioned on meta:Wikimedia Endowment/Meetings/July 20, 2023 should be published? Sandizer (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the latest published financial information should be posted on https://wikimediaendowment.org/. I'm surprised that it isn't, if it isn't. I do think that the operational and investment update mentioned should be published - this was indeed the document we discussed at the board meeting as a good thing to share. Now that we have a separate 501(c)(3) rather than being a fund at Tides, I think that sort of thing will become routine. Such materials do take staff time to prepare, of course, and they need to be really carefully checked for accuracy by finance and legal folks I would imagine, and I suspect that's that "by the end of the year" was mentioned somewhere. (Not sure where you saw that, but it sounds to me like a desire not to overpromise on the timeline!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You say you advocated (with universal agreement from the rest of the board) that we should publish more information, more often. I am surprised to see you say that. A couple of days ago I wrote a draft piece for the upcoming Signpost issue noting that you appeared to have decided to do the exact opposite at that meeting:

Collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Signpost draft) Wikimedia Endowment board minutes becoming ever more minimalist A couple of weeks ago, the Wikimedia Foundation's Jayde Antonio posted the approved minutes for the January 19, 2023 Endowment Board Meeting on Meta. The minutes are remarkable for not divulging any new information at all – apart from noting the approval of the Endowment grants that had already been announced in a Diff post back in April. For example, the meeting agenda posted back in February 2023 contained the following item: 6:25 - 6:55 pm UTC: Fundraising Update (Board Chair, Jimmy Wales and Endowment Director, Amy Parker) FY22-23 year to date update Campaign strategy The Meeting Minutes now published cover this point as follows: Fundraising Update (Amy Parker) FY22-23 year to date update Presentation of campaign strategy Contrast this to the minutes of the January 2022 Board Meeting. They were not exactly detailed either, but did at least contain a financial summary: 8) Fundraising update Overview, lead by Caitlin Virtue Review of Fundraising Report, lead by Amy Parker Summary: As of December 31, 2021, the Endowment held $105.4 million. There is currently $99.33 million in the investment account and $6.07 million in cash. An additional $8 million raised in December will be transferred to the Endowment in January 2022. In fact, this summary marks the last time the Endowment Board Meeting Minutes contained a dollar figure for the Endowment's total value (cash plus investments). Requests for an updated figure remain unanswered. Unlike the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Endowment has never to date published audited financial statements detailing its revenue and expenses. (End of draft piece).

The Signpost would, I am sure, be happy to publish ...

• the financial info contained in the fundraising report Amy Parker presented to you in January,
• the info contained in the operational and investment update you received last month,
• precise figures for the Endowment's annual revenue and expenses over the past 7.5 years,
• a summary of all moneys the Wikimedia Foundation has paid to the Tides Foundation over the past 7.5 years,
• a list of the Wikimedia Endowment's highest-paid contractors, if any, besides the Tides Foundation, over the past 7.5 years,
• the value of the Endowment's cash and investment holdings as of July 2023,

... if you could be so kind as to provide this information here on this page. I would then update the draft article copied above accordingly. Regards, --Andreas JN466 09:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

When you write "you appeared to have decided to do the exact opposite at that meeting", you are mistaken. At the meeting we discussed, to universal agreement, that we should publish more information and more often. I will check on each of the items that you mention - I'm on vacation at the moment and heading to Wikimania in Singapore tomorrow, so it will take a bit of time. I also don't know if the precise information you are asking for is what will be shared. I very much recommend that you not publish a story claiming that anything is becoming "more minimalist" since that's just not true. Be very careful and thoughtful with the timelines: at the summer endowment board meeting, the discussion about publishing more information and more often came about in no small part because the January minutes were something that I felt were not good enough in terms of being open and informative. (A financial report is forthccoming - I haven't seen it yet - but delayed because the relevant person creating it has taken a bit of family leave.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Please allow us to report on the former as well as the latter. (If the January Meeting Minutes are duly expanded, giving a meaningful summary of Amy Parker's presentation, it would be my pleasure to report on this.)

As you are no doubt aware, the information I have asked for is no more than what the Endowment would have been legally required to disclose for the past 7.5 years if the Wikimedia Foundation had fulfilled its repeated promises, made since 2017, that it would soon convert the Wikimedia Endowment into a transparent 501(c)(3) charity making annual IRS disclosures of these data.

There is another thing I have noticed here. While the 501(c)(3) has now been operational for over a year, it appears that most of the money continues to be with Tides, and perhaps even to be sent to Tides. Is this true? At any rate, the most recent Form 990N (thanks for locating these, Mdaniels5757) shows Gross receipts not greater than: $50,000 on the 2022 Tax Year Form 990-N (e-Postcard) – Tax Period: 2022 (07/01/2022-06/30/2023). The Endowment averaged over $20 million per annum during its first five years. So what happened to all the Endowment donations made since July 1 2022? It appears they were not declared as revenue for the 501(c)(3).

Lastly, I second Sandizer's questions above about the nature of the Endowment's investments. More transparency in that area would be welcome as well. Regards, Andreas JN466 11:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't have any ability or desire to "allow" or "disallow" you to write whatever you like. That's an odd way to phrase it. Second, as I said above, a financial report is forthcoming, although the relevant person has taken some family leave. You might find this document interesting: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#/media/File:Tides-Transition.png --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the graphic, the Tides transfer has been "initialized", though it does not provide a completion date.

I note you say at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Update_on_endowment: We ended the last fiscal year with $118 million in the WIkimedia Endowment and are projecting to grow the corpus by approximately $6.5 million depending on market performance and after expenses.

This is a start. Providing a figure for the year's revenue and expenses, and the split between investments and cash, would be further steps in the right direction. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This document may prove very helpful in terms of understanding the current state of play for the endowment: Wikimedia Endowment 2023-2024 Endowment Plan.

A few other points which directly or indirectly answer some other questions:

1. The Wikimedia Endowment fund has always been audited every year - as a part of Tides. If anyone is concerned that this is a giant pile of money with no oversight, that's not true. We have no means of initiating a new separate audit of Tides.

2. Most of the endowment is moved. One of the good things about Tides is that they employ very rigorous financial controls, and as a part of their due diligence on the move (they have a fiduciary responsibility to do all this the right way) they of course need to make sure that the move is consistent with the donor's intentions. We are waiting for 2 more major donors to sign releases, and then those will be moved. We will also keep the Tides account open for several more months because they are receiving some residual income from some investments. This is all normal practice. The overall point is that people (like me!) who would have preferred that we just initiate a bank transfer for $118 million may not have realized how much care and control there is in these institutions. Everything takes time and there are many signoffs and moments of due diligence on all sides. Tides has tight financial controls in place that do not allow us to easily pull money out of the endowment, which is a good thing.

I'd like to add once again that a further financial report is delayed because the relevant person took some family leave.

My understanding of the cadence of other information releases at the moment is this: an annual fundraising report in the fall which is retrospective of FY 2022-2023 and covers both the WMF and the Endowment will be relased in the autumn, at the usual time. And after that the Annual Report for both the WMF and the Endowment will be released and that includes financials for the previous fiscal year. (Some of that information (in preliminary form) is in the deck that l link above.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the document. On your two points:

1. The Tides Foundation's most recent audited statements are here. The Tides Foundation's most recent Form 990 is here. Could you please indicate to us where in these documents the community and the general public can see how much money the Wikimedia Endowment took in that year, how much money it spent, to whom it issued grants (or where it says that it did not do so), and who were the Endowment's highest-paid contractors?

2. You say most of the Endowment is moved. When will the website at https://wikimediaendowment.org/ be updated to indicate that the funds are now mostly held by a 501(c)(3)? Regards, Andreas JN466 16:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate being able to read that document. Is there anything you can share on investment holdings, strategy, and tactics (i.e., when and how to change investments)? Sandizer (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't find that information in Tides audited financials - it isn't broken out that way and there's nothing that I can do about that. Again, Tides is a separate organization and we can't do anything about how they are audited or report their financials. As to the specifics of your questions, I can confidently answer that the endowment did not make *any* grants until the initial grants which have been disclosed. As to "highest-paid contractors" - I don't know the answer, other than that the Wikimedia Foundation is the highest paid by far (the Endowment contracts with the WMF for various fundraising, accounting, and legal services as you know), and that anything else is very low. (In the most recent year, in the presentation I answered, the total for all "Contractors, interns, and fellows" combined was just over $50k. Are you interested in more detail on that?). For last year, you can see all the expenses in the document that I shared. I'll be asking here in Singapore if we can get a simple breakdown of exact numbers on revenues, investment returns, and expenses for prior years in a single document.

A question I have for you: why do I keep hearing the expression "highest paid contractors"? Can you be more specific about what you're concerned about?

For the second question, I do not know when the website will be updated. That's a level of operational detail that isn't the sort of thing that the board gets involved with.

For Sandizer, leave that question with me for a bit, as I want to give you an accurate answer on investment policy - speaking off the cuff gives too much risk for error. Remember, as I have said, a financial report is forthcoming but has been delayed due to family leave by the relevant person.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• You can't find that information in Tides audited financials – that is exactly the point. The information cannot be found there, or anywhere. This is a lack of transparency, don't you agree?
• Transparency would have been all the more desirable given that the Head of the Tides Foundation moved to take a position at the Wikimedia Foundation during the life of the Endowment, creating the possibility of conflicts of interest – or at least the appearance of such a possibility.
• Disclosure of the five highest-paid contractors in each fiscal year is one of the IRS requirements for 501(c)(3) non-profits. If the Wikimedia Endowment had indeed been converted into a 501(c)(3) non-profit upon reaching $33 million, as we were told would happen back in March 2017, the Wikimedia Endowment would have had to make annual disclosures of its five highest compensated independent contractors that received more than $100,000 in compensation for services, whether professional or other services, from the organization. Independent contractors include organizations as well as individuals and can include professional fundraisers, law firms, accounting firms, publishing companies, management companies, and investment management companies. This has not happened.
• The document you have now uploaded (thank you), for example, states on page 11 that the Endowment had about $1.8 million in expenses in 2022–2023, including over $400,000 for unspecified "professional services". The Endowment appears to have had a similar level of expenditure in the year prior, according to the minutes for the July 2022 board meeting, which mention $1,803,622 of expenses for the Endowment. These are not trifling amounts. And we know nothing at all about the Endowment's expenditure in the five or six years prior to that; it may have been higher or lower.
• Basically, I think the Endowment should be held to the same standards of transparency as any other Wikimedia affiliate. And I believe I am correct in saying that no other Wikimedia affiliate would be allowed to provide so little transparency over its spending. Regards,

Andreas JN466 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"five highest compensated independent contractors that received more than $100,000 in compensation for services" - given that the total for all interns, contractors, and fellows was just over $50k, then the basic answer is that there were none to be disclosed. Does that settle this particular issue for you finally? And I fully agree with you that now that we have a separate 501(c)(3) it should be held to the exact same (or even more stringent, to set a good example in the movement) transparency and reporting requirements as all movement affiliates. In the past, we had (essentially) only 2 expenses: the WMF staff and the Tides fees. There a few other things which ramped up due to the move away from Tides of course (it's a big job with a lot of ins and outs).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The page I was referring to lists over $400,000 for "professional services" in addition to the $50k interns and contractors total. Could you say what those refer to?

Professional services are expressly included in the IRS disclosure instructions. There are also over $150k in "other operating expenses", and $875k in "personnel expense" – which personnel does this refer to? (Note that non-profits are also required to disclose any individual earning more than $100,000, for example.) And of course at present we have no data at all for 2016–2021. Andreas JN466 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

After Wikimania I'll have more time for this. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. Andreas JN466 23:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Note further related discussion at User_talk:BilledMammal/2023_Fundraising_RfC. Andreas JN466 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Shall we pick this up again? You said on Meta the information will be easy enough to publish – have you had discussions with staff to this effect in Singapore?

It would be good to have a level of transparency for the Endowment that is at least equal to the legal 501(c)(3) disclosure requirements.

Also, if you could explain a little further what the individual expenditure items on page 11 of the document you uploaded relate to – it is not clear to me who the $0.9 million in personnel expenses, $0.4 million in professional services etc. were paid to, or who the "interns, contractors and fellows" are – are these Tides staffers, Foundation staffers or individuals unrelated to either, and if it is Foundation staffers, were these payments made to the Foundation or to the individuals concerned? The table is very welcome, but it raises more questions than it answers. Regards, Andreas JN466 10:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Protection on English Wikiquote

Hi, Jimbo, due to excessive vandalism, we've indefinitely protected your talk page on English Wikiquote. We have left a redirect on that page to here if someone really wants to have a talk with you about that project. -Lemonaka‎ 08:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds wise, thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Jimbo Wales! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! •Cyberwolf• 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome jimbo

i hope this finds you well

keep up the good work lol

im sorry if this is annoying but i had too

(now i feel guilty)

but thank you for creating page Misplaced Pages •Cyberwolf• 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

American history and segregation

Why do you think it's so hard to get Draft:African American resorts included on Misplaced Pages? Do you think the history of segregation and discrimination in the U.S. is important? Should we cover the history of our African American communities? FloridaArmy (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is it separate than just resorts? •Cyberwolf• 13:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

These are culturally and historicaly interesting and I'm actually impressed that we have somewhat decent articles on many of them. I think the problem with the article that FloridaArmy linked is that it's just a very brief introduction and then a list. It might better be titled "List of" but I don't necessarily recommend that as (a) I don't know exactly what current standards are for list articles and (b) I think this is a much more interesting and useful potential article than that.

For expansion, I'd recommend a review of Borscht Belt as a potential model. This article is about Jewish resorts that were created out of a similar need: racism and segregation made it impossible for African Americans to visit many whites-only facilities, just as "No Jews" rules meant that Jewish people had to create alternatives. Essentially, a good article would automatically answer cyberwolf424224's question: these are interesting and separate from just "resorts" because of what they tell us about those times and the people who lived then.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum - The "Borscht belt" article is about both the term and the phenomenon. I don't know that "African American resorts" is a standard term, not that that really matters per se, it's just that I wonder what the best title for the article is. I asked ChatGPT 4 and got this answer:

"Yes, there is a term that refers to resorts that catered mainly to Black Americans: the "Black Eden." This term specifically refers to Idlewild, Michigan. During the first half of the 20th century, Idlewild was a significant vacation destination for Black Americans, especially during the era of racial segregation when Black people were barred from many mainstream resorts. Idlewild attracted many Black professionals, entertainers, and families, offering them a place of leisure, entertainment, and relaxation.

Another term that might be relevant is the "Chitlin' Circuit." While not a resort term per se, the Chitlin' Circuit refers to a collection of performance venues throughout the eastern, southern, and upper Midwest areas of the United States that were safe and acceptable for African American musicians, comedians, and other entertainers to perform in during the age of racial segregation.

Both Idlewild and the Chitlin' Circuit played crucial roles in the history of Black entertainment and leisure in the U.S."

Now neither of those terms exactly captures the meaning. "Black Eden" Idlewild, Michigan is a reference to a specific place, not a type of place, and Chitlin' Circuit does refer to a type of place, but not to resorts per se. Still, I found this interesting enough to share as we think through this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be wary of using ChatGPT as a source for information. While I have no doubt "African American resorts" is not only an item, but is notable -- recent news has had several stories about a former African American resort in Southern California -- its creators have noted that ChatGPT has a tendency to "hallucinate". (Their word for this invention of sources & facts.) -- llywrch (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt, yes, I would argue NEVER use ChatGPT as a source for articles. It makes things up out of thin air, and gets a lot wrong. At the same time, I have used and tested it extensively and it does provide a very useful research aid, like a library index or a search engine, if you use it properly. (Which, to repeat meyself, includes NEVER using ChatGPT as a source for articles.).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, some lawyers got sanctioned (and were lucky that's all they got) for citing a bunch of nonexistent cases ChatGPT created. Always a risk. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki ai

Why dont we create an ai that runs on wikipedia article for information i know that vandalism and false information may come up but ai is more of a closed development community but taking good wikipedia artcles parsing data from them to answer a specific question instead of looking for them could lift the very long articles which are hard to find specific information and make it easier for ordinary users scouting for info one thing i would be worried about is the current political situation with ai,current events,blp’s especially politicians. take this with a grain of salt •Cyberwolf• 14:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The machine learning / AI team at the Foundation is exploring all options around this. The new technology is super exciting in terms of the potential!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press