3 ms·

They have around 300 FTEs. It might sound high, but they are the 5th most visited website in the world. Of others in the top 10, I think Reddit is the only othe

by tibbon 8y ago

They have around 300 FTEs. It might sound high, but they are the 5th most visited website in the world. Of others in the top 10, I think Reddit is the only other company with under 1,000 employees (at around 250). In comparison, Taobao which is also in the top 10 has over 30,000 employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Final/Staff_and_Contractors https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...

xyzzyz 8y ago
It was already top 8 in 2012, and had less than half of the headcount it has today, spending a third of what it spends today in salaries.
- tibbon 8y ago
  Eh - I find this public over-scrutiny of a company just because it's a nonprofit to be a little offputing. Sure, you want to know your donations aren't being wasted, but I keep in mind that most non-profits where my friends work have people under-staffed and without enough budgets overall compared to their parallels in commercial businesses. Do you know for a fact there that what they were doing in 2012 was sustainable for their employees, and building a solid future path for growth? If everyone's overworked and not efficient, keeping it overly lean isn't good in the long term.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    Sure, I was an admin on Wikipedia in 2008-2012, and we were doing completely fine. The Foundation was tenth of its current size at the time, and wasn't doing much except keeping the lights running, which is all the community needed. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is run by community, and if the Foundation has anything to say in Wikipedia's internal affairs, it is through employees who also happen to be community members. If the Foundation is overworked and not efficient, it literally doesn't matter, as they don't actually do much on Wikipedia itself.

by tibbon 8y ago

xyzzyz 8y ago

It was already top 8 in 2012, and had less than half of the headcount it has today, spending a third of what it spends today in salaries.

tibbon 8y ago
Eh - I find this public over-scrutiny of a company just because it's a nonprofit to be a little offputing. Sure, you want to know your donations aren't being wasted, but I keep in mind that most non-profits where my friends work have people under-staffed and without enough budgets overall compared to their parallels in commercial businesses. Do you know for a fact there that what they were doing in 2012 was sustainable for their employees, and building a solid future path for growth? If everyone's overworked and not efficient, keeping it overly lean isn't good in the long term.
- xyzzyz 8y ago
  Sure, I was an admin on Wikipedia in 2008-2012, and we were doing completely fine. The Foundation was tenth of its current size at the time, and wasn't doing much except keeping the lights running, which is all the community needed. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is run by community, and if the Foundation has anything to say in Wikipedia's internal affairs, it is through employees who also happen to be community members. If the Foundation is overworked and not efficient, it literally doesn't matter, as they don't actually do much on Wikipedia itself.