5 ms·

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget PDF for 2011: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget PDF for 2011: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1... (Page 24 for pie chart comparison) Summary: They want to expand, a lot, almost every sector has more than doubled in allocated budget from 09-10s budget

ck2 16y ago
Thanks! So they spent nearly $9M in salaries vs $2M for bandwidth, $1M in travel expenses, $2M in office rent/furniture/meetings https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=44&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... 2010 Wikipedia Spending, in USD, in thousands 8,972 Salaries and wages 1,837 Internet hosting 3,270 Capital expenditures 483 Donation processing fees, charitable registrations 2,274 External contractors 864 Travel for staff, Board, Advisory Board and volunteers 134 Wikimania Travel 155 Legal 1,273 Office rent, furniture and equipment, supplies and maintenance 813 Staff and volunteer meetings, conferences, training, workshops 325 New allocation for awards and grants supporting volunteer initiatives -------------------- $20,400K TOTAL (*$20M*) Direct link to pie chart as image (thanks to google) https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=24&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... and the whole document in html/images https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&pli=1 https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://u...
- JusticeJones 16y ago
  What's the big deal? Unlike bandwidth people get more and more expensive to employ over time. Health-care and cost of living are two biggies.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    If you actually read the PDF, page 23 shows that they had 47 paid staff for 2009-2010, and they plan to have 91 (almost double) by the end of 2010-2011, so it's a case of increasing staff numbers, not (or at least, not entirely) increasing staff salaries.
  - wildmXranat 16y ago
    I am not sure whether you are trolling. No, that does not mean you get a raise that multiplies it by range of 1.25 to 2.
- vaksel 16y ago
  i'm surprised that a big site like Wikipedia only spends $155K on legal advice
  - gwern 16y ago
    We have lots of processes to head off problems, like OTRS. Also, Wikipedia benefits from the strong safe-harbor provision in the DMCA (the only good part of it).
- duffbeer703 16y ago
  That sounds like a rich travel budget.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  This data is concerning to me, here's why: First, most of the value of wikipedia comes from random users. Second, we've seen a pattern of Wales and wikipedia administration not understanding where the value of wikipedia comes from. Third, we've seen a pattern of policies and practices that are actively hostile to the users and usages that are wikipedia's bedrock (deletionism, edit wars, unnecessarily tight permissions for article creation etc.) And then we have wikipedia's budget priorities, which indicate that Wales et al seem to value creating cushy jobs for people who don't add much to wikipedia much more than just keeping the site running for as long as possible, by a ratio of around 10:1 (roughly). In short, the people who run wikipedia don't seem to care or value the source of content on the site nor the continued operation of the site very much. Instead they seem to care about extracting money by effectively holding huge amounts of content that they did not create hostage. I love wikipedia, it's a great site and potentially very positively disruptive to traditional norms in human society, culture, and education. Yet increasingly I am driven toward the conclusion that the people who run it are not in any sense good people and are holding it back as much as they are keeping it running.
  - bdonlan 16y ago
    > And then we have wikipedia's budget priorities, which indicate that Wales et al seem to value creating cushy jobs for people who don't add much to wikipedia much more than just keeping the site running for as long as possible, by a ratio of around 10:1 (roughly). I won't comment on your other points, but - Wikipedia is a non-profit. They can't just hang on to cash, they have to spend it somehow, and in a way in line with their charter. If they've already spent enough on servers, bandwidth, hosting, etc, where else will that go but to salaries? If you look at their financial reports (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1...) you'll see their donations exceeded their planned amounts significantly, so they're hiring more people to balance that out.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      They could do what every other similar organization has done in the past, create a trust fund to keep the organization running into the foreseeable future without having to routinely solicit donations. Whether or not their charter is set up correctly to allow that today is immaterial, they can found on a new charter if necessary. If you asked people what the benefit of donating to the wikimedia foundation was I'm sure at least 9 out of 10 would respond "to keep wikipedia running". Indeed, that is the context of all of the appeals for donations. What value does hiring more staff provide? Specifically, what value higher than the long-term continued operation of wikipedia does it provide?

ck2 16y ago

Thanks! So they spent nearly $9M in salaries vs $2M for bandwidth, $1M in travel expenses, $2M in office rent/furniture/meetings https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=44&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... 2010 Wikipedia Spending, in USD, in thousands 8,972 Salaries and wages 1,837 Internet hosting 3,270 Capital expenditures 483 Donation processing fees, charitable registrations 2,274 External contractors 864 Travel for staff, Board, Advisory Board and volunteers 134 Wikimania Travel 155 Legal 1,273 Office rent, furniture and equipment, supplies and maintenance 813 Staff and volunteer meetings, conferences, training, workshops 325 New allocation for awards and grants supporting volunteer initiatives -------------------- $20,400K TOTAL (*$20M*) Direct link to pie chart as image (thanks to google) https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=24&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... and the whole document in html/images https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&pli=1 https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://u...

JusticeJones 16y ago
What's the big deal? Unlike bandwidth people get more and more expensive to employ over time. Health-care and cost of living are two biggies.
- corin_ 16y ago
  If you actually read the PDF, page 23 shows that they had 47 paid staff for 2009-2010, and they plan to have 91 (almost double) by the end of 2010-2011, so it's a case of increasing staff numbers, not (or at least, not entirely) increasing staff salaries.
- wildmXranat 16y ago
  I am not sure whether you are trolling. No, that does not mean you get a raise that multiplies it by range of 1.25 to 2.
vaksel 16y ago
i'm surprised that a big site like Wikipedia only spends $155K on legal advice
- gwern 16y ago
  We have lots of processes to head off problems, like OTRS. Also, Wikipedia benefits from the strong safe-harbor provision in the DMCA (the only good part of it).
duffbeer703 16y ago
That sounds like a rich travel budget.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
This data is concerning to me, here's why: First, most of the value of wikipedia comes from random users. Second, we've seen a pattern of Wales and wikipedia administration not understanding where the value of wikipedia comes from. Third, we've seen a pattern of policies and practices that are actively hostile to the users and usages that are wikipedia's bedrock (deletionism, edit wars, unnecessarily tight permissions for article creation etc.) And then we have wikipedia's budget priorities, which indicate that Wales et al seem to value creating cushy jobs for people who don't add much to wikipedia much more than just keeping the site running for as long as possible, by a ratio of around 10:1 (roughly). In short, the people who run wikipedia don't seem to care or value the source of content on the site nor the continued operation of the site very much. Instead they seem to care about extracting money by effectively holding huge amounts of content that they did not create hostage. I love wikipedia, it's a great site and potentially very positively disruptive to traditional norms in human society, culture, and education. Yet increasingly I am driven toward the conclusion that the people who run it are not in any sense good people and are holding it back as much as they are keeping it running.
- bdonlan 16y ago
  > And then we have wikipedia's budget priorities, which indicate that Wales et al seem to value creating cushy jobs for people who don't add much to wikipedia much more than just keeping the site running for as long as possible, by a ratio of around 10:1 (roughly). I won't comment on your other points, but - Wikipedia is a non-profit. They can't just hang on to cash, they have to spend it somehow, and in a way in line with their charter. If they've already spent enough on servers, bandwidth, hosting, etc, where else will that go but to salaries? If you look at their financial reports (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1...) you'll see their donations exceeded their planned amounts significantly, so they're hiring more people to balance that out.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    They could do what every other similar organization has done in the past, create a trust fund to keep the organization running into the foreseeable future without having to routinely solicit donations. Whether or not their charter is set up correctly to allow that today is immaterial, they can found on a new charter if necessary. If you asked people what the benefit of donating to the wikimedia foundation was I'm sure at least 9 out of 10 would respond "to keep wikipedia running". Indeed, that is the context of all of the appeals for donations. What value does hiring more staff provide? Specifically, what value higher than the long-term continued operation of wikipedia does it provide?