3 ms·

Yep, It appears that their biggest expense is the $38,597,407 in salaries distributed to ~350 employees. This makes the average salary $110,278 at the Wikimedi

by Randor 7y ago

Yep, It appears that their biggest expense is the $38,597,407 in salaries distributed to ~350 employees. This makes the average salary $110,278 at the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't really have anything negative to say about that. However I guess you could question why they need 350 employees. So I looked at the projects they are currently working on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_Wikimedia_projects https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_Wikimedia_p...

aidenn0 7y ago
I can see the argument for say 175 employees and a reduced scope, while building up an endowment to better weather down-years is better for WMF's long-term goals, but there's also the risk that reduced spending would cause reduced donations.
- loeg 7y ago
  > but there's also the risk that reduced spending would cause reduced donations. Reduced spending and reduced donations would be a good outcome for Wikipedia readers (especially in the long term). Lower running costs allows putting more current revenue towards that endowment, and means the future is a bit more sustainable in less favorable economic cycles. Donations also don't exist in a vacuum; the best use of donors' limited money is probably not WMF burning a pile of it. I'd encourage, for example, https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities in place of WMF giving.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    I agree with everything you say, but presumably those in charge of the WMF believe their goals to be of sufficient importance, so arguing to them that they shouldn't spend money on those goals is silly, but one should rather couch things in terms of how best to achieve those goals.
    - loeg 7y ago
      I'm not arguing to WMF; I'm hoping to raise awareness among donors. If the WMF miss their fundraising targets due to donor displeasure, they have to come around sooner or later. Or who knows, maybe they'll run the thing into the ground. I hope not. The worst part of it for me is that they advertise it on Wikipedia as if wikipedia were going out of business. When in reality, if you give $1.00 to WMF, ~$0.03 goes to server expenses. Wikipedia is their cash cow that funds a ton of random pet projects and a dozen or so executive staff (which seems huge for a 300 person organization). If they were honest about that in their fundraising, I think they'd see flat or down revenue. I dislike the dishonesty used to solicit donations and then use them somewhere else. It feels similar to a con.
perl4ever 7y ago
Is that salary, or cost of employees? I would assume that gross salaries are around half of what's spent on an employee.

by Randor 7y ago

aidenn0 7y ago

I can see the argument for say 175 employees and a reduced scope, while building up an endowment to better weather down-years is better for WMF's long-term goals, but there's also the risk that reduced spending would cause reduced donations.

loeg 7y ago
> but there's also the risk that reduced spending would cause reduced donations. Reduced spending and reduced donations would be a good outcome for Wikipedia readers (especially in the long term). Lower running costs allows putting more current revenue towards that endowment, and means the future is a bit more sustainable in less favorable economic cycles. Donations also don't exist in a vacuum; the best use of donors' limited money is probably not WMF burning a pile of it. I'd encourage, for example, https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities in place of WMF giving.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  I agree with everything you say, but presumably those in charge of the WMF believe their goals to be of sufficient importance, so arguing to them that they shouldn't spend money on those goals is silly, but one should rather couch things in terms of how best to achieve those goals.
  - loeg 7y ago
    I'm not arguing to WMF; I'm hoping to raise awareness among donors. If the WMF miss their fundraising targets due to donor displeasure, they have to come around sooner or later. Or who knows, maybe they'll run the thing into the ground. I hope not. The worst part of it for me is that they advertise it on Wikipedia as if wikipedia were going out of business. When in reality, if you give $1.00 to WMF, ~$0.03 goes to server expenses. Wikipedia is their cash cow that funds a ton of random pet projects and a dozen or so executive staff (which seems huge for a 300 person organization). If they were honest about that in their fundraising, I think they'd see flat or down revenue. I dislike the dishonesty used to solicit donations and then use them somewhere else. It feels similar to a con.

perl4ever 7y ago

Is that salary, or cost of employees? I would assume that gross salaries are around half of what's spent on an employee.