3 ms·

From the PDF: "We expect to end the year with staff of 78" Which means people are receiving crazy high salaries. They spent $1.6MM on travel which seems crazy t

From the PDF: "We expect to end the year with staff of 78" Which means people are receiving crazy high salaries. They spent $1.6MM on travel which seems crazy to me. Where is all this money going? Almost 26% of the staff is admin/management (20/78) which also seems very high.

duskwuff 15y ago
Keep in mind that Wikimedia is managing a lot of community volunteers as well as their direct employees. The travel expenses may include paying for some of their volunteers to visit them, for instance.
- dotBen 15y ago
  There are lots of reasons why their travel expenses could be so high - I don't think it moves the conversation forward to suggest arbitrary reasons without some specific proof. It's also worth noting the foundation has had issues to expense irregularities in the past [1], and so if anything there is cause to have pessimistic assumptions rather than optimistic ones [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/05/jimmy_wales_and_danny_wool/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/05/jimmy_wales_and_dann...
- dakotasmith 15y ago
  I posted regarding the volunteers requiring additional management, since I felt this comment was downvoted for presuming volunteers == travel expenses greater than the travel expenses caused by the Board.
dakotasmith 15y ago
As far as having lots of management, I know that QA is both outsourced and volunteer driven. I'm under the impression they have a lot of volunteers for various tasks (it is Wikipedia, after all). Volunteers incur management, but they don't show up in the head count.