12 ms·

Poll of Wikipedians concludes: Wikimedia fundraising emails are misleading

158 points by akolbe 4y ago

SiempreViernes 4y ago
This is not a poll, this is someone who is very critical how wikimedia spends its money putting out an "opinions welcome" box on what amounts to a public square. Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails look fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1108428168#h-Endorse_wording_of_emails-RfC_(WMF_fundraising_emails)-20220816193400 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla... So yeah, not a poll.
- a-nikolaev 4y ago
  I think, Wikimedia's fundraising message should include the amount of money they have, the expenses they expect for the coming years (with a basic breakdown of how it is going to be spent), as well as a link to a detailed report of how much money they got and how they were spent for the previous years. Basically be transparent, b/c someone might want to spend their money on a different web project they like.
  - pen2l 4y ago
    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public? Because if they aren't, then the non-profit organization is incredibly ripe for fraud and I wonder how many have already chosen the NPO structure for ill intents. The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization, when executives e.g. Mitchell Baker of Mozilla foundation, can command such large salaries and irresponsible spending. If abuse is as rife in non-profit structured organizations as it appears, IRS had better burnish its hammer and commit to resolutory action.
    - lumost 4y ago
      Anecdotally, most non profits I’ve encountered operate in this way. Someone who is already wealthy, runs the show and pays themselves an egregious salary. They then hire lots of idealistic folks who either have money already or are ok being exploited due to idealistic bias. No one who “works” for the non profit gets paid reasonably except the executives, who are paid exorbitant wages.
      - foundart 4y ago
        Echo Rita? From the context I assume it means large. Is that correct? What is the origin of that phrase?
        RickHull 4y ago
        I'm guessing "egregious"
        lumost 4y ago
        Aye - not sure what language model came up with that (mobile keyboard)
        squiffsquiff 4y ago
        Probably originated using speech to text recognition rather than a keyboard
      - michaelo7 4y ago
        Wikimedia (the parent of Wikipedia) pays most people at Wikimedia very generously. The issue is most people involved, outside of tech, contribute little or nothing to Wikipedia which is the reason people are donating.
        hammyhavoc 4y ago
        Sounds similar to Mozilla/MZLA with Thunderbird blog gimmicks of non-FOSS AI-generated wallpapers and a podcast. For an email client.
- yorwba 4y ago
  Isn't the usual collective decision-making process at Wikipedia to post somewhere to have a vote while exchanging arguments and counterarguments below? I fail to see how this is not a poll.
- gurchik 4y ago
  > Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails look fine Are you referring to this? > Thanks for commenting. Unfortunately though I have to disagree, The Land. In my view, getting people on very limited incomes to donate $2 they can't afford, by making them "believe that Wikipedia is in trouble and that they need to give money to keep it online", is unethical. All the more so if it's done in part to raise WMF executives' compensation to $350K and beyond (bear in mind that these salary figures are two years old). It's worth mentioning that some of those salaries have been rising steeply, even as the WMF claimed to be in urgent need of money. Compare the entries here in the 2020 Form 990 to the corresponding entries here in the 2018 form. As far as I can make out: the CEO's total compensation incl. benefits increased by 7% (to $423,318), the DGC's and GC's by 10%, the CFO's by 11%, the CTO's by 17%, the CAO's by 22%, the CCO's by 25%, the CT/CO's by 28%, and the CPO's by 32% – all over a two-year period when the annual inflation rate in the US was at 2%
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    $350K does not strike me as a lot of money for top executives at an organization as large as Wikimedia. In 2022, I've got startups (30 to 50 employees) offering me $225,000 to work as a software architect. At a larger organization I would expect $350k and I would expect the top executives to get paid more than me. If Wikimedia are hiring executives who could make $1 million a year somewhere, who then work for $300k-$400k, the question comes up how much charity and sacrifice is it okay to expect from these executives. Should they think of this as a business or a charity? If they are working for less than what they would get at a different organization, then they are also making something of a sacrifice for the sake of Wikimedia. Which is fine, but I also understand why they would push for more money. In the end, the big question is, how much should Wikimedia professionalize? How much should it exist just as an idealistic experiment, versus how much should it be put on the basis of a stable business?
    - secondcoming 4y ago
      What do they do though? Wikipedia is a product where volunteers edit content free of charge. Sure there are some infrastructure costs, but why does it need so many C-level executives? Looks like a gravy train to me
- bawolff 4y ago
  Not really an unbiased poll, but there has been a clear trend of increased discontent among wikipedia editors over the wording of fundraiser messages.
  - ckoerner 4y ago
    True, but would you agree that the number of editors who take umbrage with the wording is a small minority of the tens of thousands who edit and thousands (hundreds?) who are aware of the fundraising messages?
    - akolbe 4y ago
      It is worth noting that three of the six community-and-affiliate candidates currently standing for the Wikimedia Foundation board support the following statement: "WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever" https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio... (Two candidates "supported" the statement; one "strongly supported" it. A fourth opposed the statement, but added: "I do feel that the online campaign can be improved. See videos for more." In the videos, she said: "The one thing that I think we can improve is our on-wiki campaign. It is sometimes too aggressive to my taste.")
unethical_ban 4y ago
I understand the benefit of recurring supporters and of maintaining in the public conscience the reminder that this is a publicly funded resource of the commons. There is no excuse though, to pleading for money in a way that suggests dire straits. What if an organization made a deal with people, to get them subscribed for something like $2 a year with a 'burst' up to the cap set by the user that triggers at some funding floor? $2/year until our endowment goes down to $30 million, then $10/year until it gets above $50 million.
lizardactivist 4y ago
I think this is just the organizational equivalent of having a buffer rather than living "paycheck to paycheck". When Wikipedia has cash reserves a hundred times its yearly expenses, I'll listen.
- gred 4y ago
  From the article: > In 2007, the year Wikipedia first became a top-ten website serving the world, the Foundation reported total annual expenses of $2 million. > The Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets and reserves [...] have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at an estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022. I'm sure the "mission" has expanded and costs are higher these days, but 200x baseline costs is pretty comfy.
  - fisherjeff 4y ago
    I find it a bit “unethical and misleading” of the author to list 2007 expenses and 2022 assets. As a sibling comment points out, it’s really only <4x current annual expenditures, which, leaving aside disagreements on whether that level of spending is justifiable, doesn’t seem unreasonable.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      I think they are using 2007 expenses to give a ballpark estimate for what "running basic Wikipedia" costs? That's back before the foundation dramatically expanded their activities.
    - yunohn 4y ago
      > current annual expenditures The vast majority is salaries, not operating costs.
- crote 4y ago
  They aren't far off. At the moment, they have €250M in assets, and a further €100M endowment. Their assets have increased by double-digit millions every year for a decade. In my opinion, the yearly fundraising campaign is highly disingenuous. Basically, they are begging for money, claiming it is to "keep Wikipedia running". In reality, Wikipedia-the-website is an unlimited cash cow used to fund tangentially related pet projects at the Wikimedia Foundation. In 2008, the expenses were €5.6M. 2021 expenses are up to €112M - and I can guarantee page views did not increase 20-fold! At the moment, hosting costs are about €3M / year. Let's round that up to €10M for sysadmin and development salaries, and they currently have enough money to keep Wikipedia running for 35 years. I'd be more than happy to donate to keep Wikipedia itself alive, but at the moment donating money to them is basically the same as throwing money in a bottomless pit.
pxeger1 4y ago
The emails in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1108428168#Email_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla...
- oli5679 4y ago
  I'd be really interested in seeing a breakdown of the salary expense by role and project. $67m is a lot of people!
  - xtreak29 4y ago
    Some breakdown and comparison over the years https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salar...
  - ryan_lane 4y ago
    $67m is quite low for a tech organization. Wikimedia pays below market rate for every position. They have quite a lot of staff for that amount of money. $67m is around 300 software engineers at a bay area company, only considering salary. If equity is included, it's probably closer to around 200 engineers. Of course, there's other employment costs, so in reality it's even fewer employees than that.
pxeger1 4y ago
Here is Wikimedia's 2021 finanical report: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/#section-1 https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021...
- akira2501 4y ago
  Just thinking of other non profits I've glanced at this does feel a little lopsided. $67m salary plus $12m professional expenses all to get $10m out the door on actual operations? What am I missing?
  - pxeger1 4y ago
    WMF's "operations costs" that don't count as salaries are probably basically just the costs of server hosting etc. They don't do charity work like prototypical non-profits.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    You missed nothing. It's a "jobs for the boys" jackpot.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Software developers are more expensive than other fields.
    - q-big 4y ago
      > Software developers are more expensive than other fields. Software developers in the Bay Area are more expensive than other fields.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        Software devs in bay area are more expensive than non-bay area, but even outside bay area they are still higher than the average profession.
nevrherd 4y ago
What a shock legal philosophy like non-profit status does nothing to mitigate human biology’s goal of optimizing for self. It would be nice if we’d stop deluding ourselves that “rule of law” is any better than “rule of theology”. Distant caretakers expropriating communal effort of “free people” under law may as well be an unfalsifiable divine mandate.
mgdlbp 4y ago
The Wikimedia Foundation's formal community survey (this year's report to be released next month; last and previous years' available): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights and other surveys: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Editor_surveys https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Editor_surveys Edit: Wikimedia's surveys don't cover the issue in the OP, but it has been raised as a question for candidates in the ongoing Wikimedia Board community vote (until 2022-09-06): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...
- akolbe 4y ago
  Three of the six board candidates agreed Wikimedia fundraising is "deceptive". A fourth offered milder criticism. See the responses to statement #5 here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...
nmstoker 4y ago
To me the crisis is less about funding (since despite the traffic it can operate on a fairly lean budget), and instead more the range of people who will edit Wikipedia articles.
wodenokoto 4y ago
The wording in this years fundraising really pushed my buttons too. > 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way when we ask for an annual donation. This is why I donated in the past: because it is a resource that gives freely to the world. This wording shames non-doners and as a free resource for spreading knowledge to humanity I don’t think it is fair to shame the target audience.
- JJMcJ 4y ago
  Years ago, when PBS fundraising was less pushy than today, they had a segment where a KQED station manager said they understood many could not afford to donate and they were pleased to be able to bring their programming to everyone for free. That's the way to phrase things.
- williamtrask 4y ago
  I’ll take that over advertising any day of the week. This isn’t remotely as misleading or damaging as half the ads I see on Facebook or Instagram every day.
  - layer8 4y ago
    It’s disingenuous and manipulative, which makes one wonder what else they are disingenuous and manipulative about. For an alleged nonprofit, it leaves a bad taste.
    - sph 4y ago
      Seconding GP, I'd rather have a misleading plea message than them trying to extract money out of my attention or data through ads. That is manipulative, even though we as society are pretty used to it. What annoys me the most is that I've been donating to Wikipedia for over a decade and I still got the plea message, but if I click that little X button I don't see it anymore. Big deal.
    - acheron 4y ago
      They’re disingenuous about claiming they need money for Wikipedia. They have way more than enough money for Wikipedia, they need more donations for their other random projects.
dcow 4y ago
What is Wikimedia supposed to do? Only fundraise when they run out of money? That’s a recipe for failure and I quite hope Wikimedia… doesn't. If you donate to Wikimedia you are helping keep them free. The raw size of their endowment doesn't matter, nobody actively spends down their endowment on operating costs because it’s not sustainable. Operating costs come from at most like 3-6% of your endowment. The wording is not manipulative by any stretch of the imagination.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- opportune 4y ago
  Wikimedia has plenty of whale donors that aren't making spur of the moment donations based on banner ads. Wikimedia spends plenty of money on things that aren't growing their endowment or operating Wikipedia. I don't think anybody is asking Wikimedia to stop fundraising, just to be less deceptive and less zealous. Especially if the money is going to things like grants to other nonprofits or developing less-familiar parts of wikimedia that donors likely don't care about.
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  The manipulation is in the lack of distinction between Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires very little funding, but is also the most popular product of Wikimedia. Read the emails yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1108428168#Email_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla... They are playing off the public appeal of Wikipedia --- Wikipedia dominates the branding and word usage of the emails. It implies, falsely, that Wikipedia is verging on needing to run ads or run out of funds shorty. It's Wikimedia that needs the funding to stay operational, largely for products that are not Wikipedia. What are Wikimedia supposed to do? They could be honest in their communications, and be more clear what they are raising funds for.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    This isn't true. Most of software dev work is still going to wikipedia or stuff that is generic. The other products do not get much love (other than wikidata)
0thgen 4y ago
Anyone else see stuff like this and think: "Yea but it's wikipedia, they deserve whatever funding they want" I get they can probably be closer to perfect as an organization, but I'm still always left feeling that wikipedia was one of the top 3 things to come out of the invention of the internet
- akolbe 4y ago
  That's at the heart of the issue. From a distance, it always feels uncharitable to many people to criticise anything about Wikipedia at all. But bear in mind this criticism comes from Wikipedians – some of the people who actually wrote the encyclopedia you love, and did so for free – and it criticises Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. They are not the same thing. Most of the Wikimedia executives are recent arrivals who only came once there was money. They have never written a Wikipedia article. Some can't even figure out how to leave a talk page message, and they couldn't tell you which side of a diff shows the new version of an article and which the old.
  - 0thgen 4y ago
    Ahh, thanks for putting this into perspective!
  - ckoerner 4y ago
    >they have never written a Wikipedia article. Some can't even figure out how to leave a talk page message, and they couldn't tell you which side of a diff shows the new version of an article and which the old. None of those things are necessary qualities of an organizational leader. This is like saying the CEO of Adobe should be competent in how to use Photoshop. This criticism, like much of yours over the years, attempts to simplify a complex situation, of which you know very little given your limited perspective, into a soundbite to get attention and garner community affectation. Wikimedia needs better critics.
    - akolbe 4y ago
      Nobody likes their critics, that's human.
jl6 4y ago
> 98% of our readers don't give I’m actually kinda surprised that 2% of readers do give. That’s more than 5x the rate at which people click on banner ads, and we’re talking not just about people clicking but about them actually parting with real money.
- esclerofilo 4y ago
  It's easy to feel thankful to Wikipedia, motivating you to donate.
  - shepherdjerred 4y ago
    Wikipedia is among the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Anyone with an internet connection can learn about anything. That's not to say that Wikipedia is perfect, but it is certainly amazing.
Animats 4y ago
The Wikimedia Foundation wants to expand. Expand into other areas that are more labor-intensive. Wikimedia Foundation expenses: * $44,963,013 53% Support for Wikipedia.org * $39,162,136 46% Grantmaking and Program Development The growth is in the non-Wikipedia operations.
- garaetjjte 4y ago
  Yet the banners are worded like they are struggling to keep the servers running.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Not a new thing. Also plenty of grants are probably for things you would consider supporting wikipedia, and parts of "support wikipedia.org" are probably for things you would think arent about wikipedia.
gurchik 4y ago
> 31% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day. What exactly does this mean? I can't find any breakdown of how donations are allocated, so I don't know how this money is supporting the volunteers. I think this has been worded in a way that makes donators think the money is being paid to volunteers which I don't believe is the case for 99.9% of contributors (if not 100%?). Instead I think it's more likely that "supporting the volunteers" includes efforts that indirectly support them, like hosting in-person events.
avg_dev 4y ago
> In fact, however, the Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets and reserves (including an Endowment with the Tides Foundation now holding well over $100 million) have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at an estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022. Fucks sakes. I just made a very sizable donation to them based on the huge banner ad that popped up and the fact that I use Wikipedia on a pretty much daily basis. Fuck me for trying to do the right thing. I’m sorry for the language. Honestly I’m really pissed off about it. I work for a living and where I live there’s no taxable donation for this so it was just me trying to do something good. Well I guess when I calm down a bit I’ll try to learn my lesson.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  You still get a lot of use out of what they offer for free.
- akolbe 4y ago
  See the Donations FAQ: https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ This says: ---------------- What is your refund policy? If for any reason you wish to have your donation refunded, please contact us via email at donate@wikimedia.org[1] and include the following information: Full name of donor Date of donation — All refund requests must be made within 90 days of donation Amount donated Payment method used — Do not include credit card numbers in your email Country of origin Reason for the refund All refunds will be processed as quickly as possible, but processing times may vary depending on the payment method. Please note: Some payment methods may not support refunds or require refunds to be made through the payment method (card) utilized, prompting additional information to process your refund. [1] Due to the volume of inquiries we receive, we use Zendesk as a donor response platform. By emailing donate@wikimedia.org, you understand that your information will be processed by the Zendesk Group in accordance with Zendesk’s terms. Users from the following countries should consult Section A of Zendesk’s privacy policy for more information about Zendesk’s country-specific practices: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Singapore.
  - avg_dev 4y ago
ryan_lane 4y ago
I've been complaining about the fundraising messaging since I was employed by Wikimedia (I left around 10 years ago). We used to have flamewars in the staff email lists about the messaging being deceiving. The reason they use the messaging is because it works, and they want to keep their fundraising timeline short, because it's also more effective when it's short. I'd really like for them to use more honest messaging. That said, I think a lot of the general rhetoric here related to Wikimedia is off. Wikimedia actually uses its funds quite efficiently, especially in comparison to other non-profits. They pay below market rate for salaries, primarily recruiting their staff from within the community. Like most non-profits they rely on people who are willing to take less salary because they love the cause. Also, a large percentage of their staff works fully remote, which helps keep costs down. Sadly, the poor executive pay tends to lead to absolutely mediocre leadership. I'd really like to see them increase the executive pay enough to hire qualified leaders. They have an endowment, but the point of an endowment is to be able to continue running even if they aren't able to fundraise. They don't and can't live off of it. They do need donations, and the vast majority of their funds come from individual donations (not whales, as some here are suggesting), and primarily from small donation amounts. The funds aren't solely to maintain the sites, but if you want them to continue existing, they can't solely spend money to maintain. They need ways to recruit new editors, and a lot of the spending being complained about here is being used to diversity the editor community, which is necessary for growth. There also seems to be a lot of misinformation around how much it costs to maintain the sites. To maintain them, you need to pay for hosting, the hardware, and most importantly, the employees. Folks seem to be leaving out the salary costs. You also can't just consider engineers. Legal is a critical part of the organization. Also, you can't run an organization without HR, accounting, internal IT, etc. Most of the salary costs are necessary to maintain the sites.
- akolbe 4y ago
  The salary bill has more than doubled in five years, from $31,713,961 to $67,857,676. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries#Total_salaries_per_financial_statements https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie... This wasn't "necessary to maintain the sites"; US inflation averaged 2% during that period. Moreover, "The vast majority of Wikimedia’s value to ordinary people – the website we know and use – costs the firm about 30 percent of their $112.5 million operating budget ($33.75 million) to maintain according to Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Chief Advancement Officer at Wikimedia." Source: https://braveneweurope.com/michael-olenick-wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech https://braveneweurope.com/michael-olenick-wikipedias-deep-t... Also see the comments from a Wikimedia executive quoted above about how the Wikimedia Foundation's "working group on Revenue Streams" picked as its first guiding question how to "maximize revenue for the movement". A vernacular translation of how to "maximize revenue for the movement" would be "How to get as much money from Wikipedia readers as possible."
issung 4y ago
Guess I'll stop donating once a year then! Had about a 5 year streak, but seems to me like they are in a good position now. And I'm buying a house soon! Gotta cut down ;)
faeriechangling 4y ago
I feel Wikipedia has one really good project that really doesn’t need that much money and have felt no need to throw swathes of cash at wikis administration. Wikimedia could have a tenth of the money it has now and still be functional.
ShakataGaNai 4y ago
Many years ago I was a fairly prolific contributor to many Wikimedia projects. I not only donated a lot of my time on wiki, I donated time IRL. Also I donated money. Then I ended up working for the WMF for a time on contract. After seeing how "the meat is made" (as they say) from the inside. I stopped donating.
accraze 4y ago
Good, I worked at WMF for a bit and the fundraising narrative was one of many reasons why I left. Wikipedia is doing just fine, but there are just way too many “special projects” that need to be reconsidered. Also way too much frivolous international travel for staff members.

158 points by akolbe 4y ago

This is not a poll, this is someone who is very critical how wikimedia spends its money putting out an "opinions welcome" box on what amounts to a public square. Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails look fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1108428168#h-Endorse_wording_of_emails-RfC_(WMF_fundraising_emails)-20220816193400 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla... So yeah, not a poll.

a-nikolaev 4y ago
I think, Wikimedia's fundraising message should include the amount of money they have, the expenses they expect for the coming years (with a basic breakdown of how it is going to be spent), as well as a link to a detailed report of how much money they got and how they were spent for the previous years. Basically be transparent, b/c someone might want to spend their money on a different web project they like.
- pen2l 4y ago
  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public? Because if they aren't, then the non-profit organization is incredibly ripe for fraud and I wonder how many have already chosen the NPO structure for ill intents. The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization, when executives e.g. Mitchell Baker of Mozilla foundation, can command such large salaries and irresponsible spending. If abuse is as rife in non-profit structured organizations as it appears, IRS had better burnish its hammer and commit to resolutory action.
  - lumost 4y ago
    Anecdotally, most non profits I’ve encountered operate in this way. Someone who is already wealthy, runs the show and pays themselves an egregious salary. They then hire lots of idealistic folks who either have money already or are ok being exploited due to idealistic bias. No one who “works” for the non profit gets paid reasonably except the executives, who are paid exorbitant wages.
    - foundart 4y ago
      Echo Rita? From the context I assume it means large. Is that correct? What is the origin of that phrase?
      - RickHull 4y ago
        I'm guessing "egregious"
        lumost 4y ago
        Aye - not sure what language model came up with that (mobile keyboard)
      - squiffsquiff 4y ago
        Probably originated using speech to text recognition rather than a keyboard
    - michaelo7 4y ago
      Wikimedia (the parent of Wikipedia) pays most people at Wikimedia very generously. The issue is most people involved, outside of tech, contribute little or nothing to Wikipedia which is the reason people are donating.
      - hammyhavoc 4y ago
        Sounds similar to Mozilla/MZLA with Thunderbird blog gimmicks of non-FOSS AI-generated wallpapers and a podcast. For an email client.
yorwba 4y ago
Isn't the usual collective decision-making process at Wikipedia to post somewhere to have a vote while exchanging arguments and counterarguments below? I fail to see how this is not a poll.
gurchik 4y ago
> Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails look fine Are you referring to this? > Thanks for commenting. Unfortunately though I have to disagree, The Land. In my view, getting people on very limited incomes to donate $2 they can't afford, by making them "believe that Wikipedia is in trouble and that they need to give money to keep it online", is unethical. All the more so if it's done in part to raise WMF executives' compensation to $350K and beyond (bear in mind that these salary figures are two years old). It's worth mentioning that some of those salaries have been rising steeply, even as the WMF claimed to be in urgent need of money. Compare the entries here in the 2020 Form 990 to the corresponding entries here in the 2018 form. As far as I can make out: the CEO's total compensation incl. benefits increased by 7% (to $423,318), the DGC's and GC's by 10%, the CFO's by 11%, the CTO's by 17%, the CAO's by 22%, the CCO's by 25%, the CT/CO's by 28%, and the CPO's by 32% – all over a two-year period when the annual inflation rate in the US was at 2%
- lkrubner 4y ago
  $350K does not strike me as a lot of money for top executives at an organization as large as Wikimedia. In 2022, I've got startups (30 to 50 employees) offering me $225,000 to work as a software architect. At a larger organization I would expect $350k and I would expect the top executives to get paid more than me. If Wikimedia are hiring executives who could make $1 million a year somewhere, who then work for $300k-$400k, the question comes up how much charity and sacrifice is it okay to expect from these executives. Should they think of this as a business or a charity? If they are working for less than what they would get at a different organization, then they are also making something of a sacrifice for the sake of Wikimedia. Which is fine, but I also understand why they would push for more money. In the end, the big question is, how much should Wikimedia professionalize? How much should it exist just as an idealistic experiment, versus how much should it be put on the basis of a stable business?
  - secondcoming 4y ago
    What do they do though? Wikipedia is a product where volunteers edit content free of charge. Sure there are some infrastructure costs, but why does it need so many C-level executives? Looks like a gravy train to me
bawolff 4y ago
Not really an unbiased poll, but there has been a clear trend of increased discontent among wikipedia editors over the wording of fundraiser messages.
- ckoerner 4y ago
  True, but would you agree that the number of editors who take umbrage with the wording is a small minority of the tens of thousands who edit and thousands (hundreds?) who are aware of the fundraising messages?
  - akolbe 4y ago
    It is worth noting that three of the six community-and-affiliate candidates currently standing for the Wikimedia Foundation board support the following statement: "WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever" https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio... (Two candidates "supported" the statement; one "strongly supported" it. A fourth opposed the statement, but added: "I do feel that the online campaign can be improved. See videos for more." In the videos, she said: "The one thing that I think we can improve is our on-wiki campaign. It is sometimes too aggressive to my taste.")

unethical_ban 4y ago

I understand the benefit of recurring supporters and of maintaining in the public conscience the reminder that this is a publicly funded resource of the commons. There is no excuse though, to pleading for money in a way that suggests dire straits. What if an organization made a deal with people, to get them subscribed for something like $2 a year with a 'burst' up to the cap set by the user that triggers at some funding floor? $2/year until our endowment goes down to $30 million, then $10/year until it gets above $50 million.

lizardactivist 4y ago

I think this is just the organizational equivalent of having a buffer rather than living "paycheck to paycheck". When Wikipedia has cash reserves a hundred times its yearly expenses, I'll listen.

gred 4y ago
From the article: > In 2007, the year Wikipedia first became a top-ten website serving the world, the Foundation reported total annual expenses of $2 million. > The Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets and reserves [...] have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at an estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022. I'm sure the "mission" has expanded and costs are higher these days, but 200x baseline costs is pretty comfy.
- fisherjeff 4y ago
  I find it a bit “unethical and misleading” of the author to list 2007 expenses and 2022 assets. As a sibling comment points out, it’s really only <4x current annual expenditures, which, leaving aside disagreements on whether that level of spending is justifiable, doesn’t seem unreasonable.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I think they are using 2007 expenses to give a ballpark estimate for what "running basic Wikipedia" costs? That's back before the foundation dramatically expanded their activities.
  - yunohn 4y ago
    > current annual expenditures The vast majority is salaries, not operating costs.
crote 4y ago
They aren't far off. At the moment, they have €250M in assets, and a further €100M endowment. Their assets have increased by double-digit millions every year for a decade. In my opinion, the yearly fundraising campaign is highly disingenuous. Basically, they are begging for money, claiming it is to "keep Wikipedia running". In reality, Wikipedia-the-website is an unlimited cash cow used to fund tangentially related pet projects at the Wikimedia Foundation. In 2008, the expenses were €5.6M. 2021 expenses are up to €112M - and I can guarantee page views did not increase 20-fold! At the moment, hosting costs are about €3M / year. Let's round that up to €10M for sysadmin and development salaries, and they currently have enough money to keep Wikipedia running for 35 years. I'd be more than happy to donate to keep Wikipedia itself alive, but at the moment donating money to them is basically the same as throwing money in a bottomless pit.

pxeger1 4y ago

The emails in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1108428168#Email_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla...

oli5679 4y ago
I'd be really interested in seeing a breakdown of the salary expense by role and project. $67m is a lot of people!
- xtreak29 4y ago
  Some breakdown and comparison over the years https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salar...
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  $67m is quite low for a tech organization. Wikimedia pays below market rate for every position. They have quite a lot of staff for that amount of money. $67m is around 300 software engineers at a bay area company, only considering salary. If equity is included, it's probably closer to around 200 engineers. Of course, there's other employment costs, so in reality it's even fewer employees than that.

pxeger1 4y ago

Here is Wikimedia's 2021 finanical report: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/#section-1 https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021...

akira2501 4y ago
Just thinking of other non profits I've glanced at this does feel a little lopsided. $67m salary plus $12m professional expenses all to get $10m out the door on actual operations? What am I missing?
- pxeger1 4y ago
  WMF's "operations costs" that don't count as salaries are probably basically just the costs of server hosting etc. They don't do charity work like prototypical non-profits.
- stonogo 4y ago
  You missed nothing. It's a "jobs for the boys" jackpot.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Software developers are more expensive than other fields.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > Software developers are more expensive than other fields. Software developers in the Bay Area are more expensive than other fields.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Software devs in bay area are more expensive than non-bay area, but even outside bay area they are still higher than the average profession.

nevrherd 4y ago

What a shock legal philosophy like non-profit status does nothing to mitigate human biology’s goal of optimizing for self. It would be nice if we’d stop deluding ourselves that “rule of law” is any better than “rule of theology”. Distant caretakers expropriating communal effort of “free people” under law may as well be an unfalsifiable divine mandate.

mgdlbp 4y ago

The Wikimedia Foundation's formal community survey (this year's report to be released next month; last and previous years' available): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights and other surveys: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Editor_surveys https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Editor_surveys Edit: Wikimedia's surveys don't cover the issue in the OP, but it has been raised as a question for candidates in the ongoing Wikimedia Board community vote (until 2022-09-06): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...

akolbe 4y ago
Three of the six board candidates agreed Wikimedia fundraising is "deceptive". A fourth offered milder criticism. See the responses to statement #5 here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...

nmstoker 4y ago

To me the crisis is less about funding (since despite the traffic it can operate on a fairly lean budget), and instead more the range of people who will edit Wikipedia articles.

wodenokoto 4y ago

The wording in this years fundraising really pushed my buttons too. > 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way when we ask for an annual donation. This is why I donated in the past: because it is a resource that gives freely to the world. This wording shames non-doners and as a free resource for spreading knowledge to humanity I don’t think it is fair to shame the target audience.

JJMcJ 4y ago
Years ago, when PBS fundraising was less pushy than today, they had a segment where a KQED station manager said they understood many could not afford to donate and they were pleased to be able to bring their programming to everyone for free. That's the way to phrase things.
williamtrask 4y ago
I’ll take that over advertising any day of the week. This isn’t remotely as misleading or damaging as half the ads I see on Facebook or Instagram every day.
- layer8 4y ago
  It’s disingenuous and manipulative, which makes one wonder what else they are disingenuous and manipulative about. For an alleged nonprofit, it leaves a bad taste.
  - sph 4y ago
    Seconding GP, I'd rather have a misleading plea message than them trying to extract money out of my attention or data through ads. That is manipulative, even though we as society are pretty used to it. What annoys me the most is that I've been donating to Wikipedia for over a decade and I still got the plea message, but if I click that little X button I don't see it anymore. Big deal.
  - acheron 4y ago
    They’re disingenuous about claiming they need money for Wikipedia. They have way more than enough money for Wikipedia, they need more donations for their other random projects.

dcow 4y ago

What is Wikimedia supposed to do? Only fundraise when they run out of money? That’s a recipe for failure and I quite hope Wikimedia… doesn't. If you donate to Wikimedia you are helping keep them free. The raw size of their endowment doesn't matter, nobody actively spends down their endowment on operating costs because it’s not sustainable. Operating costs come from at most like 3-6% of your endowment. The wording is not manipulative by any stretch of the imagination.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
opportune 4y ago
Wikimedia has plenty of whale donors that aren't making spur of the moment donations based on banner ads. Wikimedia spends plenty of money on things that aren't growing their endowment or operating Wikipedia. I don't think anybody is asking Wikimedia to stop fundraising, just to be less deceptive and less zealous. Especially if the money is going to things like grants to other nonprofits or developing less-familiar parts of wikimedia that donors likely don't care about.
ninth_ant 4y ago
The manipulation is in the lack of distinction between Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires very little funding, but is also the most popular product of Wikimedia. Read the emails yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1108428168#Email_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla... They are playing off the public appeal of Wikipedia --- Wikipedia dominates the branding and word usage of the emails. It implies, falsely, that Wikipedia is verging on needing to run ads or run out of funds shorty. It's Wikimedia that needs the funding to stay operational, largely for products that are not Wikipedia. What are Wikimedia supposed to do? They could be honest in their communications, and be more clear what they are raising funds for.
- bawolff 4y ago
  This isn't true. Most of software dev work is still going to wikipedia or stuff that is generic. The other products do not get much love (other than wikidata)

0thgen 4y ago

Anyone else see stuff like this and think: "Yea but it's wikipedia, they deserve whatever funding they want" I get they can probably be closer to perfect as an organization, but I'm still always left feeling that wikipedia was one of the top 3 things to come out of the invention of the internet

akolbe 4y ago
That's at the heart of the issue. From a distance, it always feels uncharitable to many people to criticise anything about Wikipedia at all. But bear in mind this criticism comes from Wikipedians – some of the people who actually wrote the encyclopedia you love, and did so for free – and it criticises Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. They are not the same thing. Most of the Wikimedia executives are recent arrivals who only came once there was money. They have never written a Wikipedia article. Some can't even figure out how to leave a talk page message, and they couldn't tell you which side of a diff shows the new version of an article and which the old.
- 0thgen 4y ago
  Ahh, thanks for putting this into perspective!
- ckoerner 4y ago
  >they have never written a Wikipedia article. Some can't even figure out how to leave a talk page message, and they couldn't tell you which side of a diff shows the new version of an article and which the old. None of those things are necessary qualities of an organizational leader. This is like saying the CEO of Adobe should be competent in how to use Photoshop. This criticism, like much of yours over the years, attempts to simplify a complex situation, of which you know very little given your limited perspective, into a soundbite to get attention and garner community affectation. Wikimedia needs better critics.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Nobody likes their critics, that's human.

jl6 4y ago

> 98% of our readers don't give I’m actually kinda surprised that 2% of readers do give. That’s more than 5x the rate at which people click on banner ads, and we’re talking not just about people clicking but about them actually parting with real money.

esclerofilo 4y ago
It's easy to feel thankful to Wikipedia, motivating you to donate.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  Wikipedia is among the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Anyone with an internet connection can learn about anything. That's not to say that Wikipedia is perfect, but it is certainly amazing.

Animats 4y ago

The Wikimedia Foundation wants to expand. Expand into other areas that are more labor-intensive. Wikimedia Foundation expenses: * $44,963,013 53% Support for Wikipedia.org * $39,162,136 46% Grantmaking and Program Development The growth is in the non-Wikipedia operations.

garaetjjte 4y ago
Yet the banners are worded like they are struggling to keep the servers running.
bawolff 4y ago
Not a new thing. Also plenty of grants are probably for things you would consider supporting wikipedia, and parts of "support wikipedia.org" are probably for things you would think arent about wikipedia.

gurchik 4y ago

> 31% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day. What exactly does this mean? I can't find any breakdown of how donations are allocated, so I don't know how this money is supporting the volunteers. I think this has been worded in a way that makes donators think the money is being paid to volunteers which I don't believe is the case for 99.9% of contributors (if not 100%?). Instead I think it's more likely that "supporting the volunteers" includes efforts that indirectly support them, like hosting in-person events.

avg_dev 4y ago

> In fact, however, the Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets and reserves (including an Endowment with the Tides Foundation now holding well over $100 million) have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at an estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022. Fucks sakes. I just made a very sizable donation to them based on the huge banner ad that popped up and the fact that I use Wikipedia on a pretty much daily basis. Fuck me for trying to do the right thing. I’m sorry for the language. Honestly I’m really pissed off about it. I work for a living and where I live there’s no taxable donation for this so it was just me trying to do something good. Well I guess when I calm down a bit I’ll try to learn my lesson.

Scarblac 4y ago
You still get a lot of use out of what they offer for free.
akolbe 4y ago
See the Donations FAQ: https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ This says: ---------------- What is your refund policy? If for any reason you wish to have your donation refunded, please contact us via email at donate@wikimedia.org[1] and include the following information: Full name of donor Date of donation — All refund requests must be made within 90 days of donation Amount donated Payment method used — Do not include credit card numbers in your email Country of origin Reason for the refund All refunds will be processed as quickly as possible, but processing times may vary depending on the payment method. Please note: Some payment methods may not support refunds or require refunds to be made through the payment method (card) utilized, prompting additional information to process your refund. [1] Due to the volume of inquiries we receive, we use Zendesk as a donor response platform. By emailing donate@wikimedia.org, you understand that your information will be processed by the Zendesk Group in accordance with Zendesk’s terms. Users from the following countries should consult Section A of Zendesk’s privacy policy for more information about Zendesk’s country-specific practices: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Singapore.
- avg_dev 4y ago

ryan_lane 4y ago

I've been complaining about the fundraising messaging since I was employed by Wikimedia (I left around 10 years ago). We used to have flamewars in the staff email lists about the messaging being deceiving. The reason they use the messaging is because it works, and they want to keep their fundraising timeline short, because it's also more effective when it's short. I'd really like for them to use more honest messaging. That said, I think a lot of the general rhetoric here related to Wikimedia is off. Wikimedia actually uses its funds quite efficiently, especially in comparison to other non-profits. They pay below market rate for salaries, primarily recruiting their staff from within the community. Like most non-profits they rely on people who are willing to take less salary because they love the cause. Also, a large percentage of their staff works fully remote, which helps keep costs down. Sadly, the poor executive pay tends to lead to absolutely mediocre leadership. I'd really like to see them increase the executive pay enough to hire qualified leaders. They have an endowment, but the point of an endowment is to be able to continue running even if they aren't able to fundraise. They don't and can't live off of it. They do need donations, and the vast majority of their funds come from individual donations (not whales, as some here are suggesting), and primarily from small donation amounts. The funds aren't solely to maintain the sites, but if you want them to continue existing, they can't solely spend money to maintain. They need ways to recruit new editors, and a lot of the spending being complained about here is being used to diversity the editor community, which is necessary for growth. There also seems to be a lot of misinformation around how much it costs to maintain the sites. To maintain them, you need to pay for hosting, the hardware, and most importantly, the employees. Folks seem to be leaving out the salary costs. You also can't just consider engineers. Legal is a critical part of the organization. Also, you can't run an organization without HR, accounting, internal IT, etc. Most of the salary costs are necessary to maintain the sites.

akolbe 4y ago
The salary bill has more than doubled in five years, from $31,713,961 to $67,857,676. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries#Total_salaries_per_financial_statements https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie... This wasn't "necessary to maintain the sites"; US inflation averaged 2% during that period. Moreover, "The vast majority of Wikimedia’s value to ordinary people – the website we know and use – costs the firm about 30 percent of their $112.5 million operating budget ($33.75 million) to maintain according to Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Chief Advancement Officer at Wikimedia." Source: https://braveneweurope.com/michael-olenick-wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech https://braveneweurope.com/michael-olenick-wikipedias-deep-t... Also see the comments from a Wikimedia executive quoted above about how the Wikimedia Foundation's "working group on Revenue Streams" picked as its first guiding question how to "maximize revenue for the movement". A vernacular translation of how to "maximize revenue for the movement" would be "How to get as much money from Wikipedia readers as possible."

issung 4y ago

Guess I'll stop donating once a year then! Had about a 5 year streak, but seems to me like they are in a good position now. And I'm buying a house soon! Gotta cut down ;)

faeriechangling 4y ago

I feel Wikipedia has one really good project that really doesn’t need that much money and have felt no need to throw swathes of cash at wikis administration. Wikimedia could have a tenth of the money it has now and still be functional.

ShakataGaNai 4y ago

Many years ago I was a fairly prolific contributor to many Wikimedia projects. I not only donated a lot of my time on wiki, I donated time IRL. Also I donated money. Then I ended up working for the WMF for a time on contract. After seeing how "the meat is made" (as they say) from the inside. I stopped donating.

accraze 4y ago

Good, I worked at WMF for a bit and the fundraising narrative was one of many reasons why I left. Wikipedia is doing just fine, but there are just way too many “special projects” that need to be reconsidered. Also way too much frivolous international travel for staff members.