6 ms·

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

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.
  - a-nikolaev 4y ago
    I think, Wiki fundraising message should be more informational, not an emotional cry for help and money. I myself don't want to be manipulated, give me the numbers and what you want to do with my money.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonas21 4y ago
    Yes, all tax-exempt organizations in the US are required to publish a copy of IRS Form 990. This includes a breakdown of income, expenses (including executive compensation), and assets. The Wikimedia Foundation also publishes audited financial statements and a plan for the coming year. All of this is available here [1], which is the first result when you Google "wikipedia financials". [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
  - yunohn 4y ago
    > but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public Yes, they are legally obligated to disclose their finances. OP’s point was it should be part of their fundraising message too.
  - vba616 4y ago
    > aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public? Of course they are required to file tax returns with executive salaries that are public! Why would you not check it? This is how cynicism destroys a civilization. People let institutions die because someone told them they were already dead. >The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization No it isn't, it's very clear cut. To people in the industry, there's no connection between salaries and "profit". That's just not what the word means to them. Random people on the internet get confused about this because they (definitely not only you) don't have any specific idea of what "profit" means. In fact, "profit" doesn't even mean "having extra money after paying expenses and salaries" in the non-profit business. At a non-profit, when they have more money at the end of the year than at the beginning, it's called a "surplus" rather than a "profit", and it doesn't have to be paid out to pesky "shareholders" so the organization just keeps it and does whatever with it next year. Instead of a triad of directors, executives and shareholders (theoretically) in charge, the directors and executives run it (or fight over it).
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.")

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.
- a-nikolaev 4y ago
  I think, Wiki fundraising message should be more informational, not an emotional cry for help and money. I myself don't want to be manipulated, give me the numbers and what you want to do with my money.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jonas21 4y ago
  Yes, all tax-exempt organizations in the US are required to publish a copy of IRS Form 990. This includes a breakdown of income, expenses (including executive compensation), and assets. The Wikimedia Foundation also publishes audited financial statements and a plan for the coming year. All of this is available here [1], which is the first result when you Google "wikipedia financials". [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
- yunohn 4y ago
  > but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public Yes, they are legally obligated to disclose their finances. OP’s point was it should be part of their fundraising message too.
- vba616 4y ago
  > aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public? Of course they are required to file tax returns with executive salaries that are public! Why would you not check it? This is how cynicism destroys a civilization. People let institutions die because someone told them they were already dead. >The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization No it isn't, it's very clear cut. To people in the industry, there's no connection between salaries and "profit". That's just not what the word means to them. Random people on the internet get confused about this because they (definitely not only you) don't have any specific idea of what "profit" means. In fact, "profit" doesn't even mean "having extra money after paying expenses and salaries" in the non-profit business. At a non-profit, when they have more money at the end of the year than at the beginning, it's called a "surplus" rather than a "profit", and it doesn't have to be paid out to pesky "shareholders" so the organization just keeps it and does whatever with it next year. Instead of a triad of directors, executives and shareholders (theoretically) in charge, the directors and executives run it (or fight over it).

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.")