5 ms·

> 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 di

> 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
- jackmott 4y ago
- yunohn 4y ago
  > How much should it exist just as an idealistic experiment, versus how much should it be put on the basis of a stable business? Wikipedia is sustained by the volunteers, not the corporate bureaucrats. They existed before the c-level salary increases, but might flee as peak corporatism occurs.
- akolbe 4y ago
  I feel really sorry for these executives who have to decide whether to earn $300,000 or $1M. :)) Joking aside, a person in the US agreeing to earn $300,000 rather than $350,000 – to a very large extent off the value created by volunteer labour, and off the public's donations – is not what I would call "charity" or a "sacrifice". I would remind you that some of this money is raised in India, South Africa and Latin America – by telling people there money is needed to "keep Wikipedia online" for them. Now, a real sacrifice by an American is when a senior with $18 to his name promises to donate to Wikimedia as soon as his social security check clears, as this fellow did: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1060190990 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_de... I wish he hadn't been pressured into making that promise! Many of the small donations funding these salaries do actually come from people for whom donating that small amount really is a sacrifice. These phrases, about how it's "awkward" to ask, how Wikipedia has "no choice but to turn to you", they speak to them most of all, because they can relate to this situation. This is from an unpaid Wikipedia volunteer on the Volunteer Response Team: "I can't go into the specifics, but as a VRT agent I've received numerous emails from people on limited incomes who are donating money they need because they believe that Wikipedia is in trouble and that they need to give money to keep it online. I'm absolutely disgusted by this, and I think it will catch up to us in the long-run, as people won't want to give once they realize how deceptive these campaigns are." https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising&diff=prev&oldid=22475322 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraisin... So, please, if it's a question of brownie points for "charity" and "sacrifice", these executives are hardly at the front of the queue. There is not even any good reason for many of these staff positions to go to people in the US. Most of these are remote jobs. They could just as easily be done by someone in India, Poland or Singapore, and at a fraction of the cost. Let the people who are after that $1M-dollar job go to a for-profit company. Wikipedia doesn't need them.
  - opportune 4y ago
    Wikimedia HQ is in San Francisco. There are many 25 year old code monkeys here making more than the Wikimedia executive team. Sure, as of the last few years the world has changed enough that I agree it makes sense for Wikimedia to defrag and go remote, but until COVID it made complete sense for a technology-focused nonprofit to make its HQ in the Bay Area. It still does, BTW - it's never as simple as just hiring a remote team in Poland or India to cut costs. I don't think it would be bad per-se for the CEO to make up to $1M or for senior individuals to be making over $300k, or even for line developers to make up to around $200k. That is the cost of doing business, and I don't think Wikimedia should have to pay employees far below market rates just because it's a non-profit. That said, I completely agree with you that Wikimedia is way overzealous in asking for donations and it's sickening how they make people think Wikimedia desperately needs the money to continue operating Wikipedia when they just don't. Wikimedia actually funds a lot of stuff that, as someone that mostly just cares about Wikipedia, seems completely unnecessary. I'd much rather they cut the fluff and stop freaking people out (maybe change their strategy to soliciting donations from whales or at least a less aggressive banner) but I'd have no problem if they raised individuals' comp, within reason.
- rkagerer 4y ago
  Does Wikimedia need "best of the best" execs, or simply competent and stable leadership? Most of their value and lifeblood (content) comes from volunteers who would probably keep doing it even if a likeable monkey were on top.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Honestly, i feel that the dysfunctional c-levels at WMF has cost the org much more in wasted time than what the higher salary would have cost. [Note, i used to work there many years ago. My opinions might not apply to the current leadership]
    - akolbe 4y ago
      The question is whether throwing money at the problem is the way to solve it. I remember Damon Sicore's stint at the WMF. He'd been VPE for six years at Mozilla and then came to the WMF. He ended up working all of eleven months for Wikimedia. When he left he was given $100,000 in severance pay, for a total compensation of $292,258 for less than a year's work. https://www.theregister.com/2017/06/07/golden_handshakes_at_wikipedia/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/06/07/golden_handshakes_at_... He was subsequently blamed for the Knowledge Engine fiasco that led to Lila Tretikov's demise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engin... Lila herself came in and was paid 1.75 times as much as Sue Gardner had been getting. That did not turn out so well either. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...
      - bawolff 4y ago
        Yes Lila and Damon was a shitshow. I think everyone is aware, its all very public. More money does not neccesarily equal better people, just better options. We would still have to chose the right one. As far as Damon goes, he writes in his blog about his time at wikimedia... its "interesting"
        4y ago
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  Its more than Wolkswagen average executive salary in Germany. These numbers look obscene to anyone besides the privileged SV bros.
  - vba616 4y ago
    What do you know about American non-profit salaries? Or even German ones? A sensible thing to do before proclaiming a knee-jerk opinion is to get some information from this wonderful global network we are all connected to. Isn't context useful? Now, I have to admit, (because I just did it) that when you google something like "charity financial salary statements", you will get garbage hits, meaning "free" websites (and people referring you to them like nolo) that require you to sign up and jump through hoops. One basic aspect of doing research on the Internet is knowing that (when) you don't have to play that game, because there are official sources. Regarding this topic, there is something in the US called an IRS Form 990, and you can look them up at the unbelievably logical URL: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organiz... This is how you can look at any tax return for a non-profit and it says right at the top "Open to Public Inspection". How nice. I used to volunteer with a state chapter of a mental health advocacy organization, so I looked up the national organization (which is separate but affiliated). The CEO makes ~$250K and the other executives are all around $150K. This for revenue in the range of a few tens of millions per year. They also pay several contractors (not individuals, but business names) on the order of $200-300K per year. Now of course, the state and local organizations that one might assume do most of the real work, do not pay anyone like that. I seem to recall that the leader of the state chapter was something like $70K or less, several years ago. And the director position would cycle in and out - I don't think they typically stayed for long. Everybody else was making a lot less and extremely overworked and sometimes burned out. They would have interns, but no budget to hire them. In conclusion, whether or not $350K is obscene to Germans, you are completely wrong in your gratuitous comment about SV bros, as what I just read implies that people in the non-profit world in the US would at least not be shocked by such a salary.
    - TheCapeGreek 4y ago
      >you are completely wrong in your gratuitous comment about SV bros GP is wrong, yes. I'd extend it beyond SV bros to US middle class at large. US pay scales are ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world for a cost of living on average that doesn't seem as high unless it's really in the big expensive cities.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  I get your point in principle, but a startup doing whatever tf they want with their profits is a completely different kettle of fish from a charity doing whatever tf they want with donations. Especially when said donations were donated under the impression they'd be used specifically towards the charity's cause, rather than inflating a c-suite executive's bonus for the umptieth time.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    "rather than inflating a c-suite executive's bonus for the umptieth time." The point is, if they are being paid 30% or 40% more than what I get paid when I am at a poorly funded startup (that is, if they are getting paid what I would be paid if I was working at a larger firm) then you cannot say their salary is inflated, unless you want to argue that everyone working in tech has an inflated salary -- and you can certainly make that argument, but you should do so clearly, and at that point your complaint is not about WikiMedia anymore.
    - akolbe 4y ago
      Not everybody panhandles in India, Latin America and South Africa to help pay those salaries. Wikimedia does.

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
jackmott 4y ago
yunohn 4y ago
> How much should it exist just as an idealistic experiment, versus how much should it be put on the basis of a stable business? Wikipedia is sustained by the volunteers, not the corporate bureaucrats. They existed before the c-level salary increases, but might flee as peak corporatism occurs.
akolbe 4y ago
I feel really sorry for these executives who have to decide whether to earn $300,000 or $1M. :)) Joking aside, a person in the US agreeing to earn $300,000 rather than $350,000 – to a very large extent off the value created by volunteer labour, and off the public's donations – is not what I would call "charity" or a "sacrifice". I would remind you that some of this money is raised in India, South Africa and Latin America – by telling people there money is needed to "keep Wikipedia online" for them. Now, a real sacrifice by an American is when a senior with $18 to his name promises to donate to Wikimedia as soon as his social security check clears, as this fellow did: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1060190990 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_de... I wish he hadn't been pressured into making that promise! Many of the small donations funding these salaries do actually come from people for whom donating that small amount really is a sacrifice. These phrases, about how it's "awkward" to ask, how Wikipedia has "no choice but to turn to you", they speak to them most of all, because they can relate to this situation. This is from an unpaid Wikipedia volunteer on the Volunteer Response Team: "I can't go into the specifics, but as a VRT agent I've received numerous emails from people on limited incomes who are donating money they need because they believe that Wikipedia is in trouble and that they need to give money to keep it online. I'm absolutely disgusted by this, and I think it will catch up to us in the long-run, as people won't want to give once they realize how deceptive these campaigns are." https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising&diff=prev&oldid=22475322 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraisin... So, please, if it's a question of brownie points for "charity" and "sacrifice", these executives are hardly at the front of the queue. There is not even any good reason for many of these staff positions to go to people in the US. Most of these are remote jobs. They could just as easily be done by someone in India, Poland or Singapore, and at a fraction of the cost. Let the people who are after that $1M-dollar job go to a for-profit company. Wikipedia doesn't need them.
- opportune 4y ago
  Wikimedia HQ is in San Francisco. There are many 25 year old code monkeys here making more than the Wikimedia executive team. Sure, as of the last few years the world has changed enough that I agree it makes sense for Wikimedia to defrag and go remote, but until COVID it made complete sense for a technology-focused nonprofit to make its HQ in the Bay Area. It still does, BTW - it's never as simple as just hiring a remote team in Poland or India to cut costs. I don't think it would be bad per-se for the CEO to make up to $1M or for senior individuals to be making over $300k, or even for line developers to make up to around $200k. That is the cost of doing business, and I don't think Wikimedia should have to pay employees far below market rates just because it's a non-profit. That said, I completely agree with you that Wikimedia is way overzealous in asking for donations and it's sickening how they make people think Wikimedia desperately needs the money to continue operating Wikipedia when they just don't. Wikimedia actually funds a lot of stuff that, as someone that mostly just cares about Wikipedia, seems completely unnecessary. I'd much rather they cut the fluff and stop freaking people out (maybe change their strategy to soliciting donations from whales or at least a less aggressive banner) but I'd have no problem if they raised individuals' comp, within reason.
rkagerer 4y ago
Does Wikimedia need "best of the best" execs, or simply competent and stable leadership? Most of their value and lifeblood (content) comes from volunteers who would probably keep doing it even if a likeable monkey were on top.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Honestly, i feel that the dysfunctional c-levels at WMF has cost the org much more in wasted time than what the higher salary would have cost. [Note, i used to work there many years ago. My opinions might not apply to the current leadership]
  - akolbe 4y ago
    The question is whether throwing money at the problem is the way to solve it. I remember Damon Sicore's stint at the WMF. He'd been VPE for six years at Mozilla and then came to the WMF. He ended up working all of eleven months for Wikimedia. When he left he was given $100,000 in severance pay, for a total compensation of $292,258 for less than a year's work. https://www.theregister.com/2017/06/07/golden_handshakes_at_wikipedia/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/06/07/golden_handshakes_at_... He was subsequently blamed for the Knowledge Engine fiasco that led to Lila Tretikov's demise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engin... Lila herself came in and was paid 1.75 times as much as Sue Gardner had been getting. That did not turn out so well either. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Yes Lila and Damon was a shitshow. I think everyone is aware, its all very public. More money does not neccesarily equal better people, just better options. We would still have to chose the right one. As far as Damon goes, he writes in his blog about his time at wikimedia... its "interesting"
      - 4y ago
Dma54rhs 4y ago
Its more than Wolkswagen average executive salary in Germany. These numbers look obscene to anyone besides the privileged SV bros.
- vba616 4y ago
  What do you know about American non-profit salaries? Or even German ones? A sensible thing to do before proclaiming a knee-jerk opinion is to get some information from this wonderful global network we are all connected to. Isn't context useful? Now, I have to admit, (because I just did it) that when you google something like "charity financial salary statements", you will get garbage hits, meaning "free" websites (and people referring you to them like nolo) that require you to sign up and jump through hoops. One basic aspect of doing research on the Internet is knowing that (when) you don't have to play that game, because there are official sources. Regarding this topic, there is something in the US called an IRS Form 990, and you can look them up at the unbelievably logical URL: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organiz... This is how you can look at any tax return for a non-profit and it says right at the top "Open to Public Inspection". How nice. I used to volunteer with a state chapter of a mental health advocacy organization, so I looked up the national organization (which is separate but affiliated). The CEO makes ~$250K and the other executives are all around $150K. This for revenue in the range of a few tens of millions per year. They also pay several contractors (not individuals, but business names) on the order of $200-300K per year. Now of course, the state and local organizations that one might assume do most of the real work, do not pay anyone like that. I seem to recall that the leader of the state chapter was something like $70K or less, several years ago. And the director position would cycle in and out - I don't think they typically stayed for long. Everybody else was making a lot less and extremely overworked and sometimes burned out. They would have interns, but no budget to hire them. In conclusion, whether or not $350K is obscene to Germans, you are completely wrong in your gratuitous comment about SV bros, as what I just read implies that people in the non-profit world in the US would at least not be shocked by such a salary.
  - TheCapeGreek 4y ago
    >you are completely wrong in your gratuitous comment about SV bros GP is wrong, yes. I'd extend it beyond SV bros to US middle class at large. US pay scales are ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world for a cost of living on average that doesn't seem as high unless it's really in the big expensive cities.
tpoacher 4y ago
I get your point in principle, but a startup doing whatever tf they want with their profits is a completely different kettle of fish from a charity doing whatever tf they want with donations. Especially when said donations were donated under the impression they'd be used specifically towards the charity's cause, rather than inflating a c-suite executive's bonus for the umptieth time.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  "rather than inflating a c-suite executive's bonus for the umptieth time." The point is, if they are being paid 30% or 40% more than what I get paid when I am at a poorly funded startup (that is, if they are getting paid what I would be paid if I was working at a larger firm) then you cannot say their salary is inflated, unless you want to argue that everyone working in tech has an inflated salary -- and you can certainly make that argument, but you should do so clearly, and at that point your complaint is not about WikiMedia anymore.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Not everybody panhandles in India, Latin America and South Africa to help pay those salaries. Wikimedia does.