4 ms·

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 rat

by 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.
- _t4za 4y ago
  > 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. Before going further, I want to say that you and I agree. I just want to add a bit more context to some of the details in your response. > Wikimedia HQ is in San Francisco. There are many 25 year old code monkeys here making more than the Wikimedia executive team. This is true, but most Wikimedia employees don't live in SF. This page[1] says that half of the people working on teams based in the SF office were actually working remotely, and this sentence was added to the page in 2018. > I don't think Wikimedia should have to pay employees far below market rates just because it's a non-profit. Unfortunately this is already true. It looks like the average salary for a senior software developer at WMF is 132k[2]. When you consider that up to half of the employees live in SF, that is far below market rate. 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_offices&diff=prev&oldid=17858253 2. https://www.levels.fyi/companies/wikimedia-foundation/salaries/software-engineer

by akolbe 4y ago

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.

_t4za 4y ago
> 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. Before going further, I want to say that you and I agree. I just want to add a bit more context to some of the details in your response. > Wikimedia HQ is in San Francisco. There are many 25 year old code monkeys here making more than the Wikimedia executive team. This is true, but most Wikimedia employees don't live in SF. This page[1] says that half of the people working on teams based in the SF office were actually working remotely, and this sentence was added to the page in 2018. > I don't think Wikimedia should have to pay employees far below market rates just because it's a non-profit. Unfortunately this is already true. It looks like the average salary for a senior software developer at WMF is 132k[2]. When you consider that up to half of the employees live in SF, that is far below market rate. 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_offices&diff=prev&oldid=17858253 2. https://www.levels.fyi/companies/wikimedia-foundation/salaries/software-engineer