3 ms·

The number of employees has nearly doubled in five years, which is why the cost of salaries has increased. WMF is consistently understaffed, so hiring is necess

The number of employees has nearly doubled in five years, which is why the cost of salaries has increased. WMF is consistently understaffed, so hiring is necessary for maintaining the sites. Note that when I say maintain, that I consider improvements to be part of maintenance, because part of maintaining the sites is keeping them modern, and supporting the community with necessary features. The salaries have also increased over that period of time, but US inflation averaged 2% per year, not in total. Also, WMF has historically drastically underpaid employees, and their current salaries are definitely closer to (but still considerably lower than) industry standards. The quote you're using is the cost of the sites, not including the salaries, which is exactly the misinformation I'm trying to correct. It's absolutely inaccurate in the way you're using it. The revenue streams they're talking about is the enterprise API thing, which is basically just charging major users of the API for their cost. Your interpretation of this is needlessly misleading.

akolbe 4y ago
I'll repeat that quote from the WMF executive above: "And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement"." The reason given for wanting to raise more funds and "maximize revenue" (Wikimedia had a $50 million surplus in 2020/2021, $88 million if you include endowment growth ...) was not a lack of staff or resources for maintaining Wikipedia, but the "Strategic Direction" and the desire "to be able to move towards our collective vision for 2030" (which involves Wikimedia becoming "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge"). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/... Frankly, a lot of the new employees appear to me to be producing a lot of high-faluting words – about the Universal Code of Conduct, the Human Rights Policy, the UN, knowledge equity, movement strategy, and whatnot. Around 50 people just work on Fundraising. I wish they prioritised the things volunteers are asking for more, but their sights often appear to be focused on far loftier aims. In that vein, they recently created a $4.5 million fund to support organisations completely unrelated to both Wikipedia and Wikimedia: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund And all these things may be fine things to do, but if they are fine things, then tell donors about them. As for what Lisa meant, I genuinely don't know what she meant. That's why I asked above. If you've spoken to her, then fine, I'll take that on board.
- akolbe 4y ago
  Actually, thinking about that Lisa quote, what you say can't be right, Ryan. Have a look at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf#page=5 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim... The total sum of expenses other than salaries in 2020/2021 was about $43 million, which included – * $9.8 million of grants ($5 million of which is the WMF paying into its own endowment at the Tides Foundation) * $6.4 million donations processing Once you deduct these amounts, that only leaves about $27 million of non-salary costs. And we know some of that $27 million was spent on PR consultants etc. In other words, it's mathematically impossible for an estimate of $33.75 million to have excluded salaries of technical staff.
  - ryan_lane 4y ago
    You're trying to calculate costs from an annual plan and match them directly to a quote from an executive, from an article that obviously has a bias against Wikimedia. The executive may not have properly quoted expenses. You may be reading the data incorrectly as well. In either case, it seems that you have a bone to pick with specific programs the foundation is funding, which happen to be diversity related, which lets me know that I shouldn't be engaging with you.
    - akolbe 4y ago
      The problem is not the type of causes funded, it's that the money was collected under the premise that it was urgently needed to "keep Wikipedia online", "ad-free" and "independent" - including from people in India and South Africa whom I'd rather see funding local causes, supporting people who are in real poverty, than have them sending money to a wealthy country like the US to support diversity causes there.
      - ryan_lane 4y ago
        The diversity spending is also geographical, you realize? Most of the money that goes into the fundraising is from wealthy countries, and quite a bit goes into areas like India and South Africa. I agree that their messaging is deceiving, but essentially everything you're discussing is misinformation, sourced from extremely biased sourced.

akolbe 4y ago

I'll repeat that quote from the WMF executive above: "And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement"." The reason given for wanting to raise more funds and "maximize revenue" (Wikimedia had a $50 million surplus in 2020/2021, $88 million if you include endowment growth ...) was not a lack of staff or resources for maintaining Wikipedia, but the "Strategic Direction" and the desire "to be able to move towards our collective vision for 2030" (which involves Wikimedia becoming "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge"). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/... Frankly, a lot of the new employees appear to me to be producing a lot of high-faluting words – about the Universal Code of Conduct, the Human Rights Policy, the UN, knowledge equity, movement strategy, and whatnot. Around 50 people just work on Fundraising. I wish they prioritised the things volunteers are asking for more, but their sights often appear to be focused on far loftier aims. In that vein, they recently created a $4.5 million fund to support organisations completely unrelated to both Wikipedia and Wikimedia: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund And all these things may be fine things to do, but if they are fine things, then tell donors about them. As for what Lisa meant, I genuinely don't know what she meant. That's why I asked above. If you've spoken to her, then fine, I'll take that on board.

akolbe 4y ago
Actually, thinking about that Lisa quote, what you say can't be right, Ryan. Have a look at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf#page=5 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim... The total sum of expenses other than salaries in 2020/2021 was about $43 million, which included – * $9.8 million of grants ($5 million of which is the WMF paying into its own endowment at the Tides Foundation) * $6.4 million donations processing Once you deduct these amounts, that only leaves about $27 million of non-salary costs. And we know some of that $27 million was spent on PR consultants etc. In other words, it's mathematically impossible for an estimate of $33.75 million to have excluded salaries of technical staff.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  You're trying to calculate costs from an annual plan and match them directly to a quote from an executive, from an article that obviously has a bias against Wikimedia. The executive may not have properly quoted expenses. You may be reading the data incorrectly as well. In either case, it seems that you have a bone to pick with specific programs the foundation is funding, which happen to be diversity related, which lets me know that I shouldn't be engaging with you.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    The problem is not the type of causes funded, it's that the money was collected under the premise that it was urgently needed to "keep Wikipedia online", "ad-free" and "independent" - including from people in India and South Africa whom I'd rather see funding local causes, supporting people who are in real poverty, than have them sending money to a wealthy country like the US to support diversity causes there.
    - ryan_lane 4y ago
      The diversity spending is also geographical, you realize? Most of the money that goes into the fundraising is from wealthy countries, and quite a bit goes into areas like India and South Africa. I agree that their messaging is deceiving, but essentially everything you're discussing is misinformation, sourced from extremely biased sourced.