5 ms·

I guess you have to compare it to the salary of the donors who feel compelled by these heart-wrenching fundraising messages to donate. Here is a senior with $18

by akolbe 4y ago

I guess you have to compare it to the salary of the donors who feel compelled by these heart-wrenching fundraising messages to donate. Here is a senior with $18 to his name promising to donate as soon as his social security check arrives: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising/Archive_6#Shame_on_you_WMF%21_Shame%21 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising/Archive_6#S... The Wikimedia Foundation has also just been fundraising in India and South Africa, again asking people there to donate so Wikipedia stays online for them, ad-free, subscription-free and independent. None of these executives have anything do with the Wikipedia content. All of that is written by unpaid volunteers in their spare time. When Wikipedia first became a top-10 website, the Wikimedia Foundation had less than a dozen staff, and annual expenses of $2 million. I am not saying lets go back to that; I'm only saying this to make the point that the success of Wikipedia was not dependent on highly paid executives. It happened when there weren't any. The main value of the site comes from the volunteers.

bawolff 4y ago
Being envious of something doesn't make it cheaper. Most in-demand, skilled labour is much more pricey than what the average person makes.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  You're answering a point no one made. It has nothing to do with "being envious". Imagine you were asked to donate to "keep the animal shelter open", and went you went there you found that they were using gold water dishes for the little critters. You would be within your right to complain. You thought you were donating to keep it operating, but now you find that they're using funds on frivolous expenses. Is there something a dish made out of gold does that one made out of plastic doesn't, to justify the expense? Is there something a $350k executive does that a minimum wage one (or even none at all) doesn't? Any organization that asks for donations would be subject to criticism if it doesn't optimize its operations as much as possible.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    > You're answering a point no one made. It has nothing to do with "being envious". Then what is the relavence of saying "I guess you have to compare it to the salary of the donors who feel compelled ..."? The donors dont do work similar. The only reason i could possibly imagine bringing this up would be something to do with envy between the average person's salary vs the salary of a high skill position. If not that, what was this sentence trying to say? > Is there something a $350k executive does that a minimum wage one 350k executives exist. Minimum wage one's don't. Imagine you were donating to an animal shelter, but you discover that they spend more on dogfood than you do on feeding your family. You imagine the reason is that they are feeding the dogs caviar, but the real reason is it costs more to feed 150 dogs than it does to feed 4 people.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      The relevance is that some of those donors are donating the little money they have because they think there's a chance Wikipedia might cease to exist otherwise, not knowing that the WMF is actually using that money on gold water dishes rather than saving it for a rainy day. Simply put, if Wikipedia asks for donations to continue operating, 100% of those donations should go towards server costs. That can include the hardware costs, the power, the bandwidth, and the people who maintain those servers. Using the money that was raised to keep it running for any other purpose is at least deceptive. >Imagine you were donating to an animal shelter, but you discover that they spend more on dogfood than you do on feeding your family. You imagine the reason is that they are feeding the dogs caviar, but the real reason is it costs more to feed 150 dogs than it does to feed 4 people. Now imagine that the shelter spends only 10% of its donations on dog food and other dog-related costs, and the rest goes to salaries for people who aren't caring for the dogs and to awareness campaigns. (I'm not implying this is the breakdown in Wikipedia's case; it's just an example.) Even if you think these are worthwhile uses for those funds, don't you think donors should know that their donations will be spent this way before they donate?
      - bawolff 4y ago
        But surely the managers of people who maintain those servers are part of the cost of maintaining those servers. I know people like to complain that managers are useless, but if they really were, every company would get rid of them. The cost of managers is what is being complained about in this thread. There might be other superflorus things wmf might spend money on which i might agree with you on, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
- akolbe 4y ago
  I honestly question the value added by these execs. The other day, you and I discussed some of the expensive C-Suite disasters Wikimedia has bought. They actually set Wikimedia back by years. Dozens of valuable, experienced staff left. And Wikipedia became a top-10 website in 2007, when there was no C-Suite. There seems to be little awareness these days that the main value of the site to the public was and is built and maintained by unpaid volunteers.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Whether or not a particular set of executives (who have all left at this point) are shit at their jobs is a totally different question to what is a reasonable salary for an executive. As far as early days of wikipedia. I agree the community is what provides value. But at the same time i think there is a lot of rose coloured glasses for that era. I remember there being a lot of downtime and slowness on the site in that era.
    - akolbe 4y ago
      Sure. And I complained about how ArbCom volunteers had to deal with child protection issues etc. A lot has become better. But there seems to be an automatic assumption that any executive has to be someone in SF, with the salary costs that go along with it. If they work remotely what does it matter? Wikimedia wants to become more global. Why then not a European, Asian, African, Australian, South American ...? None of them will have salary expectations like someone in SF.
polski-g 4y ago
Wikipedia should not beg for donations. They should sell ads.

by akolbe 4y ago

bawolff 4y ago

Being envious of something doesn't make it cheaper. Most in-demand, skilled labour is much more pricey than what the average person makes.

fluoridation 4y ago
You're answering a point no one made. It has nothing to do with "being envious". Imagine you were asked to donate to "keep the animal shelter open", and went you went there you found that they were using gold water dishes for the little critters. You would be within your right to complain. You thought you were donating to keep it operating, but now you find that they're using funds on frivolous expenses. Is there something a dish made out of gold does that one made out of plastic doesn't, to justify the expense? Is there something a $350k executive does that a minimum wage one (or even none at all) doesn't? Any organization that asks for donations would be subject to criticism if it doesn't optimize its operations as much as possible.
- bawolff 4y ago
  > You're answering a point no one made. It has nothing to do with "being envious". Then what is the relavence of saying "I guess you have to compare it to the salary of the donors who feel compelled ..."? The donors dont do work similar. The only reason i could possibly imagine bringing this up would be something to do with envy between the average person's salary vs the salary of a high skill position. If not that, what was this sentence trying to say? > Is there something a $350k executive does that a minimum wage one 350k executives exist. Minimum wage one's don't. Imagine you were donating to an animal shelter, but you discover that they spend more on dogfood than you do on feeding your family. You imagine the reason is that they are feeding the dogs caviar, but the real reason is it costs more to feed 150 dogs than it does to feed 4 people.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    The relevance is that some of those donors are donating the little money they have because they think there's a chance Wikipedia might cease to exist otherwise, not knowing that the WMF is actually using that money on gold water dishes rather than saving it for a rainy day. Simply put, if Wikipedia asks for donations to continue operating, 100% of those donations should go towards server costs. That can include the hardware costs, the power, the bandwidth, and the people who maintain those servers. Using the money that was raised to keep it running for any other purpose is at least deceptive. >Imagine you were donating to an animal shelter, but you discover that they spend more on dogfood than you do on feeding your family. You imagine the reason is that they are feeding the dogs caviar, but the real reason is it costs more to feed 150 dogs than it does to feed 4 people. Now imagine that the shelter spends only 10% of its donations on dog food and other dog-related costs, and the rest goes to salaries for people who aren't caring for the dogs and to awareness campaigns. (I'm not implying this is the breakdown in Wikipedia's case; it's just an example.) Even if you think these are worthwhile uses for those funds, don't you think donors should know that their donations will be spent this way before they donate?
    - bawolff 4y ago
      But surely the managers of people who maintain those servers are part of the cost of maintaining those servers. I know people like to complain that managers are useless, but if they really were, every company would get rid of them. The cost of managers is what is being complained about in this thread. There might be other superflorus things wmf might spend money on which i might agree with you on, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
akolbe 4y ago
I honestly question the value added by these execs. The other day, you and I discussed some of the expensive C-Suite disasters Wikimedia has bought. They actually set Wikimedia back by years. Dozens of valuable, experienced staff left. And Wikipedia became a top-10 website in 2007, when there was no C-Suite. There seems to be little awareness these days that the main value of the site to the public was and is built and maintained by unpaid volunteers.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Whether or not a particular set of executives (who have all left at this point) are shit at their jobs is a totally different question to what is a reasonable salary for an executive. As far as early days of wikipedia. I agree the community is what provides value. But at the same time i think there is a lot of rose coloured glasses for that era. I remember there being a lot of downtime and slowness on the site in that era.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Sure. And I complained about how ArbCom volunteers had to deal with child protection issues etc. A lot has become better. But there seems to be an automatic assumption that any executive has to be someone in SF, with the salary costs that go along with it. If they work remotely what does it matter? Wikimedia wants to become more global. Why then not a European, Asian, African, Australian, South American ...? None of them will have salary expectations like someone in SF.

polski-g 4y ago

Wikipedia should not beg for donations. They should sell ads.