3 ms·

People losing their jobs sucks, but I highly doubt it could even remotely be a result of an ongoing donation drive. You might be able to plan around a specific

People losing their jobs sucks, but I highly doubt it could even remotely be a result of an ongoing donation drive. You might be able to plan around a specific drive and change plans as a result of it tanking, but that wouldn’t happen in the middle of the drive. If it did, that screams of mismanagement far more than anything else. Furthermore, the WMF fundraised $165 million in FY 2021-2022 already. That should more than cover staff salaries already, which were $68 million in 2020/2021. The root of the issue is that the WMF does a lot, gets a lot of money for doing it, and puts back an abysmally small amount back into the thing they are most well known for: Wikipedia. So why would Wikipedia editors want to continue advertising it if they get little to no benefit from doing so?

hitekker 4y ago
Agreed. I see a lot of true believers in management, particularly following the overgrowth of 2021. Their logic is that their managers can't be wrong, because their managers hired them. If their managers are wrong, then the true believer's employment is wrong too. I think the anxiety of losing a job can cause true believers to "get in on the lie" and aid management in dodging the blame. It's an unfortunate position to be in as a Wikimedia employee.
howenterprisey 4y ago
If the money only comes from donations, and the donations start drying up, every area of the budget gets impacted, including salaries. The WMF could not have foreseen the current campaign making much less than expected. "Abysmally small" is a bizarre and uninformed characterization. Please read anything written on the topic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_banners#First_day_update https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_ban... is a fine starting point.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  The majority is spent on wages, as evidenced by the consolidated statement of activities of the WMF. I severely doubt that $88 million worth of people is required to run Wikipedia, nor that Wikipedia gets much benefit from things like “Awards and grants” (to the Tides foundation), “Travel and conferences”, or “special event expenses”. In fact, only 2.7 million dollars is spent on the actual hosting, you know, that thing that is absolutely drop dead required to run a site. That is 1.8% and is split amongst the various sites other than English Wikipedia. That sounds a hell of a lot like “abysmally small” to me. And, as I said, it wouldn’t be a part of a currently running donation campaign. Maybe it would affect budgets years from now, but the foundation is not running at the equivalent of paycheck to paycheck. The current donation drive would in no way shape or form impact the current projects that are being run, and if they are, then that’s indicative of massive mismanagement more than anything. So please, show me exactly where I’m wrong, with explicit sources, instead of claiming I’m uninformed and pointing me to the most generic of pages on this.
  - howenterprisey 4y ago
    Ops people cost money, and MediaWiki is a flaming garbage heap to operate (with utmost respect to those who tirelessly work on it). Developers who work on editor tools also cost money, as do lawyers for major jurisdictions in which Wikipedia operates (hint: there are many). Grants and appointments provide essential depth to Wikipedia; what's a history article without historians helping out? Re paycheck to paycheck: look, I'm not a finance guy, but I have it on good authority (sorry, no links) that the current campaign's performance is having _some_ effect; you're welcome to tell them it shouldn't, I guess? Sure, there's some stupid money (and the recent upheaval is helping with that), but there's a lot of non-stupid money, and it's not like they're epically mismanaging the money. Apologies for the lack of sources, but everything relevant is public, I think, and you've found the budget already.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      MediaWiki is open source. Developers getting paid is great, but things would still eventually go in even without them getting paid. Ops might be essential, but it’s not $88 million dollars. Nowhere near. It’s your responsibility to back up your claims with links. Telling someone it’s all public and to trust you and your good authority is, frankly, not enough.

hitekker 4y ago

Agreed. I see a lot of true believers in management, particularly following the overgrowth of 2021. Their logic is that their managers can't be wrong, because their managers hired them. If their managers are wrong, then the true believer's employment is wrong too. I think the anxiety of losing a job can cause true believers to "get in on the lie" and aid management in dodging the blame. It's an unfortunate position to be in as a Wikimedia employee.

howenterprisey 4y ago

If the money only comes from donations, and the donations start drying up, every area of the budget gets impacted, including salaries. The WMF could not have foreseen the current campaign making much less than expected. "Abysmally small" is a bizarre and uninformed characterization. Please read anything written on the topic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_banners#First_day_update https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_ban... is a fine starting point.

mynameisvlad 4y ago
The majority is spent on wages, as evidenced by the consolidated statement of activities of the WMF. I severely doubt that $88 million worth of people is required to run Wikipedia, nor that Wikipedia gets much benefit from things like “Awards and grants” (to the Tides foundation), “Travel and conferences”, or “special event expenses”. In fact, only 2.7 million dollars is spent on the actual hosting, you know, that thing that is absolutely drop dead required to run a site. That is 1.8% and is split amongst the various sites other than English Wikipedia. That sounds a hell of a lot like “abysmally small” to me. And, as I said, it wouldn’t be a part of a currently running donation campaign. Maybe it would affect budgets years from now, but the foundation is not running at the equivalent of paycheck to paycheck. The current donation drive would in no way shape or form impact the current projects that are being run, and if they are, then that’s indicative of massive mismanagement more than anything. So please, show me exactly where I’m wrong, with explicit sources, instead of claiming I’m uninformed and pointing me to the most generic of pages on this.
- howenterprisey 4y ago
  Ops people cost money, and MediaWiki is a flaming garbage heap to operate (with utmost respect to those who tirelessly work on it). Developers who work on editor tools also cost money, as do lawyers for major jurisdictions in which Wikipedia operates (hint: there are many). Grants and appointments provide essential depth to Wikipedia; what's a history article without historians helping out? Re paycheck to paycheck: look, I'm not a finance guy, but I have it on good authority (sorry, no links) that the current campaign's performance is having _some_ effect; you're welcome to tell them it shouldn't, I guess? Sure, there's some stupid money (and the recent upheaval is helping with that), but there's a lot of non-stupid money, and it's not like they're epically mismanaging the money. Apologies for the lack of sources, but everything relevant is public, I think, and you've found the budget already.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    MediaWiki is open source. Developers getting paid is great, but things would still eventually go in even without them getting paid. Ops might be essential, but it’s not $88 million dollars. Nowhere near. It’s your responsibility to back up your claims with links. Telling someone it’s all public and to trust you and your good authority is, frankly, not enough.