4 ms·

This is an interesting comment that seems to miss the point. > If fundraising dips in the future, so what? They cut back? It's sad to see folks get laid off, b

This is an interesting comment that seems to miss the point. > If fundraising dips in the future, so what? They cut back? It's sad to see folks get laid off, but that's essentially what the author is arguing for, so it's kind of moot. The point author is making is that there's no track record to suggest that cost cutting is on the cards, or more broadly, that the organization has any concept of how to manage organizational risk. Author cites a lack of other best practices across the organization + a continued ramp-up in spend not commensurate with what wikipedia needs as a defense of this argument. The best practices and need for fiscal prudence cited by the author exist in essence to mitigate the risk of waste and insolvency against the fulfillment of the mission. > Incidentally, we did go through a global recession. COVID caused Wikipedia to see almost double it's normal increase in funding while the organization decreased expenses. And the following year, fundraising brought in less cash, but income still far outstripped expenses, and income basically returned to it's trend before the recession. I'm not sure what this is intending to suggest, but all I can come up with is "because Wikipedia thrived during the biggest imminent risk to humanity in decades, there's not much to worry about." So did Zoom and Pfizer, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a good handle of enterprise risk. > The argument "it's not their place to spend the money they raise" seems, at this point, like such a ridiculous argument It's probably the most grounded argument I've read about WMF's incapability to handle risk as it relates to its mission. WMF is non-profit. They serve a mission foremost. It's on their board to ensure that the mission is served effectively today and can continue to be served effectively for as long as is relevant, or in the case of Wikipedia, as long as possible. Not contributing is an option, but in the absence of alternatives, it's the option that most greatly jeopardizes the mission in the eyes of donors. This is why people may choose to use their voices rather than their dollars.

gopher_space 2y ago
> The point author is making is that there's no track record to suggest that cost cutting is on the cards, or more broadly, that the organization has any concept of how to manage organizational risk. I didn’t get the impression the author knew what he was talking about in this regard. He doesn’t understand what they’re up to but has a list of “best practices” they should apply to solve a problem that he came up with? “I don’t know what their 300 employees do, and that upsets me, but not enough to actually ask anyone about it.”
bastawhiz 2y ago
Let's say, hypothetically, that Wikipedia cuts spending by 50% without impacting fundraising. How much money do they need to save up to satisfy the idea that they have a "good handle of enterprise risk"? Half a billion dollars? A billion? More? But at the same time, what is the cost of doing 50% less? All that money isn't being lit on fire. If they cut costs, they're doing less. If they're doing less, it means they simply can't raise as much money; you're not going to convince people to give the same amount of money to do less work. At one end of the spectrum, Wikipedia is growing and doing more to justify the money it's bringing in. At the other end of the spectrum, it's PHP and nginx serving bits from a hard disk and it's just plain unethical to ask people to build up the reserves to supply an organization that's already extremely well-funded. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's hosting expenses can almost certainly be paid for almost entirely with just the interest from their reserves account. That's likely an eight figure amount of money each year. If fundraising were to suddenly sour, there's lots that could be cut from expenses before you ever had to start laying off staff.

gopher_space 2y ago

> The point author is making is that there's no track record to suggest that cost cutting is on the cards, or more broadly, that the organization has any concept of how to manage organizational risk. I didn’t get the impression the author knew what he was talking about in this regard. He doesn’t understand what they’re up to but has a list of “best practices” they should apply to solve a problem that he came up with? “I don’t know what their 300 employees do, and that upsets me, but not enough to actually ask anyone about it.”

bastawhiz 2y ago

Let's say, hypothetically, that Wikipedia cuts spending by 50% without impacting fundraising. How much money do they need to save up to satisfy the idea that they have a "good handle of enterprise risk"? Half a billion dollars? A billion? More? But at the same time, what is the cost of doing 50% less? All that money isn't being lit on fire. If they cut costs, they're doing less. If they're doing less, it means they simply can't raise as much money; you're not going to convince people to give the same amount of money to do less work. At one end of the spectrum, Wikipedia is growing and doing more to justify the money it's bringing in. At the other end of the spectrum, it's PHP and nginx serving bits from a hard disk and it's just plain unethical to ask people to build up the reserves to supply an organization that's already extremely well-funded. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's hosting expenses can almost certainly be paid for almost entirely with just the interest from their reserves account. That's likely an eight figure amount of money each year. If fundraising were to suddenly sour, there's lots that could be cut from expenses before you ever had to start laying off staff.