This is not a poll, this is someone who is very critical how wikimedia spends its money putting out an "opinions welcome" box on what amounts to a public square.
> Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails look fine
Are you referring to this?
> Thanks for commenting. Unfortunately though I have to disagree, The Land. In my view, getting people on very limited incomes to donate $2 they can't afford, by making them "believe that Wikipedia is in trouble and that they need to give money to keep it online", is unethical. All the more so if it's done in part to raise WMF executives' compensation to $350K and beyond (bear in mind that these salary figures are two years old). It's worth mentioning that some of those salaries have been rising steeply, even as the WMF claimed to be in urgent need of money. Compare the entries here in the 2020 Form 990 to the corresponding entries here in the 2018 form. As far as I can make out: the CEO's total compensation incl. benefits increased by 7% (to $423,318), the DGC's and GC's by 10%, the CFO's by 11%, the CTO's by 17%, the CAO's by 22%, the CCO's by 25%, the CT/CO's by 28%, and the CPO's by 32% – all over a two-year period when the annual inflation rate in the US was at 2%
$350K does not strike me as a lot of money for top executives at an organization as large as Wikimedia. In 2022, I've got startups (30 to 50 employees) offering me $225,000 to work as a software architect. At a larger organization I would expect $350k and I would expect the top executives to get paid more than me. If Wikimedia are hiring executives who could make $1 million a year somewhere, who then work for $300k-$400k, the question comes up how much charity and sacrifice is it okay to expect from these executives. Should they think of this as a business or a charity? If they are working for less than what they would get at a different organization, then they are also making something of a sacrifice for the sake of Wikimedia. Which is fine, but I also understand why they would push for more money. In the end, the big question is, how much should Wikimedia professionalize? How much should it exist just as an idealistic experiment, versus how much should it be put on the basis of a stable business?
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:
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."
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.
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.
> 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.
I get your point in principle, but a startup doing whatever tf they want with their profits is a completely different kettle of fish from a charity doing whatever tf they want with donations.
Especially when said donations were donated under the impression they'd be used specifically towards the charity's cause, rather than inflating a c-suite executive's bonus for the umptieth time.
"rather than inflating a c-suite executive's bonus for the umptieth time."
The point is, if they are being paid 30% or 40% more than what I get paid when I am at a poorly funded startup (that is, if they are getting paid what I would be paid if I was working at a larger firm) then you cannot say their salary is inflated, unless you want to argue that everyone working in tech has an inflated salary -- and you can certainly make that argument, but you should do so clearly, and at that point your complaint is not about WikiMedia anymore.
What do you know about American non-profit salaries? Or even German ones?
A sensible thing to do before proclaiming a knee-jerk opinion is to get some information from this wonderful global network we are all connected to. Isn't context useful?
Now, I have to admit, (because I just did it) that when you google something like "charity financial salary statements", you will get garbage hits, meaning "free" websites (and people referring you to them like nolo) that require you to sign up and jump through hoops.
One basic aspect of doing research on the Internet is knowing that (when) you don't have to play that game, because there are official sources.
Regarding this topic, there is something in the US called an IRS Form 990, and you can look them up at the unbelievably logical URL:
This is how you can look at any tax return for a non-profit and it says right at the top "Open to Public Inspection". How nice.
I used to volunteer with a state chapter of a mental health advocacy organization, so I looked up the national organization (which is separate but affiliated). The CEO makes ~$250K and the other executives are all around $150K. This for revenue in the range of a few tens of millions per year.
They also pay several contractors (not individuals, but business names) on the order of $200-300K per year.
Now of course, the state and local organizations that one might assume do most of the real work, do not pay anyone like that. I seem to recall that the leader of the state chapter was something like $70K or less, several years ago. And the director position would cycle in and out - I don't think they typically stayed for long. Everybody else was making a lot less and extremely overworked and sometimes burned out. They would have interns, but no budget to hire them.
In conclusion, whether or not $350K is obscene to Germans, you are completely wrong in your gratuitous comment about SV bros, as what I just read implies that people in the non-profit world in the US would at least not be shocked by such a salary.
Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2019: 291
Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: $55.6 million
(In the 2020 Form, that latter amount has gone up to $68 million for Wikimedia, but the 2020 Form 990 for the Internet Archive isn't online yet, so this will have to do.)
So, going just by the information on that page (happy to go further into the details ...), Wikimedia has about twice the employees but more than five times the salary costs. And the Internet Archive is actually very important to Wikipedia (link rot).
Executive salaries at the Wikimedia Foundation are about twice what they are at the Internet Archive:
Secondly, you seem to be completely and utterly oblivious to the question of salaries elsewhere in the world, such as India, South Africa or Latin America, which is where the Wikimedia Foundation has just been fundraising.
Don't you think it is shameful for a nonprofit to go panhandling in those countries, with misleading fundraising messages implying Wikipedia will disappear if they don't give money, in order to pay people in the US a salary that is like 500 times the median income in India?
>you are completely wrong in your gratuitous comment about SV bros
GP is wrong, yes. I'd extend it beyond SV bros to US middle class at large. US pay scales are ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world for a cost of living on average that doesn't seem as high unless it's really in the big expensive cities.
> How much should it exist just as an idealistic experiment, versus how much should it be put on the basis of a stable business?
Wikipedia is sustained by the volunteers, not the corporate bureaucrats. They existed before the c-level salary increases, but might flee as peak corporatism occurs.
What do they do though? Wikipedia is a product where volunteers edit content free of charge. Sure there are some infrastructure costs, but why does it need so many C-level executives? Looks like a gravy train to me
Does Wikimedia need "best of the best" execs, or simply competent and stable leadership? Most of their value and lifeblood (content) comes from volunteers who would probably keep doing it even if a likeable monkey were on top.
The question is whether throwing money at the problem is the way to solve it.
I remember Damon Sicore's stint at the WMF. He'd been VPE for six years at Mozilla and then came to the WMF. He ended up working all of eleven months for Wikimedia. When he left he was given $100,000 in severance pay, for a total compensation of $292,258 for less than a year's work.
I think, Wikimedia's fundraising message should include the amount of money they have, the expenses they expect for the coming years (with a basic breakdown of how it is going to be spent), as well as a link to a detailed report of how much money they got and how they were spent for the previous years. Basically be transparent, b/c someone might want to spend their money on a different web project they like.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public? Because if they aren't, then the non-profit organization is incredibly ripe for fraud and I wonder how many have already chosen the NPO structure for ill intents.
The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization, when executives e.g. Mitchell Baker of Mozilla foundation, can command such large salaries and irresponsible spending. If abuse is as rife in non-profit structured organizations as it appears, IRS had better burnish its hammer and commit to resolutory action.
Yes, all tax-exempt organizations in the US are required to publish a copy of IRS Form 990. This includes a breakdown of income, expenses (including executive compensation), and assets.
The Wikimedia Foundation also publishes audited financial statements and a plan for the coming year. All of this is available here [1], which is the first result when you Google "wikipedia financials".
Anecdotally, most non profits I’ve encountered operate in this way. Someone who is already wealthy, runs the show and pays themselves an egregious salary. They then hire lots of idealistic folks who either have money already or are ok being exploited due to idealistic bias.
No one who “works” for the non profit gets paid reasonably except the executives, who are paid exorbitant wages.
Wikimedia (the parent of Wikipedia) pays most people at Wikimedia very generously. The issue is most people involved, outside of tech, contribute little or nothing to Wikipedia which is the reason people are donating.
I think, Wiki fundraising message should be more informational, not an emotional cry for help and money. I myself don't want to be manipulated, give me the numbers and what you want to do with my money.
> aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public?
Of course they are required to file tax returns with executive salaries that are public! Why would you not check it? This is how cynicism destroys a civilization. People let institutions die because someone told them they were already dead.
>The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization
No it isn't, it's very clear cut. To people in the industry, there's no connection between salaries and "profit". That's just not what the word means to them. Random people on the internet get confused about this because they (definitely not only you) don't have any specific idea of what "profit" means.
In fact, "profit" doesn't even mean "having extra money after paying expenses and salaries" in the non-profit business.
At a non-profit, when they have more money at the end of the year than at the beginning, it's called a "surplus" rather than a "profit", and it doesn't have to be paid out to pesky "shareholders" so the organization just keeps it and does whatever with it next year.
Instead of a triad of directors, executives and shareholders (theoretically) in charge, the directors and executives run it (or fight over it).
Isn't the usual collective decision-making process at Wikipedia to post somewhere to have a vote while exchanging arguments and counterarguments below?
True, but would you agree that the number of editors who take umbrage with the wording is a small minority of the tens of thousands who edit and thousands (hundreds?) who are aware of the fundraising messages?
It is worth noting that three of the six community-and-affiliate candidates currently standing for the Wikimedia Foundation board support the following statement:
"WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever"
(Two candidates "supported" the statement; one "strongly supported" it. A fourth opposed the statement, but added: "I do feel that the online campaign can be improved. See videos for more." In the videos, she said: "The one thing that I think we can improve is our on-wiki campaign. It is sometimes too aggressive to my taste.")
Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails look fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla...
So yeah, not a poll.