21–30 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also spent $2.8m on travel and conferences in 2019 [0], which is more than they spent on internet hosting... [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)
Which is 3% of their total expenses that year. Considering how much exposure and grants conferences can bring to a non-profit, it seems fair.
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
If you read the book of the book Work Rules! of Laszlo Bock (HR in google) you will learn that parties and group binding is appreciated more than salary by workers. So if you see from the money side of things, you can get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
I'd be surprised if this is true for more than a tiny fraction of workers. Given the high salaries at Google, maybe it's more true there than at other places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I wish there were a way to support just Wikipedia. I don't really care about a lot of Wikimedia Foundation's other pet projects, but the way they phrase their banners and emails, you'd think we are always a razor's edge from Wikipedia servers shutting off...
You can support just Wikipedia by contributing ;) I think that Wikipedia just doesn't need that much money. If people just let them fail their fundraising goals, the core service will likely continue to get the same budget, but they'll cut their pet projects and parties.
They earned 9 millions more than last year, from 120 millions to 129 millions, and spent 21 millions more, from 91 millions to 112 millions [1], with an increase of 10 millions in "awards and grants". The donations grew by 10 millions. If I read the financial statement correctly (feel free to correct me, I'm not an expert), they currently have 180 millions in assets, which means if donations stop they can't even last two years. I don't see how this is a "deep and stable financial position that will help us grow and protect us from any storm".
Edit: as tux3 pointed out in their comment [2] there is a Wikipedia Endowment. I think I can now agree on the "deep and stable financial position".
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim...
I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I wish there were a way to support just Wikipedia. I don't really care about a lot of Wikimedia Foundation's other pet projects, but the way they phrase their banners and emails, you'd think we are always a razor's edge from Wikipedia servers shutting off...
You can support just Wikipedia by contributing ;) I think that Wikipedia just doesn't need that much money. If people just let them fail their fundraising goals, the core service will likely continue to get the same budget, but they'll cut their pet projects and parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For profit entities use parties to bond teams and accomplish a goal. Non profit entities ought to have that freedom as well.
They are welcome to, just declare it upfront.
This is really no different than people who whine about what people receiving public assistance buy. It is an attempt to leverage money in to control, and it is gross.
If you don't like what Wikimedia does, don't give them money. If you do, great, but donations don't buy line-item veto privileges.
> We have a deep and stable financial position that will help us grow and protect us from any storm, and the trust in our projects has never been higher. They earned 9 millions more than last year, from 120 millions to 129 millions, and spent 21 millions more, from 91 millions to 112 millions [1], with an increase of 10 millions in "awards and grants". The donations grew by 10 millions. If I read the financial statem…
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
If you read the book of the book Work Rules! of Laszlo Bock (HR in google) you will learn that parties and group binding is appreciated more than salary by workers. So if you see from the money side of things, you can get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
it is written by an HR - it is their job to sell such a proposition and they get recognition for supposedly successfully substituting larger expenses like salaries by the lower expenses like the parties.
> get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
exactly - HR is trying to sell themselves as those magicians who can do it, who can beat the power of raw compensation by some tricks and gimmicks and thus supposedly save company money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the book of the book Work Rules! of Laszlo Bock (HR in google) you will learn that parties and group binding is appreciated more than salary by workers. So if you see from the money side of things, you can get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
>parties and group binding is appreciated more than salary by workers I'd be surprised if this is true for more than a tiny fraction of workers. Given the high salaries at Google, maybe it's more true there than at other places.