Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

diff.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 252 posts

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#81

Post by tptacek »

hinkley wrote: post #78
not2b wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most nonprofits can't last long "if donations stop". Why would they stop? I give every year and so do many others.

I think you do have to ask yourself if the need for the charity can outlast its time in the sun. The Red Cross needs to stay frosty all the time. They get money every time there’s a disaster, but the money to deal with the current disaster needs to have already been spent before the checks clear. If we haven’t had a big disaster in a while, we all know there’s one coming, because they always come, and when that shoe…

It's funny, because the Red Cross is famously one of the least effective deals in charity.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#82

Post by hinkley »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #75
hinkley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I hear “Foundation” and “stable financial position” I think endowment. They seem to be making the same mistake as the Mozilla foundation. You’re living on your nest egg instead of the interest. Spending 4 times as much as you should.

Why should Wikimedia need a significant nest egg? What do you do with the money, when people have stopped valuing Wikimedia enough that they are no longer paying for it to exist?

Donations are not a zero sum game but they aren’t terribly elastic either. Try as you might, every dollar you get as a donation is taking some of that money from someone else.

There will be times when Wikipedia is not sexy, but taken for granted. That’s when you need the endowment.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#83

Post by Jonnax »

xyzzyz wrote: post #76
Zababa wrote: post #24

> 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…

That’s okay, if they go bankrupt, someone more competent could take over, and easily run Wikipedia on less than a tenth of their current budget. Look at their financials: Wikimedia Foundation is part jobs program, part grift.

Everytime Wikipedia comes up on hacker news there's always comments about how they're wasteful and incompetent.

What is this self righteous anger for? They're incompetent but somehow Wikipedia exists.

Is it jealousy?

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#84

Post by hinkley »

tux3 wrote: post #59
hinkley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I hear “Foundation” and “stable financial position” I think endowment. They seem to be making the same mistake as the Mozilla foundation. You’re living on your nest egg instead of the interest. Spending 4 times as much as you should.

The foundation set up a Wikipedia Endowment some five years ago, which has now reached 90MM of a 100MM goal. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment

Is that enough to pay salaries and hosting costs? Sounds like the dividends will only cover 20% of their current expenses if they stop making grants. At it is it’s less than 10% of their burn rate.

That’s a very excellent start but I suspect someone will want to grow that later on. In fact they’re at 90% of their goal and less than 60% of their target date, so they could be looking for $150M as the stretch goal.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#85

Post by mistrial9 »

not2b wrote: post #28
Zababa wrote: post #24

> 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…

Most nonprofits can't last long "if donations stop". Why would they stop? I give every year and so do many others.

My Japanese colleague told me with no humor, that I should never work for free, end of sentance. I was at the offices of $Giant_90s_NonProfit when a group from Japan was on tour of the two story office in San Francisco. They were full of energy and had questions, but someone told me the reason they sent a large and important group for the tour, is that they have no "non-profit" in Japan.

I suspect that the non-profit goodwill in the USA is changing a lot in the last year.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#86

Post by hinkley »

tptacek wrote: post #81
hinkley wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you do have to ask yourself if the need for the charity can outlast its time in the sun. The Red Cross needs to stay frosty all the time. They get money every time there’s a disaster, but the money to deal with the current disaster needs to have already been spent before the checks clear. If we haven’t had a big disaster in a while, we all know there’s one coming, because they always come, and when that shoe…

It's funny, because the Red Cross is famously one of the least effective deals in charity.

I think they are running a charity on hard mode. If I were feeding homeless people (any year except last year), I have a pretty good idea of what I have to accomplish and for how many people. I could run a pretty lean operation.

Meanwhile RC “has to” stash supplies 12 hours from everywhere in the world and then let most of them rot. Their overheads are huge, even before you get into any discussion of mismanagement.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#87

Post by rapht »

cwyers wrote: post #25

> For now, I want to share with you why I’m moving on, and what comes next. I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why.

You're right, it's not there. There's vague paragraph about some plans going forward, but nothing that says why she is actually leaving. -- a disappointment, considering this was my only motive for reading the article...

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#88

Post by xyzzyz »

Jonnax wrote: post #83
xyzzyz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s okay, if they go bankrupt, someone more competent could take over, and easily run Wikipedia on less than a tenth of their current budget. Look at their financials: Wikimedia Foundation is part jobs program, part grift.

Everytime Wikipedia comes up on hacker news there's always comments about how they're wasteful and incompetent. What is this self righteous anger for? They're incompetent but somehow Wikipedia exists. Is it jealousy?

It is anger at the collapse of every institution of our society, most of which have transformed away from their original purpose, and into sinecures for well-educated and well-connected professionals, who, under false pretenses, skim the surplus by lying about what they do, and shaming the productive masses into supporting them.

I admit that I'm also full of wishful thinking. I said that once they go bankrupt, someone more competent will take over, but there's no guarantee of that -- instead, it is highly likely that some other skilled and well-connected grifter will assume control, will keep the "crying Jimbo Wales" ads to shame people into giving them money they spend on salaries and travel expenses of people doing things that do not need to be done, and often things that Wikipedia community doesn't even want done.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#89

Post by ndiscussion »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #36
ndiscussion wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly just like Mozilla. Most of these charities are a lavish waste.

“Lavish waste” my arse. You people will be dissatisfied so long as there is a nonprofit worker out there who isn’t subsisting on gruel.

https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201...

Unless I'm misreading something, 64% of their expenses in 2018 went to salaries.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#90

Post by axguscbklp »

hinkley wrote: post #70
axguscbklp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If you’re only in it for the money, you are a mercenary in all but title. People quit because nothing at the company is enough to make them stay. “Enough” is a complex thing and often the oddest details can be the last straw. I like to go to going away parties for people and listen to their reasons for leaving. I doubled down on better onboarding experiences when I noticed how often people were uncomfortable from day…

Yes, I'm only in it for the money. So are almost all other workers. I've been to work parties. I'm a very social person but work parties never did much for me because you can't talk freely at them. I don't need work parties. If I want to go party with coworkers, I can organize that myself, I don't need the organization to do it for me. Or I can go party with people who are not coworkers. I do understand that maybe some people are too shy to party outside of work, but I think that they would probably benefit from becoming less shy. Work parties at almost all organizations are not events where people can really be themselves, and I don't think it's a good idea to have all your eggs in the one basket of work anyway. But as for people who like work parties, I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't go to them. More power to them.
Post reply on HN