Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate? • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#481

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

hkt wrote: post #111

zozbot234 wrote: post #21

Let's be clear about this, the donation money isn't just used to keep the encyclopedia online. They have hundreds of language versions of Wikipedia itself, and many related "sister" projects, with perhaps the most clearly impacting being Wikimedia Commons (a huge repository of free-content media with a focus on educational use - including much media in the public domain) and Wikidata (a project that has now emerged a…

In the UK your donations can be for a specified purpose, and must be earmarked for it. Is there no equivalent in the rest of the world? And perhaps more to the point, Wikipedia has legal personality in the UK, so one assumes the above applies. But really it would be pointless: I'm not going to tell Wikipedia what their strategy should be when I donate. So even if you do, they can put my donation to whatever purpose i…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#482

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #432

zozbot234 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rewriting whole paragraphs for clarity is very much the kind of thing that should be discussed on the talk page. That's why the feature exists.

.. that should be discussed by whom, exactly? That article had not seen but three edits in the last five years. You are implying that the self-appointed gatekeepers need to review it.. you are describing the gatekeeping literally right now.

People familiar with the article and the topic area, obviously. The way you prevent gatekeeping is by proactively showing good faith and giving people an opportunity to raise any real, actionable concerns they might have.

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#483

Post by 5560675260 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #462

sorenjan wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is that CEO doing for that money? What important strategic decisions are there to make at Wikipedia? Why do they have to be San Francisco based? The annual real median personal income in the US in 2019 was $35,977[0], how can anyone think that $120k isn't a lot? Why should people around the world donate their hard earned money so that some employees in America can have Silicon Valley salaries? [0] https:…

This is insane - are you arguing the Wikipedia should hire cheaper developers because they are a non-profit? Why stop there - why shouldn't Wikipedia fully cut corners and hire a body shop in a 3rd world country to build the site that millions of people use. wikipedia SHOULD be paying competitve salaries so that their best and brightest don't leave to join tire-fire companies like Facebook. I don't know why you think…

> hire a body shop in a 3rd world country

This is a good question. Why shouldn't Wikipedia hire developers from 3rd world countries? It sure shows donation banners there. And there isn't anything magical about US developers and anything special about building sites for millions of people. Expertise is there, often used by US companies, salaries are not.

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#484

Post by denton-scratch » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

zhdc1 wrote: post #284

jiofih wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expenses for operating Wikipedia.com would be around $10m. Their $112M expenses include the sky high executive compensation, money sent to the fund, millions spent on fundraising itself, and financing a host of programs not directly related to Wikipedia. I stopped donating because of this - definitely want to contribute to keeping Wikipedia online, I don’t necessarily want to give my money to a larger foundation…

I was expecting to see semi-outrageous, border line unjustifiable executive salaries after reading this comment and clicking on the direct link below. I guess there's a chance that executive compensation went up significantly after 2018, but nothing I saw looks out of place for an organization as large as Wikipedia. ~300k for a San Fransisco-based CEO and an average salary of ~120k for all employees employees seems f…

So don't run Wikipedia from the most expensive place to live on the planet.

Wikimedia doesn't need to recruit top engineering talent; it's now a maintenance project, and it's open-source. Wikipedia content is created by volunteers, and significant editorial decisions are made by admins, who are usually volunteers. These volunteers mainly manage themselves. Most editors have never communicated with a staffer.

This "Tides Trust" is not a proper destination for donor's money. No donor thinks their money will be spent on some random project dreamed up by Tides Trust.

And it seems pretty irregular to me to treat a donation to the Tides Trust as "expenditure". The correct name for that money is "profit".

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#485

Post by dehrmann » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #453

nlitened wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the same HN front page there has _just_ been a "senior developer drunk post", where a guy was complaining that full stack developers are being paid peanuts, and they deserve a compensation of at least 500k USD—and the comments were cheering "amen to that". I don't understand anything about US IT salaries anymore.

The $500K developer trope is getting out of control. The truth is that there are a small number of companies in a small number of locations paying those high salaries to a small number of highly talented developers. Once you enter that bubble it can feel like everyone around you is earning the same amount and therefore you can’t understand why everyone else in the US isn’t doing the exact same thing. In reality, the…

> FAANG companies can have admission rates that are more selective than Ivy League universities

I've heard this comparison before, but I'm not sure how meaningful it is because the Ivies charge an application fee. There isn't much cost to applying to FAANG and hoping for the best.

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#486

Post by pmoriarty » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #290

bomdo wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For others interested in this, Wikimedia salaries are all public [0]. [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...

As someone who worked in a sandwich shop to survive while going to college($7.5/hr, 30 hrs/week), I can't imagine the universe some people live in where an income of $375,000 doesn't seem sky high. It's like there is a section of people who live in a different world. I understand that it isn't much for an executive, but then that stuns me even more. Edit: median US salary is around $70k. This executive's pay is over…

Executives usually do things that millions of much lower paid people could do just as easily... such as attend meetings, give powerpoint presentations, hobnob with other execs over expensive meals, hire and fire people, and give orders and pep talks to their underlings.

Even if they were paid ten times less (or a hundred times less, for execs making millions per year), there'd be lines of people a mile long willing to take their place, and probably do their job just as well if not even better.

Corporate boards and investors are deluding themselves that they need to pay astronomical rates to get people who can do these jobs.

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#487

Post by DangitBobby » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #230

paxys wrote: post #75

> But keeping Wikipedia online is a task that the WMF could comfortably manage on $10 million a year This part is disingenuous and bordering on malicious. The linked email ( https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... ) has so much more nuance, and in typical fashion a single number from it is taken completely out of context to push a certain narrative. It is also an estimate from almost a decade…

People seem to want these foundations to not only spend the absolute bare minimum but also don't like them paying their staff properly or even at all. So many times I've read people grumbling about expenses, only when you work out it out per employee it's completely reasonable for a small business let alone one of the largest brands in the world.

This is a strawman. People want Wikimedia to do what they think Wikimedia does, which is maintain Wikipedia. That means they think it should take $xmillion per year where x is a number much, much less than 100. If they included in their donation banner that most of your donation goes to shit that you don't care about at all they wouldn't be able to fund whatever their pet projects are.

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#488

Post by max_hammer » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

MaKey wrote: post #381

reader_mode wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all, most Western Europe 100k$ (80k EUR) is barely above average, you'd still be firmly middle class even on two such incomes, sky high would be at least twice that much.

What? In Germany an income of 80k EUR will put you into the top 10% of all earners, so you will be upper class. Especially on two such incomes.

At 11 years of engineering experience I am getting `66K` annual salary in Berlin.

But rent is getting crazy here, a 60 sqm apartment will cost you 1300+ utility.

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#489

Post by dehrmann » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #290

bomdo wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For others interested in this, Wikimedia salaries are all public [0]. [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...

As someone who worked in a sandwich shop to survive while going to college($7.5/hr, 30 hrs/week), I can't imagine the universe some people live in where an income of $375,000 doesn't seem sky high. It's like there is a section of people who live in a different world. I understand that it isn't much for an executive, but then that stuns me even more. Edit: median US salary is around $70k. This executive's pay is over…

> I can't imagine the universe some people live in where an income of $375,000 doesn't seem sky high

It won't seem so sky-high once your universe also has $4k per month one-bedroom apartments and $2M single-family homes.

Re: Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

#490

Post by denton-scratch » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #423

sorenjan wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is that CEO doing for that money? What important strategic decisions are there to make at Wikipedia? Why do they have to be San Francisco based? The annual real median personal income in the US in 2019 was $35,977[0], how can anyone think that $120k isn't a lot? Why should people around the world donate their hard earned money so that some employees in America can have Silicon Valley salaries? [0] https:…

"What exactly is that CEO doing for that money" What is CEO of Twitter doing that CEO of Wikipedia isn't? Why dont we have a discussion of their salaries? Both are working a job. Enployees are not donating, donors are

The CEO of Twitter has the task of maximising profit for shareholders; he needs to constantly be on the lookout for new opportunities to exploit. Apparently Twitter made a profit for the first time last year.

The CEO of Wikimedia needs to hire and manage maybe 50 people, of whom about 5 need executive pay. I have no idea why Wikimedia needs 500 staff, if they could build the site with a team of 20 or so.

It looks like a gravy train, and it quacks like a gravy train.