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?

#491

Post by pmoriarty » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:43 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…

"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"

Are they really that talented, or are they just good at whiteboarding algorithm questions that they almost never actually use on the job?

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

#492

Post by mistrial9 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #482

mistrial9 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. 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.

Your explanation sounds considered and fair, but, is this what is happening ? not in my experience

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

#493

Post by denton-scratch » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #238

saurik wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funding Wikipedia's side projects--like wiktionary--doesn't seem particularly valuable; Wikipedia doesn't spend much money actually improving Wikipedia, and what effort they have put in was spent on things like the "visual editor" project that both their own surveys and studies showed wouldn't actually improve editing.

Wiktionary indirectly supports translation work that benefits Wikipedia, and provides a place to work on non-encyclopedic content that should not be in Wikipedia itself.

Does it "indirectly pay" translators? Or are they in fact volunteers?

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

#494

Post by pmoriarty » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

SyzygistSix wrote: post #366

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In a large city, with two kids, this is not an extravagant income. It's certainly a very good income, but a position like that deserves good compensation.

"a position like that deserves good compensation"

Why do they deserve that much compensation exactly?

The people who to my mind deserve high compensation are people who are risking their lives to help people, such as firefighters (who are often sadly volunteers and don't get paid anything), front line nurses and doctors, teachers in inner city schools or third world countries, Peace Corps volunteers, etc.

People whose job it is to hobnob with other high-paid execs over expensive lunches and give orders should be at the bottom of the pay ladder, not at the top.

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

#495

Post by dtrain2017 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

If you rely on volunteers, then you are a non-profit. But, if you are selling that work to corporations, then you are no longer a non-profit. However, if you are translating knowledge so everyone can read, then you are back to being a non-profit.

It's a classic public-private partnership.

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

#496

Post by CrazyStat » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:49 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…

Just to be clear, ~$70k is the median household income. The median individual income is about $50k for full-time employees [1].

Of course, this only makes your point even stronger.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

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

#497

Post by codeecan » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

frzj wrote: post #378

isaacremuant wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bleed editors because they keep censoring and shunning people for not having the same monolithical point of views with regards to politics and social issues. Money won't change that.

What bias are you talking about? I thought Jimbo was an Rand Fanboy, freedom of speech is their religion.

In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd article, they mention an event where he "held a pistol to a woman's stomach", but leave out that she was pregnant so it doesn't look as bad.

Example 2, there was two mass shooting in March:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Boulder_shooting

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings

In the Boulder shooting, all victims where white and the shooter was targeting white people but they don't mention any of that.

In the Atlanta shootings, the article goes out of its way to mention 6 of 8 victims where asian (asian-hate narrative). In reality, many spa owners are asian.

Theres is definitely a bias in their editing.

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

#498

Post by pmoriarty » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

mratsim wrote: post #418

jiofih wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is a non-profit foundation. $374k is a pretty damn good salary for a foundation.

If you want to attract the best talents you also need sufficient benefits. A sense of purpose alone won't let you lodge in cities with high cost of living. If anything, I dare say running a non-profit usually requires a lot more skills, especially people skills and passion than a tech job. I'm not sure how it is in the US but in Europe there is this sense of entitlement when you talk to people that because you work a…

"If you want to attract the best talents you also need sufficient benefits."

Oh come on! What talent do they need that a million much lower paid people don't have?

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

#499

Post by PragmaticPulp » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #491

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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" Are they really that talented, or are they just good at whiteboarding algorithm questions that they almost never actually use on the job?

It’s a myth that whiteboarding problems are the only criteria used in FAANG interviews. Being able to complete coding challenges is necessary but not sufficient for getting one of these jobs.

These companies that spend $300K or more on their developers aren’t keen on keeping under-performers around, either.

The idea that you can bluff your way into a FAANG job by memorizing enough LeetCode problems yet by somehow remaining an under qualified programmer is a myth.

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

#500

Post by lrem » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

potamic wrote: post #454

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...

Chief of Community Engagement Chief Community Officer Chief Talent and Culture Officer Chargée d'affaires Chief Global Development Officer Chief Creative Officer Chief Communications Officer Chief Revenue Officer VP of Strategic Partnerships 55 million USD in annual salary expenses seems a bit high, even more so for a non-profit. I have seen startup unicorns spend less on salaries. I think there really needs to be so…

For a second I thought that someone in Wikimedia is getting a 55M salary. But no, we're talking about one person earning 375k and a bunch of ~200k. The 55M is for the total ~450 employees. It's really far from outrageous.

Sure, some of these positions sound a bit surprising. But, having checked just the last one, it existed only for a part of 2016. So, eh, what's your point again?