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

Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 252 posts

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#21

Post by yupper32 »

jjulius wrote: post #7
yupper32 wrote: post #3

Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

>Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. It's not, really. It's about how you frame things, and the follow-up tweets touch on that: >You wouldn't think so from the fundraising emails currently being sent out, telling people to donate "to keep Wikipedia online", saying it's "awkward to ask", etc. A recent poll of Wikipedia volunteers condemned these emails as unethical and misleadi…

I'm not disagreeing with the overall premise of the tweet chain. I'm just saying that $350k is pretty cheap for an exec at one of the most viewed/important websites on the planet.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#22

Post by ryan_lane »

yupper32 wrote: post #3

Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

It's lower than total comp of senior engineers in the bay area, just to give a point of reference.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#23

Post by dbingham »

jefftk wrote: post #13
dbingham wrote: post #9

This is an extremely misleading take. Wikipedia had a really good year in 20-21, their most recent financial report. They took in $162 million, against an $111 million operating budget, and came out of the year with $240 million in assets.[1] So they had about half a year's surplus, and wound up with ~2 years worth of savings. And yes, that's a simplification, a good chunk of those assets are necessary to continue op…

They have an "$111 million operating budget", but that's because they've decided to spend money on lots of things other than "serve Wikipedia": https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe... Note that "Direct support to websites" includes things like designing and implementing more intuitive article editing UI, which while potentially worth it isn't the kind of "obviously we must do this" that keepin…

Yeah, I think it's valid to ask whether Wikipedia's expenses are too high, or whether they are spending on the right things.

But that tweet and thread are sensationalist and not doing it in a way that will lead to a reasonable dialog around that question. The linked article is better - but still sensationalist.

Compare that budget and the scale of Wikimedia foundation to the organizations that are running websites of a similar scale. Wikimedia is still tiny. And they are doing a ton of good.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#24

Post by dane-pgp »

JohnFen wrote: post #11
yupper32 wrote: post #3

Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

$350k salaries _are_ lavish, though. It seems strange to me that people would argue otherwise.

It may be lavish, but if an executive paid $350k is 35% less likely to make a mistake that would cost the organisation $1m (which is about 1% of their budget), compared to a volunteer working for free, then maybe, from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap.

Of course, judging performance like that is very difficult, and predicting it in advance is even harder, so it's possible that the highly paid executive would actually perform worse than a volunteer (or a random number generator), but if the complaint about "lavishness" is really about inequality (i.e. the executive's standard of living being much higher than they need / the median citizen's) then that criticism should probably be directed at the tax policies of the relevant governments.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#25

Post by chordalkeyboard »

avg_dev wrote: post #20
akolbe wrote: post #2

Single-page: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1570072717931552770.html

Once again, I’m grateful for your message. (I did end up getting my refund. I hope you remember me.) On a completely unrelated note, I was looking at a somewhat complicated Wikipedia page yesterday and noticed a piece of text I would like to edit. It had some stuff (citations and references) I felt I didn’t understand how to edit without being sure I wouldn’t break anything. Is there a good forum or place where I cou…

not that I am aware of; and Wikipedia has spent tens of millions of dollars over the past decade on a more user-friendly UI with nothing to show for it to date. Which is a good reason to question how well they allocate their hundred million dollar annual revenue.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#26

Post by TulliusCicero »

JohnFen wrote: post #11
yupper32 wrote: post #3

Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

$350k salaries _are_ lavish, though. It seems strange to me that people would argue otherwise.

In a sense they are, but comparable to executive salaries at companies with roughly comparable tech/services, those salaries are probably very low.

Probably any tech company of note is paying "executives" far, far more than that, at least in the US.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#27

Post by bayindirh »

woodruffw wrote: post #17
jefftk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have an "$111 million operating budget", but that's because they've decided to spend money on lots of things other than "serve Wikipedia": https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe... Note that "Direct support to websites" includes things like designing and implementing more intuitive article editing UI, which while potentially worth it isn't the kind of "obviously we must do this" that keepin…

From your link: 25% overhead doesn’t really seem that bad? If those numbers are accurate, 75c of every dollar goes directly to hosting, development, and community support (things like grants and legal aid for editors). That’s probably on par if not better than most nonprofits.

25% overhead is what EU/EC project funds allow & provide. This is not a huge percentage. It’s pretty normal.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#29

Post by cheeze »

JohnFen wrote: post #11
yupper32 wrote: post #3

Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

$350k salaries _are_ lavish, though. It seems strange to me that people would argue otherwise.

Uh, what?

SDEs with a few YOE are getting this no problem at top companies. Why wouldn't the CEO of the fifth biggest website on the internet?

Post reply on HN