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

Wikipedia is not short on cash

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#151

Post by dm319 »

rippercushions wrote: post #21

Eh. If you don't want to donate, don't, but I don't quite get the outrage here. The Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go and is visibly making Wikipedia better: the new UI is a breath of fresh air, and given the insane complexity of MediaWiki markup, the visual editor is a piece of unimaginable technical wizardry. Wiktionary is an unheralded gem and even Wikidata is starting to be genuinely usef…

Be wary of the cogs grinding in the background that can lead to an article like this hitting popularity.

There are many people with axes to grind with wikipedia - disagreements with the way certain topics are represented, and the way wikipedia has become a huge resource for information and news is not good news for everyone.

I spend way more money on entertainment being piped into my TV, or deliveries happening a day quicker than I do on a website I use several times a day.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#152

Post by akolbe »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #108

I found Wikimedia's financial statement for 2020[1], in case anyone interested in details. They have over 500 employees[2]. Not sure why they need so many, considering average salary is $100k/yr. [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim... [2]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/#prod...

The actual number of employees included in the $68 million salary bill is far lower, because many of the over 550 WMF staff are contractors:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/

According to the Form 990, there were 320 US employees and a small number of non-US employees in 2020:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim...

Note the explanation of what's included in the salary costs here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_related_information/...

So I reckoned the average salary cost is more like $200k per person:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...

Top earners are here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#153

Post by websitescenes »

The thing about free speech is that it doesn’t shield you from the social repercussions of what you say. The comments on the linked site are hilarious. A bunch of people complaining about how their feelings got hurt because people think they’re racist. Gold.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#154

Post by ttcbj »

andrewstuart wrote: post #61

Is this the same person who every now and then appears on HN utterly outraged by Wikipedia's fundraising? I donate to Wikipedia. And I am glad they have lots of money. I do not feel outraged about it, I feel happy about it. I do not feel outraged that they use whatever persuasive tactics that they use - this is necessary in the modern world. Wikipedia is a great service, it should be valued. They should not always be…

Exactly. If you value something, pay for it. It’s a way of sending resources to an organization so that it can continue to do more of what you value. I remember When my parents bought World Book so we could have it on our shelf at home. It had absurdity less information and was vastly more expensive.

I use Wikipedia a few times a week, my kids use it, I am happy to pay for it, and to give them some room to fund new related efforts.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#155

Post by klelatti »

andrewstuart wrote: post #72
andrewstuart wrote: post #61

Is this the same person who every now and then appears on HN utterly outraged by Wikipedia's fundraising? I donate to Wikipedia. And I am glad they have lots of money. I do not feel outraged about it, I feel happy about it. I do not feel outraged that they use whatever persuasive tactics that they use - this is necessary in the modern world. Wikipedia is a great service, it should be valued. They should not always be…

"Wokepedia". This guy certainly has an axe to grind. Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia - "The Daily Telegraph" of course being a Murdoch newspaper. From the authors Wikpedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski "Writing for The Daily Telegraph in May 2021, Orlowski said that the Wikimedia Foundation was "flush with cash" and passing money to the Tides N…

Slight correction - Telegraph isn't Murdoch. It's owned by the surviving billionaire Barclay brother [1]. If anything though it's even more biased than any Murdoch paper (eg in the UK The Times).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#156

Post by bjourne »

> Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year, and dozens are employed exclusively on fund-raising.

Can someone corroborate this claim? Cause any way you look at it, these salaries are unethical for a non-profit organisation.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#157

Post by samloveshummus »

lupire wrote: post #142
samloveshummus wrote: post #136

The criticism that too much goes to fundraisers is meaningless without an explanation of how much would be optimal. If spending an additional $1m on fundraising meant an additional $1.1m in donations, then that's $100k more for Wikipedia that wouldn't have been there before. If huge profit-making companies like Disney, Coca-Cola and McDonald's spend so much on marketing and sales, then it must be profitable. Similarl…

Spending on adversiting is wasteful and socially destructive. It's deception to donors to not tell them that only 10% of their donation goes toward the mission, and 90% is wasted that could be directed elsewhere.

No, it's not wasted; that's my point. Why don't you think Disney's investors demand a $7bn annual saving by cutting the "waste" on advertising?

The spend on fundraising does go towards the mission, because it increases the amount of money for the mission. You're making the incorrect assumption that donations are constant.

Imagine that a charity hiring a fundraiser for $50k garnered $150k of additional donations. Let's say without that fundraiser, they got $100k in donations. So with the fundraiser, they got $100k + $150k - $50k = $200k net to spend on the charitable purpose.

20% of all donations go to the fundraiser's salary while she's employed. But if the fundraiser is sacked, then 100% of donations go to the mission, yet the mission takes a loss of 50%.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#158

Post by klelatti »

fluoridation wrote: post #144
andrewstuart wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wokepedia". This guy certainly has an axe to grind. Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia - "The Daily Telegraph" of course being a Murdoch newspaper. From the authors Wikpedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski "Writing for The Daily Telegraph in May 2021, Orlowski said that the Wikimedia Foundation was "flush with cash" and passing money to the Tides N…

>Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia That's muddying the waters. If Wikipedia has deceptive donation drives, then who reports it should be completely irrelevant.

It's relevant because he's not really disclosing his motivations. He clearly has other reasons for disliking wikipedia but he fails to disclose them in this article.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#159

Post by Ekaros »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #130
ivanjermakov wrote: post #108

I found Wikimedia's financial statement for 2020[1], in case anyone interested in details. They have over 500 employees[2]. Not sure why they need so many, considering average salary is $100k/yr. [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim... [2]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/#prod...

Yeah, I'm sure they're just hiring people for the shits and gigs.

Actually I am sure that they are doing it for those reason. Like eh, we have money and it keeps coming as we beg for it. Why not hire a few more...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#160

Post by andrejguran »

bjourne wrote: post #156

> Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year, and dozens are employed exclusively on fund-raising. Can someone corroborate this claim? Cause any way you look at it, these salaries are unethical for a non-profit organisation.

What is an ethical salary for a non-profit organisation?
Post reply on HN