Slashdot Mirror
Wikimedia Executives Receive Six-figure Golden Handshakes (theregister.co.uk)
Andreas Kolbe writes: The Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) recently released Form 990 shows that the organisation has developed a practice of handing outgoing managers six-figure severance payments, The Register reports. The foundation, which relies entirely on unpaid volunteers to generate the content of its websites, has taken around $300 million dollars over the past five years through fundraising banners placed on Wikipedia. The WMF says it is "committed to communicating with our volunteers, donors, and stakeholders in an open, accountable, and timely manner", but has long been criticised for providing little transparency on the salaries of its executives, limiting itself to the legally required Form 990 disclosures that only become public two years after the event.
Quit jobs every couple years and get 6-figures.
Potential employees at a nonprofit expect to receive salaries, and executives are no exception. If you don't pay them market-competitive salaries, then you are likely to get less talented workers. On the executive level, this means yes, you do have to worry about bonuses. The question is, how much responsibility did these executives have? How do their salaries and bonuses compare to their peers in other organizations? The bonuses could be too high, but they could also be too low. Of course, transparency is needed to know which of these it is.
Get some real world experience. Executive board members are not doing much of anything other than bullshitting most of the time, making a very small number of high level decisions that get pushed down to the people actually running the company and either golf 280 days a year or serve on several other boards (because they have plenty of time when they don't have a fucking job) doing the same thing.
Actually, we can look a bit closer at that.
WMF spends about 40% of its revenues on engineering. Hosting is just the small cost: I ran a video CDN for over 120 news stations, and the hosting cost was roughly $3,500/month. My salary was over 1.5 times that; and the whole thing was controlled by custom software developed and maintained at costs ranging around $300,000/year. That used a single, non-geographically-distributed database.
WMF has to engineer an enormous, high-availability network with hundreds of replicated caches, databases, and Web servers. It has to handle security, software upgrades, and basic administrative tasks across this infrastructure. Something as simple as keeping system patches up-to-date is an enormous undertaking in that kind of environment, largely due to the amount of risk carried. They don't have one guy running their databases; they have dozens of DBAs, hundreds of sysadmins in total. People who complain that they can't have a $144k salary because someone might hire an Indian for $85k to replace them.
Management and Governance is that whole "running a business" thing. It's the thing that lets you accomplish large tasks without expending enormous amounts of effort. Slashdot, Fark, Ubuntu, Debian, and the FSF all have governance; they don't all get paid for it, but they all invest time. For some organizations, like WMF and FSF, governance is a full-time job for several people, and so ... well, we pay them.
All of this means WMF has HR costs, management costs, and functional costs. It also sends 10% of its money to grants, so some millions are just going out to fund charitable efforts. WMF spends more on grants than on hosting; hell, they spend more on legal than on hosting, because they need to avoid enormous costs from frivolous lawsuits by people like Peter Thiel.
So it looks like it's actually kind of expensive to run WMF. They also need to float large amounts of cash holdings year-to-year in case of unstable donation-based revenue streams. As WMF grows in activities, that risk reserve needs to enlarge, so their bank accounts and cash holdings get bigger.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You don't get it, do you? I'm a retired mathematician. I have contributed quite a bit to their site, in time, money, and knowledge. I haven't done so, in a while, but that is for other reasons.
I volunteered this. I did this expecting nothing in return, not even gratitude. I did it because I wanted to. I did it because I could.
When I donate, it is a gift. Gifts are given without expectations of recipricocity, or even gratitude. When I gift something, it is a gift without strings. They may do with my gift what they want. They can throw it away, even. They don't even have to like it, or appreciate it.
I did these things, and more, knowing this. Volunteering is just another form of gifting.
If I give you something, it belongs to you. Do with it what you will.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In 2007 Wikipedia was a top-10 website with much the same traffic as today and got by on revenue of $5 million. Today it asks for – and gets – 16 times as much. Content creation costs nothing and is done by volunteers, who also retain legal responsibility for the content they contribute. The WMF itself has always been protected from liability by Section 230(c).
As for the "unstable donation-based revenue stream", revenue has been on the up and up for every year of the foundation's existence. And whenever revenue has increased, spending has increased proportionally. It looks to me the spending is not driven by need, but by the availability of cash, including cash to pay managers the payments disclosed in the Form 990.
It takes 20,000 people donating $10, in the belief that this money is necessary to "keep Wikipedia online", as Wikipedia fundraising banners have put it, to pay one manager $200,000.
To me, asking for that kind of payment seems sharply discordant with the generosity of volunteers and donors contributing freely in the belief that they are helping to build a common good.
Six figures really isn't much these days. Marissa Mayer got eight figures and by metrics the wikimedia projects are just as popular if not moreso than yahoo (I know its a bad comparison between serving static pages and running all the services of yahoo).
They deserve it, honestly.
Since they are not transparent about what they spend the money on, you don't know if they deserve it or not. All you know for sure is that WMF's foundation thinks it is best to obscure the truth.
There are several organizations that rate charities. You should do your research before you donate. Many, many non-profits are not what they seem. They divert huge amounts of money into salary, perks, and fund raising, while only a small fraction is spent on the supposed beneficiaries. I once visited the United Way offices in Alexandria VA, and marveled at all the beautiful Italian marble tiling. How many children went hungry to pay for that?