Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikimedia Executives Receive Six-figure Golden Handshakes (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-happening dept.

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.

6 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Intentionally misleading fundraising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I always thought it was interesting that the wikipedia fundraising banners always make it sound like they're running out of money to run servers, but not even 25% of the money raised is even for servers. It's mostly for all these salaries and side projects that are mostly pointless or meaningless.

  2. Yes I have a problem with this... by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and you should too.

    My problem with this stems from the piss-poor job that has been done dealing with the king-of-the-hill mentality among frequent editors, basically those people who have made Wikipedia their hobby and will edit-out other peoples' contributions simply because they do not like them. The upper management of the Foundation is making far too much money for the lack of oversight of what's going on at the edge where the actual action happens. Frankly, from the outside it looks like the wild-west, where there is no oversight and those trolls who camp on articles. For all it looks like from the outside there may as well be one guy with an office outside the datacenter keeping the servers and connection working, and leaving the whole built-architecture alone.

    I don't have a problem with good salaries, but I expect good results for those salaries. I expect management to be poking-in and tweaking things and making things run well if they want donation dollars to pay them to keep their money-sink running. It's rather insulting to be begging for money from the public to then go around pay pay themselves handsomely while doing a poor job of running the entity that the money was given to support.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Yes I have a problem with this... by retchdog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      hasn't this "king-of-the-hill mentality" been an endemic so-called problem with wikipedia for the past ten-plus years, during which, of course, wikipedia has been functioning well enough for almost everyone (and certainly no worse than it has ever actually functioned; wikipedia is only bad when compared to what might possibly have been in a thought-experiment world)? as long as people like, presumably, you keep fighting, there's enough churn to keep the outskirts from totally locking up and the system will continue.

      i don't know; is WMF even meant to deal with this supposed problem in the first place? maybe they actually do a lot of good work on issues of copyright and censorship, which could at least potentially be existential threats to wikipedia's existence, as opposed to an inevitable side-effect of using an anarchic egoist model to solicit content from people for free.

      WMF declares their purpose (in a large textbox at the head of their front page) to be "... encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge," and further that they "operate... Wikipedia" toward this purpose. In short, their objective is much broader than just micro-managing the edit turf wars which, as much as you dislike them, are business-as-usual for wikipedia, if not its foundational principle. WMF may still be failing at their stated purpose; i don't know anywhere near enough to know whether this is the case, let alone to start assigning blame.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:Yes I have a problem with this... by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it hard to complain about this issue.

      If Wikipedia truly was awful in some general way, the idea that somebody got $xxx,xxx severance while the organization kept pleading for money in a very obnoxious way I might be annoyed.

      But generally speaking, the content is amazing in its depth and breadth on so many topics for the general reader (and possibly even for people who are in-field experts) and the "fund raising" seems so infrequent that it seems hard to complain.

      The very fact that it exists at all with that much good content is pretty astonishing.

      If Wikipedia disappeared tomorrow, I would have to lower the 5 star rating of the entirety of the Internet (content + functionality) by like an entire star due to its loss. At this point, it's literally one of the single highest value sites on the network. No ads, very little obvious bias even on controversial subjects and astonishing breadth and depth of information. For free.

      It's so good that I laughed at myself for being annoyed about something missing. I had been watching a fairly awful movie (The Brad Pitt Jesse James movie) and was distracting myself by reading the Wikipedia entries of the real-life people presented in the movie. A bunch of minor historical characters in the movie all have entries, but the woman who owned a farm/rooming house where the gang hid out in later years doesn't have a page. And then I thought to myself, this is a problem? This woman is kind of a foot note to a foot note of history and there's probably near zero primary sources about her, but Wikipedia is so good that you just expect you can drill down into so much minutia and actually read something.

  3. Just look at Goodwill... by bagofbeans · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Non-profit doesn't mean charity in the Christian sense.

    Goodwill's CEO took over $700k in compensation in 2015, and the eight execs below him took close to $200k each on average.

    https://www.goodwill.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Goodwill-Industries-International-Form-990-2015.pdf/

  4. So... that's where my donation to WikiPedia went by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I no longer plan to donate to the project. (this reminds me of the Wounded Warriors fiasco )