The Next Time Wikipedia Asks for a Donation, Ignore It
October 14, 2022 11:27 AM Subscribe
The next time Wikipedia asks for a donation, ignore it: The online encyclopaedia is not short on cash. "$400 million of cash as of March [...i]n the 2012/13 year the Foundation budgeted for $1.9m to provide all its free information on tap." "550 employees. Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year, and dozens are employed exclusively on fund-raising."
This post was deleted for the following reason: Transphobic and impartial right-wing content website -- loup
I've got my own issues with Wikipedia, but I'm curious: is "$300,000 to $400,000 a year" an obscene salary for high-level employees at one of the ten largest web sites on the planet? That feels like it's got to be lower than what folks are making at Google, Twitter, etc, and Wikipedia feels like much more of a net good than those sites, issues notwithstanding.
I don't mean to pooh-pooh on the FPP by saying that. I'm just wondering whether other people feel differently about numbers like that than I do. I'd totally buy that Wikipedia is much better at raising money than its annoying banner adverts let on, but I also only give it $5-10 every year or two, and feel like I've blown more money on useless stuff in this week alone. So I'm very curious what other folks' perspectives on this will be like. Maybe I'm just particularly blinkered or cynical where this stuff is concerned.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 11:41 AM on October 14, 2022 [13 favorites]
I don't mean to pooh-pooh on the FPP by saying that. I'm just wondering whether other people feel differently about numbers like that than I do. I'd totally buy that Wikipedia is much better at raising money than its annoying banner adverts let on, but I also only give it $5-10 every year or two, and feel like I've blown more money on useless stuff in this week alone. So I'm very curious what other folks' perspectives on this will be like. Maybe I'm just particularly blinkered or cynical where this stuff is concerned.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 11:41 AM on October 14, 2022 [13 favorites]
Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year
Speaking from a wealth of experience I can confirm non-profits underpay, and this is no exception.
posted by pwnguin at 11:43 AM on October 14, 2022 [10 favorites]
Speaking from a wealth of experience I can confirm non-profits underpay, and this is no exception.
posted by pwnguin at 11:43 AM on October 14, 2022 [10 favorites]
The logic of, "I can freeride off this service without fear of it disappearing" as a reason not to voluntarily contribute to something which provides significant value in the world is not the philosophy I would want to see broadly applied.
posted by Cogito at 11:43 AM on October 14, 2022 [8 favorites]
Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a yearI find this pretty dubious, and am curious where they sourced this figure from. I've been an applicant to Wikimedia as a fairly senior software engineer and those numbers are seriously out of wack with the realities at that time (~5 years ago). Perhaps for C-level folks, but I wouldn't refer to those roles as "top managers" so much as "executives".
posted by Cogito at 11:43 AM on October 14, 2022 [8 favorites]
Check your source. It’s Unherd. The information presented is therefore misleading at best.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
the only thing I can drum up even a small level of outrage for is the fact that none of WF's money goes to the army of people around the world who contribute content (and there's obvious problems with introducing financial incentives to that content contribution, so I sorta get it). so what if an NGO providing a free, publicly-accessible, usually-helpful resource have more money than they budgeted for? that's a good thing! (and it helps pay for a particular flavor of Weird Nerd Thunderdome which I occasionally very much enjoy spectating) and $300K is, as I understand it, not too far out of line with what other SV-based companies would have to pay some of their senior managers.
I dunno, I have paypal set up to send 'em $5 each month and I don't feel particularly ripped off about it.
posted by Old Kentucky Shark at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
I dunno, I have paypal set up to send 'em $5 each month and I don't feel particularly ripped off about it.
posted by Old Kentucky Shark at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
To summarize some of the comments on UnHerd: "Anything conservative is branded as white nationalism" and "because left-leaning media exists that means it's just as bad as FOX and InfoWars"
posted by gestalt saloon at 11:47 AM on October 14, 2022
posted by gestalt saloon at 11:47 AM on October 14, 2022
The people who pay the salaries of dedicated opinion shapers like Philip Cross can foot more of the bill.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:50 AM on October 14, 2022
posted by Space Coyote at 11:50 AM on October 14, 2022
I don't know Unherd, but I did just skim through the front page and find both Hadley Freeman's and Julie Bindel's names on recent articles. So is this a right-wing publication, or is it just transphobic on account of being British?
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 11:50 AM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 11:50 AM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
You can see Wikimedia's public filings at Propublica, if you're interested in somewhat more recent numbers.
posted by SunSnork at 11:58 AM on October 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by SunSnork at 11:58 AM on October 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
Here is their most recent audited financial statement.
They raised about 163 million last year and spent 68 million on salaries. Iirc they have about 550-600 employees. The idea that their top paid employees would have salaries of 400,000-500,000 a year when that includes a lot of IP lawyers and the engineering talent to keep one of the most active websites on earth up and running suggests if anything they are getter by a bargain on their talent.
What this bit of outrage really comes down to is the way our society values work. If you work for a non-profit, the government or a school then we expect you to actually be a volunteer. As if you don’t deserve to be compensated for your work the same as any other job; because even though we need your work to be done or society will collapse; we don’t value it.
posted by interogative mood at 12:09 PM on October 14, 2022 [20 favorites]
They raised about 163 million last year and spent 68 million on salaries. Iirc they have about 550-600 employees. The idea that their top paid employees would have salaries of 400,000-500,000 a year when that includes a lot of IP lawyers and the engineering talent to keep one of the most active websites on earth up and running suggests if anything they are getter by a bargain on their talent.
What this bit of outrage really comes down to is the way our society values work. If you work for a non-profit, the government or a school then we expect you to actually be a volunteer. As if you don’t deserve to be compensated for your work the same as any other job; because even though we need your work to be done or society will collapse; we don’t value it.
posted by interogative mood at 12:09 PM on October 14, 2022 [20 favorites]
Okay, so... as of 2020, they received $120m in donations, spent $110m in expenses, and were left with a $10m cushion, which is comfortable and not terribly egregious. Their CEO made $380k, a dozen other people made between $200k-300k, and their highest-paid non-C-suite employees made $180k-190k. Which feels... really low to me, honestly, given that "head programmer at Wikipedia" is a non-trivial occupation.
This all feels astoundingly reasonable to me, imo.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 12:09 PM on October 14, 2022 [13 favorites]
This all feels astoundingly reasonable to me, imo.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 12:09 PM on October 14, 2022 [13 favorites]
Yeah, this has convinced me that the Wikimedia Foundation is indeed providing very good value for dollar and I should increase my contribution when I can. Wikipedia isn't perfect but nothing is; it's about as close to the ideal I used to have about what the Internet could and should be as still exists in this hellscape of algorithmic capitalism. Color me dubious about the motives behind this article.
posted by biogeo at 12:16 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by biogeo at 12:16 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Propublica also has their 2021 Form 990, which is probably the basis for
posted by zamboni at 12:19 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year- the CEO was paid $406K, while General Counsel / Secretary, CFO / Treasurer, CTO and COO were all in the $314K-$319K range. This seems... reasonable?
posted by zamboni at 12:19 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Jesus sideways shitting christ.
Gonna go on record and say that no one should be making 300-400,000 USD a year, no matter what. No one person's work is that valuable.
posted by furnace.heart at 12:22 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Gonna go on record and say that no one should be making 300-400,000 USD a year, no matter what. No one person's work is that valuable.
posted by furnace.heart at 12:22 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Agree in principle regarding salaries but the reality of the market means Craigslist is underpaying compared to peers (large tech orgs / websites)
posted by glaucon at 12:26 PM on October 14, 2022
posted by glaucon at 12:26 PM on October 14, 2022
How much DOGECOIN would you be will to spend every time you need or want read wikipedia ?
Because if paying a few dozen people a lot keeps that from happening i'm all in on their salaries.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 12:28 PM on October 14, 2022
Because if paying a few dozen people a lot keeps that from happening i'm all in on their salaries.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 12:28 PM on October 14, 2022
I saw this yesterday and the complaint seems to be that Wikimedia—gasp!—supports “woke” causes tangentially related to their main purpose. As they should.
posted by sjswitzer at 12:31 PM on October 14, 2022
posted by sjswitzer at 12:31 PM on October 14, 2022
For a tech salary comparison, check out levels.fyi.
Whether it's right or wrong, Wikimedia is underpaying the market by at least half.
posted by SunSnork at 12:33 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Whether it's right or wrong, Wikimedia is underpaying the market by at least half.
posted by SunSnork at 12:33 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
I can't for the life of me figure out how the author expects to be taken seriously when presenting ten-year-old numbers. The pure lack of intellectual rigor is stunning.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:34 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by mr_roboto at 12:34 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
OK, let me see if I got this right, Some reich wing crank agregator is pissed at Wikimedia, because the founder is the wrong kind of libertarian? Aren't these the same people that think teachers shouldn't be paid much because it's a calling and they'd do it anyway? Guess I'm not unhappy to kick in and keep wikipedia online.
posted by evilDoug at 12:35 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by evilDoug at 12:35 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
I tend to split donations between Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
And, yeah, the salaries seem to be on the low side for what they're getting, particularly since I assume there's no equity like there might be with stock grants for a private company.
I have opinions about salary levels in general and overpayment of C-suite folks but Wikimedia is really really not the place to start with that argument given their salary levels.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:37 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
And, yeah, the salaries seem to be on the low side for what they're getting, particularly since I assume there's no equity like there might be with stock grants for a private company.
I have opinions about salary levels in general and overpayment of C-suite folks but Wikimedia is really really not the place to start with that argument given their salary levels.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:37 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
No one person's work is that valuable.
We absolutely can have a conversation about the ills of capitalism, of which there are legion, but I want the doctors and nurses who saved my daughter's life to have AT LEAST that much salary. I want their every need taken care of from now until eternity. So yeah, some people's work IS that valuable.
posted by cooker girl at 12:38 PM on October 14, 2022 [9 favorites]
We absolutely can have a conversation about the ills of capitalism, of which there are legion, but I want the doctors and nurses who saved my daughter's life to have AT LEAST that much salary. I want their every need taken care of from now until eternity. So yeah, some people's work IS that valuable.
posted by cooker girl at 12:38 PM on October 14, 2022 [9 favorites]
List of Dive Bars
I kind of just wanted to share this with someone, so let me think of a way it's related...
...Oh! I am perfectly fine with a poly-edited encyclopedia having modest budget surplus. The list is an example of what happens if basically only 1 person edits an article. Yes, all of those Portland dives have their own articles, written by the same author.
Also, add your local dives, if you have any.
posted by shenkerism at 12:39 PM on October 14, 2022
I kind of just wanted to share this with someone, so let me think of a way it's related...
...Oh! I am perfectly fine with a poly-edited encyclopedia having modest budget surplus. The list is an example of what happens if basically only 1 person edits an article. Yes, all of those Portland dives have their own articles, written by the same author.
Also, add your local dives, if you have any.
posted by shenkerism at 12:39 PM on October 14, 2022
Unheard is clickbate for the right wing, backed from the same people who brought you brexit and worked for the murdoch empire. Except that these are the people who aren’t good enough to remain at that level, so you get articles like this. Articles with obvious gaping flaws, like using ten year old data and just gesticulating at probable pay levels.
posted by The River Ivel at 12:40 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by The River Ivel at 12:40 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
I worked at the Wikimedia Foundation 2011-2014, coordinating open source volunteers, then managing the team that facilitated engineering volunteers' work, plus other related stuff. I'm pretty proud of those years.
My hazy recollection is that the organization paid at something like the 50th percentile of salaries by Silicon Valley engineering company standards and at like 90th or 95th percentile by US nonprofit jobs standards.
Starting last year, Wikimedia has started raising money in a new way that doesn't depend on individual contributions. "Wikimedia Enterprise APIs, Built for Business: Consume and activate Wikimedia Project Data faster, easier, and at greater scale than ever before." It'll be interesting to see how that revenue stream develops.
posted by brainwane at 12:46 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
My hazy recollection is that the organization paid at something like the 50th percentile of salaries by Silicon Valley engineering company standards and at like 90th or 95th percentile by US nonprofit jobs standards.
Starting last year, Wikimedia has started raising money in a new way that doesn't depend on individual contributions. "Wikimedia Enterprise APIs, Built for Business: Consume and activate Wikimedia Project Data faster, easier, and at greater scale than ever before." It'll be interesting to see how that revenue stream develops.
posted by brainwane at 12:46 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
The author, Andrew Orlowski, has been on a crusade against Wikipedia for twenty years, ever since his days at The Register. These days he writes for a tory rag, the Daily Telegraph. His history is documented on Wikipedia:
posted by automatronic at 12:49 PM on October 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
Writing for The Daily Telegraph in May 2021, Orlowski said that the Wikimedia Foundation was [...] passing money to the Tides Network, which he described as "a left-leaning dark money group"; he referred to Wikipedia as "Wokepedia" in an allusion to the term "woke". [...] In August 2022, Orlowski claimed that Wikipedia had "become a tool of the Left in the battle to control the truth"tl;dr: his issues with Wikipedia have nothing to do with Wikimedia's finances.
posted by automatronic at 12:49 PM on October 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
I want their every need taken care of from now until eternity. So yeah, some people's work IS that valuable.
Not to derail, but everyone deserves this. Everyone.
posted by furnace.heart at 12:50 PM on October 14, 2022
Not to derail, but everyone deserves this. Everyone.
posted by furnace.heart at 12:50 PM on October 14, 2022
The author, Andrew Orlowski, has been on a crusade against Wikipedia for twenty years, ever since his days at The Register. These days he writes for a tory rag, the Daily Telegraph.
That explains the lack of intellectual rigor I suppose.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:55 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
That explains the lack of intellectual rigor I suppose.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:55 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
When I saw the headline on the FPP my first thought was “Nice! Something that validates my current behavior!” But after glancing at the article and reading this thread I went and signed up to donate. Is that sort of a charitable Streisand effect? I was also influenced by the fact that my daughter enjoys editing Wikipedia (especially Queen related articles) so supporting her hobby seemed like a good thing to do.
posted by TedW at 12:56 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by TedW at 12:56 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Is that sort of a charitable Streisand effect?
I hope so! I donate every year or so, but I just changed to a monthly donation now.
posted by Garm at 1:03 PM on October 14, 2022
I hope so! I donate every year or so, but I just changed to a monthly donation now.
posted by Garm at 1:03 PM on October 14, 2022
I also only give it $5-10 every year or two
Same. Seems more than fair, regardless.
I can't for the life of me figure out how the author expects to be taken seriously when presenting ten-year-old numbers.
Because their people don't actually read articles but like/need angry talking points?
posted by Glinn at 1:05 PM on October 14, 2022
Same. Seems more than fair, regardless.
I can't for the life of me figure out how the author expects to be taken seriously when presenting ten-year-old numbers.
Because their people don't actually read articles but like/need angry talking points?
posted by Glinn at 1:05 PM on October 14, 2022
Great, I'm glad WIkipedia has a lot of money, because it's more useful than the rest of the internet put together and I don't want it to go away. It's the promise of the internet made real. Maybe the reason it has so much money is that people really like it and want to give money to it? And maybe the reason people write and edit it for free is because they think it's an actually worthwhile enterprise and they're proud of it and of their contributions?
posted by mokey at 1:06 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by mokey at 1:06 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
« Older Who doesn't want you to remember the SS Eastland? | Sociologist. Artist. Digital Humanist. Musician.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lalochezia at 11:41 AM on October 14, 2022 [7 favorites]