[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Željko Blaće]

Interesting discussion but away from the focal point of what Christian
shared.
Hope both can be useful and continue but in separate email threads.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 4:04 AM Risker  wrote:

> Andreas -
>
> First off, contract employees are employees.  There were 82 of them. (Part
> V, line 1a on the Form 990)  They do not receive a W-3 form. Only 291
> employees received the W-3 form.  That brings employee total to 373.
>
> Secondly, you fail to compensate for the fact that the 13 "key employees"
> - officers, the top 5 compensated non-officer staff, and other key staff -
> received approximately $3.3 million alone.  That reduces the employee pool
> to 360 and the compensation pool to $52.3 million.
>
> That gives an average total compensation of about $145,000 USD.
> Reportable compensation includes pension plan contributions, medical/dental
> plans, paid leaves,social security/medicare taxes, insurance, costs
> reimbursed for maintaining a home office, and many other forms of direct or
> indirect compensation. The benefits package would run about 25-30% of the
> base salary, and other compensation will add into that.
>
> There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the employee numbers remained
> static the following year; in fact, in your other statement, your figures
> would suggest you think the WMF currently has about 650-675 staff.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 21:37, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Amir,
>>
>> You say, "it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according
>> to the form)."
>>
>> Part VII of the Form 990 (page 8) states, in line 2 (under the table of
>> highest earners you mention),
>>
>> "Total number of individuals (including but not limited to those listed
>> above) who received more than $100,000 of reportable compensation from the
>> organization – *165*"
>>
>> That is more than half of all employees (actual employees, as opposed to
>> freelancers).
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:29 AM Amir Sarabadani 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The $200,000 average salary for each employee is plain wrong.
>>>
>>> If you look at 2019 Form:
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/85/Wikimedia_Foundation_2019_Form_990.pdf
>>> In that form, there is a section (Section VII) for the highest paid
>>> employees and requires WMF to report any employee who was paid more than
>>> "$100,000 from the organization and any related organizations". And only 11
>>> people in all of WMF were paid more than $200,000 in that FY and the
>>> highest paid employee took a little less than $400,000, and in total with
>>> the rest it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according to
>>> the form).
>>>
>>> There are lots of complicating factors, including the fact that most WMF
>>> "employees" live outside of the US and thus are hired through the Employer
>>> of Record (EoR) system. So they show up as contractors in the list of staff
>>> and I'm not sure where their expenses show up in Form 990. Staff
>>> compensation gets adjusted to where they live and usually (virtually all
>>> but not sure) it's less than salaries paid in the bay area due to the fact
>>> that simply living in SF (and bay area) is expensive.
>>>
>>> If you combine total expenses of WMF with personnel expenses (~80M) and
>>> divide that to 400 (~ number of staff in 2019), you might get $200,000 per
>>> person but that includes data center expenses, buying hardware expenses,
>>> network expenses, money paid for renting offices, electricity bills of the
>>> dcs and offices, travel expenses, basically anything you can imagine except
>>> grants.
>>>
>>> (In my volunteer capacity, It's weekend)
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:38 AM Risker  wrote:
>>>
 I don't think there is any such source.  In another thread, Andreas
 also states that there are over 800 WMF and affiliate employees (which is
 probably true); however, that would mean that *just salaries* would come to
 more than the 2021-22 annual budget.[1]  (i.e. - 800 employees x $200,000
 each = $160 million; 2021-22 budget is $150 million. That is taking the
 smaller number of "over 800 employee" from the other post and "over
 $200,000 per employee" from this one.)  While I have no doubt that salaries
 and benefits make up the majority of expenditures in both the WMF itself
 and the WMF and affiliates together, I think these statements are
 exaggerations.

 Risker/Anne


 [1]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022

 On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:04, Alex Monk  wrote:

> Do you have a source for that number?
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
>> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
>> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Risker]

 Andreas -

First off, contract employees are employees.  There were 82 of them. (Part
V, line 1a on the Form 990)  They do not receive a W-3 form. Only 291
employees received the W-3 form.  That brings employee total to 373.

Secondly, you fail to compensate for the fact that the 13 "key employees" -
officers, the top 5 compensated non-officer staff, and other key staff -
received approximately $3.3 million alone.  That reduces the employee pool
to 360 and the compensation pool to $52.3 million.

That gives an average total compensation of about $145,000 USD.  Reportable
compensation includes pension plan contributions, medical/dental plans,
paid leaves,social security/medicare taxes, insurance, costs reimbursed for
maintaining a home office, and many other forms of direct or indirect
compensation. The benefits package would run about 25-30% of the base
salary, and other compensation will add into that.

There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the employee numbers remained
static the following year; in fact, in your other statement, your figures
would suggest you think the WMF currently has about 650-675 staff.

Risker/Anne

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 21:37, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Amir,
>
> You say, "it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according
> to the form)."
>
> Part VII of the Form 990 (page 8) states, in line 2 (under the table of
> highest earners you mention),
>
> "Total number of individuals (including but not limited to those listed
> above) who received more than $100,000 of reportable compensation from the
> organization – *165*"
>
> That is more than half of all employees (actual employees, as opposed to
> freelancers).
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:29 AM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
>> The $200,000 average salary for each employee is plain wrong.
>>
>> If you look at 2019 Form:
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/85/Wikimedia_Foundation_2019_Form_990.pdf
>> In that form, there is a section (Section VII) for the highest paid
>> employees and requires WMF to report any employee who was paid more than
>> "$100,000 from the organization and any related organizations". And only 11
>> people in all of WMF were paid more than $200,000 in that FY and the
>> highest paid employee took a little less than $400,000, and in total with
>> the rest it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according to
>> the form).
>>
>> There are lots of complicating factors, including the fact that most WMF
>> "employees" live outside of the US and thus are hired through the Employer
>> of Record (EoR) system. So they show up as contractors in the list of staff
>> and I'm not sure where their expenses show up in Form 990. Staff
>> compensation gets adjusted to where they live and usually (virtually all
>> but not sure) it's less than salaries paid in the bay area due to the fact
>> that simply living in SF (and bay area) is expensive.
>>
>> If you combine total expenses of WMF with personnel expenses (~80M) and
>> divide that to 400 (~ number of staff in 2019), you might get $200,000 per
>> person but that includes data center expenses, buying hardware expenses,
>> network expenses, money paid for renting offices, electricity bills of the
>> dcs and offices, travel expenses, basically anything you can imagine except
>> grants.
>>
>> (In my volunteer capacity, It's weekend)
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:38 AM Risker  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think there is any such source.  In another thread, Andreas also
>>> states that there are over 800 WMF and affiliate employees (which is
>>> probably true); however, that would mean that *just salaries* would come to
>>> more than the 2021-22 annual budget.[1]  (i.e. - 800 employees x $200,000
>>> each = $160 million; 2021-22 budget is $150 million. That is taking the
>>> smaller number of "over 800 employee" from the other post and "over
>>> $200,000 per employee" from this one.)  While I have no doubt that salaries
>>> and benefits make up the majority of expenditures in both the WMF itself
>>> and the WMF and affiliates together, I think these statements are
>>> exaggerations.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:04, Alex Monk  wrote:
>>>
 Do you have a source for that number?

 On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be 
> considered
> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
> relevant to us here at least.
>
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
 guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lis

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Amir Sarabadani]

Thank you for fixing that mistake but again. If anyone were paid above
$187,000 they would show up in the main list and only 12 people are there.
And again it doesn't make sense with assuming c-levels and the highest paid
employees in WMF being paid a little above "average".

Andreas Kolbe  schrieb am So., 30. Jan. 2022, 03:37:

> Amir,
>
> You say, "it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according
> to the form)."
>
> Part VII of the Form 990 (page 8) states, in line 2 (under the table of
> highest earners you mention),
>
> "Total number of individuals (including but not limited to those listed
> above) who received more than $100,000 of reportable compensation from the
> organization – *165*"
>
> That is more than half of all employees (actual employees, as opposed to
> freelancers).
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:29 AM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
>> The $200,000 average salary for each employee is plain wrong.
>>
>> If you look at 2019 Form:
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/85/Wikimedia_Foundation_2019_Form_990.pdf
>> In that form, there is a section (Section VII) for the highest paid
>> employees and requires WMF to report any employee who was paid more than
>> "$100,000 from the organization and any related organizations". And only 11
>> people in all of WMF were paid more than $200,000 in that FY and the
>> highest paid employee took a little less than $400,000, and in total with
>> the rest it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according to
>> the form).
>>
>> There are lots of complicating factors, including the fact that most WMF
>> "employees" live outside of the US and thus are hired through the Employer
>> of Record (EoR) system. So they show up as contractors in the list of staff
>> and I'm not sure where their expenses show up in Form 990. Staff
>> compensation gets adjusted to where they live and usually (virtually all
>> but not sure) it's less than salaries paid in the bay area due to the fact
>> that simply living in SF (and bay area) is expensive.
>>
>> If you combine total expenses of WMF with personnel expenses (~80M) and
>> divide that to 400 (~ number of staff in 2019), you might get $200,000 per
>> person but that includes data center expenses, buying hardware expenses,
>> network expenses, money paid for renting offices, electricity bills of the
>> dcs and offices, travel expenses, basically anything you can imagine except
>> grants.
>>
>> (In my volunteer capacity, It's weekend)
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:38 AM Risker  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think there is any such source.  In another thread, Andreas also
>>> states that there are over 800 WMF and affiliate employees (which is
>>> probably true); however, that would mean that *just salaries* would come to
>>> more than the 2021-22 annual budget.[1]  (i.e. - 800 employees x $200,000
>>> each = $160 million; 2021-22 budget is $150 million. That is taking the
>>> smaller number of "over 800 employee" from the other post and "over
>>> $200,000 per employee" from this one.)  While I have no doubt that salaries
>>> and benefits make up the majority of expenditures in both the WMF itself
>>> and the WMF and affiliates together, I think these statements are
>>> exaggerations.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:04, Alex Monk  wrote:
>>>
 Do you have a source for that number?

 On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be 
> considered
> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
> relevant to us here at least.
>
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
 guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
 Public archives at
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AW6WDMV66RGYVAGCKMNYHXVHV5KFNRLK/
 To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> Public archives at
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TDLU5RAG57LL74Z65D3DL24WFO6WV6YV/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Amir (he/him)
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Amir,

You say, "it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according
to the form)."

Part VII of the Form 990 (page 8) states, in line 2 (under the table of
highest earners you mention),

"Total number of individuals (including but not limited to those listed
above) who received more than $100,000 of reportable compensation from the
organization – *165*"

That is more than half of all employees (actual employees, as opposed to
freelancers).

Andreas

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:29 AM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> The $200,000 average salary for each employee is plain wrong.
>
> If you look at 2019 Form:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/85/Wikimedia_Foundation_2019_Form_990.pdf
> In that form, there is a section (Section VII) for the highest paid
> employees and requires WMF to report any employee who was paid more than
> "$100,000 from the organization and any related organizations". And only 11
> people in all of WMF were paid more than $200,000 in that FY and the
> highest paid employee took a little less than $400,000, and in total with
> the rest it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according to
> the form).
>
> There are lots of complicating factors, including the fact that most WMF
> "employees" live outside of the US and thus are hired through the Employer
> of Record (EoR) system. So they show up as contractors in the list of staff
> and I'm not sure where their expenses show up in Form 990. Staff
> compensation gets adjusted to where they live and usually (virtually all
> but not sure) it's less than salaries paid in the bay area due to the fact
> that simply living in SF (and bay area) is expensive.
>
> If you combine total expenses of WMF with personnel expenses (~80M) and
> divide that to 400 (~ number of staff in 2019), you might get $200,000 per
> person but that includes data center expenses, buying hardware expenses,
> network expenses, money paid for renting offices, electricity bills of the
> dcs and offices, travel expenses, basically anything you can imagine except
> grants.
>
> (In my volunteer capacity, It's weekend)
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:38 AM Risker  wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is any such source.  In another thread, Andreas also
>> states that there are over 800 WMF and affiliate employees (which is
>> probably true); however, that would mean that *just salaries* would come to
>> more than the 2021-22 annual budget.[1]  (i.e. - 800 employees x $200,000
>> each = $160 million; 2021-22 budget is $150 million. That is taking the
>> smaller number of "over 800 employee" from the other post and "over
>> $200,000 per employee" from this one.)  While I have no doubt that salaries
>> and benefits make up the majority of expenditures in both the WMF itself
>> and the WMF and affiliates together, I think these statements are
>> exaggerations.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:04, Alex Monk  wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have a source for that number?
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>>

 As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
 volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
 $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered
 wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
 relevant to us here at least.

>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> Public archives at
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AW6WDMV66RGYVAGCKMNYHXVHV5KFNRLK/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TDLU5RAG57LL74Z65D3DL24WFO6WV6YV/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> Amir (he/him)
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MAJIC34YZL5TJNJKQQFI2GWYDJJDPQH5/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikime

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Amir Sarabadani]

The $200,000 average salary for each employee is plain wrong.

If you look at 2019 Form:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/85/Wikimedia_Foundation_2019_Form_990.pdf
In that form, there is a section (Section VII) for the highest paid
employees and requires WMF to report any employee who was paid more than
"$100,000 from the organization and any related organizations". And only 11
people in all of WMF were paid more than $200,000 in that FY and the
highest paid employee took a little less than $400,000, and in total with
the rest it was only 12 were paid more than $100,000 (at least according to
the form).

There are lots of complicating factors, including the fact that most WMF
"employees" live outside of the US and thus are hired through the Employer
of Record (EoR) system. So they show up as contractors in the list of staff
and I'm not sure where their expenses show up in Form 990. Staff
compensation gets adjusted to where they live and usually (virtually all
but not sure) it's less than salaries paid in the bay area due to the fact
that simply living in SF (and bay area) is expensive.

If you combine total expenses of WMF with personnel expenses (~80M) and
divide that to 400 (~ number of staff in 2019), you might get $200,000 per
person but that includes data center expenses, buying hardware expenses,
network expenses, money paid for renting offices, electricity bills of the
dcs and offices, travel expenses, basically anything you can imagine except
grants.

(In my volunteer capacity, It's weekend)

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:38 AM Risker  wrote:

> I don't think there is any such source.  In another thread, Andreas also
> states that there are over 800 WMF and affiliate employees (which is
> probably true); however, that would mean that *just salaries* would come to
> more than the 2021-22 annual budget.[1]  (i.e. - 800 employees x $200,000
> each = $160 million; 2021-22 budget is $150 million. That is taking the
> smaller number of "over 800 employee" from the other post and "over
> $200,000 per employee" from this one.)  While I have no doubt that salaries
> and benefits make up the majority of expenditures in both the WMF itself
> and the WMF and affiliates together, I think these statements are
> exaggerations.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:04, Alex Monk  wrote:
>
>> Do you have a source for that number?
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
>>> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
>>> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered
>>> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
>>> relevant to us here at least.
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AW6WDMV66RGYVAGCKMNYHXVHV5KFNRLK/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TDLU5RAG57LL74Z65D3DL24WFO6WV6YV/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Amir (he/him)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MAJIC34YZL5TJNJKQQFI2GWYDJJDPQH5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Alex, Anne

Please see the 2019 Form 990, which is the most recent one available:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703/202101319349300105/full

Line 5 on the first page states that the "Total number of individuals
employed in calendar year 2019" was 291.

Line 15 on the same page states that "Salaries, other compensation,
employee benefits" together amounted to $55,634,913.

If you divide $55,634,913 by 291, you arrive at a figure of $191,185 per
head (this includes payroll taxes averaging about $8,650 per employee).

If you look at the most recent financial statements –

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf&page=5

– you'll see that salary costs ("Salaries and wages") rose from $55,634,912
to $67,857,676, year on year. That is an increase of over 20%.

Based on the development in past years, I assume a substantial part of this
reflects increases in salaries, rather than increases in staff numbers.

Why? For a timeline of how WMF salary costs per employee have increased
over time, see –

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries#Salaries,_other_compensation,_employee_benefits_and_number_of_employees_as_reported_in_Form_990

This shows that, over the most recent three years we have Form 990 figures
for, salary costs per employee have increased year on year by 15% (2017),
7% (2018) and 6% (2019).

Given that we are now in 2022, I think it is safe to assume that salary
costs per employee now substantially exceed $200,000 per head. (Of course,
the WMF could give us a fairly precise 2021 figure if it chose to.)

Anne, you are conflating employees and contractors. Employees enjoy very
substantial benefits (see part IX of the Form 990) and are generally paid
more than contractors, many of whom are also abroad where living standards
are lower.

Moreover, contractors' pay is not included in the Line 15 figure, nor the
"Salaries and wages" figure on the financial statements (which is the same
figure, the $1 difference notwithstanding). My understanding is that
contractors' pay is covered under "professional service expenses" in the
financial statements, along with the various external consultants.

Best,
Andreas




On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:38 AM Risker  wrote:

> I don't think there is any such source.  In another thread, Andreas also
> states that there are over 800 WMF and affiliate employees (which is
> probably true); however, that would mean that *just salaries* would come to
> more than the 2021-22 annual budget.[1]  (i.e. - 800 employees x $200,000
> each = $160 million; 2021-22 budget is $150 million. That is taking the
> smaller number of "over 800 employee" from the other post and "over
> $200,000 per employee" from this one.)  While I have no doubt that salaries
> and benefits make up the majority of expenditures in both the WMF itself
> and the WMF and affiliates together, I think these statements are
> exaggerations.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:04, Alex Monk  wrote:
>
>> Do you have a source for that number?
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
>>> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
>>> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered
>>> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
>>> relevant to us here at least.
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AW6WDMV66RGYVAGCKMNYHXVHV5KFNRLK/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TDLU5RAG57LL74Z65D3DL24WFO6WV6YV/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/K4B3H7DW2CMERI2JQB3UMITBFTQUTNRN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Risker]

I don't think there is any such source.  In another thread, Andreas also
states that there are over 800 WMF and affiliate employees (which is
probably true); however, that would mean that *just salaries* would come to
more than the 2021-22 annual budget.[1]  (i.e. - 800 employees x $200,000
each = $160 million; 2021-22 budget is $150 million. That is taking the
smaller number of "over 800 employee" from the other post and "over
$200,000 per employee" from this one.)  While I have no doubt that salaries
and benefits make up the majority of expenditures in both the WMF itself
and the WMF and affiliates together, I think these statements are
exaggerations.

Risker/Anne


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:04, Alex Monk  wrote:

> Do you have a source for that number?
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>>
>> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
>> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
>> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered
>> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
>> relevant to us here at least.
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AW6WDMV66RGYVAGCKMNYHXVHV5KFNRLK/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TDLU5RAG57LL74Z65D3DL24WFO6WV6YV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Alphos OGame]

I'd like to point out that staff members are part of the movement whether or 
not they initially came from the community ; that, should the UCoC be put in 
place, they will be subjected to it like everybody else ; and, perhaps more 
importantly, they are subject to other people's conduct as well.

Maybe this UCoC has implications for other people than for those who don't like 
it, its wording, or its implementation. Maybe, just maybe, these people can 
choose for themselves, without there being a puppeteering archvillain 
controlling them, because they are, just, you know, *people*. Maybe, really, 
just maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't a 
puppeteering archvillain.

In simpler terms, not everything they do might be great, that doesn't mean 
everything they do has to be bad.

Roger / Alphos


> Le 30 janv. 2022 à 00:29, Risker  a écrit :
> 
> 
> Andreas - 
> 
> Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; 
> hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community 
> remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF.  A 
> non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of 
> their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.  
> 
> If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF 
> and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate.  It's 
> unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an 
> opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do 
> affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken 
> advantage of that.  I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are 
> so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. 
> Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer 
> to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an 
> employee voted, not *how* they voted.  And since any individual can only vote 
> once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually 
> much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a 
> dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the 
> outcome. 
> 
> Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from 
> existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it 
> is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some 
> cases for almost two decades.  It also reflects the experiences of the codes 
> of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several 
> years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events 
> hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.  
> 
> I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or 
> that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific 
> votes.  Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the 
> election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., 
> someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the 
> standard checks are done.  
> 
> Risker/Anne
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>> Shani,
>> 
>> The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors 
>> taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination 
>> with a 50% threshold. 
>> 
>> Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted 
>> participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or 
>> more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a 
>> block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through 
>> anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the 
>> UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... 
>> and then declare it the result of a democratic process. 
>> 
>> Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not 
>> directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the 
>> community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot 
>> for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
>> 
>> Could you say something about this?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3HVGANIGR25HQFX25BDTI5YU4BK6YTMB/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikime

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Alex Monk]

Do you have a source for that number?

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered
> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
> relevant to us here at least.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AW6WDMV66RGYVAGCKMNYHXVHV5KFNRLK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Risker]

Andreas -

Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is;
hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community
remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF.  A
non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of
their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.

If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the
WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate.
It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an
opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do
affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken
advantage of that.  I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff
are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that
way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any
employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is
whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted.  And since any
individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer
account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name
whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater
potential opportunity to control the outcome.

Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from
existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of
it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in
some cases for almost two decades.  It also reflects the experiences of the
codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for
several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person
events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.

I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or
that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to
specific votes.  Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to
the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community
(e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once
the standard checks are done.

Risker/Anne





On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Shani,
>
> The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia
> employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing,
> especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
>
> Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted
> participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or
> more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a
> block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through
> anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the
> UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ...
> and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
>
> Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not
> directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the
> community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot
> for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
>
> Could you say something about this?
>
> Best,
> Andreas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3HVGANIGR25HQFX25BDTI5YU4BK6YTMB/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QHYUW2MUYYS7ENFIGFG2QUVHMGAKMD2N/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Shani,

The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors
taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination
with a 50% threshold.

Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted
participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or
more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a
block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through
anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the
UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ...
and then declare it the result of a democratic process.

Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not
directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the
community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot
for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.

Could you say something about this?

Best,
Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3HVGANIGR25HQFX25BDTI5YU4BK6YTMB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Christian,

Thanks for providing the translations.

Even if he got some obvious things wrong – one thing David Bernet is right
about is that the people earning money from this free content are first and
foremost Big Tech, who can then host this material on sites like YouTube
and put ads on it, track users, etc. Nobody will come to Commons to watch
it there (clunky interface for video).

Personally I never set out to make the world's richest companies, who today
do more lobbying to influence the political process than any other
industry, even richer, to the detriment of content creators, internet
users' privacy and fair competition.

I'd rather like to see you lobby to have programs permanently available on
ARD's/ZDF's (German broadcasters') own media repository sites, where they
can easily be linked to. The concentration of public media access in the
hands of just a small number of US-based Big Tech companies that hoover up
everything – which is the practical result of the strategy you advocate –
is politically and economically unhealthy.

As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
$200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered
wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
relevant to us here at least.

Best,
Andreas






On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 6:23 PM Christian Humborg <
christian.humb...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> we had articles in Germany published connecting the activities of
> Wikimedia Enterprise with our licensing advocacy. Please find below the
> article of a filmmaker, published last week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
> Zeitung, one of the large German newspapers. Below you find our response,
> published this week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is
> useful for further debates.
>
> Kind regards
> Christian
>
> ***
>
> *Wikimedia perverts the common good*
> 
>
>
> *Wikimedia plans to commercialize its content. At the same time, the
> organization is lobbying hard to get its hands on high-quality free content
> from public broadcasters. This is ruining the filmmakers*.
>
>
> The Wikipedia information platform has so far been financed by donations
> from Silicon Valley tech giants, among others. These include primarily the
> market-dominating Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, Apple et
> cetera, all of which earn money through traffic with content from
> Wikipedia. In specialist circles, these donations are regarded as a
> reciprocal business: Donors and Wikipedia profit from each other.
>
> Wikimedia is the operating organization behind Wikipedia, but it has long
> been looking for a stable business model to finance itself. In the spring
> of 2021, Wikimedia finally announced that it would build a corporate
> interface that would simplify the automated use of Wikipedia content and
> for which commercial companies would pay. In other words: money is to be
> made with the content on Wikipedia. For example, with services such as the
> voice assistants Siri
>  or Alexa, which
> access content via Wikipedia. The donation business based on reciprocity,
> as described above, would thus be transformed into a proper business
> relationship. The name for it: Wikimedia Enterprise API.
>
> For this business to be profitable in the long term, Wikimedia must ensure
> the comprehensive supply of information on Wikipedia, but also enhance it
> for the social networks
>  with
> high-quality images and films. Expanded offerings increase demand. And in
> order to secure the capital-rich clientele in the long term - according to
> the law of Internet capitalism - Wikipedia could also become the dominant
> platform in the education sector for images and films that can be accessed
> as free as possible.
> Contempt for the state and collectivism
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland's intensive lobbying campaign for so-called "free
> licenses", which has been ongoing for several years, should also be
> understood in this context. Public films, especially documentaries, are to
> be offered free of charge on Wikipedia via CC licensing (Creative Commons
> licenses). Many know this campaign under the formula "Public money = Public
> good". A vulgarization of the idea of the common good that devalues the
> legal status of goods whose production takes place through state
> redistribution or in publicly supported economic segments such as the film
> and television industry. The claim is an expression of a typical
> contemporary amalgamation of libertarian contempt for the state and
> collectivist ideals, which in this case hides quite shamelessly behind
> rhetoric about the com

[Wikimedia-l] Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Christian Humborg]

Hi everyone,

we had articles in Germany published connecting the activities of Wikimedia
Enterprise with our licensing advocacy. Please find below the article of a
filmmaker, published last week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one
of the large German newspapers. Below you find our response, published this
week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is useful for
further debates.

Kind regards
Christian

***

*Wikimedia perverts the common good*



*Wikimedia plans to commercialize its content. At the same time, the
organization is lobbying hard to get its hands on high-quality free content
from public broadcasters. This is ruining the filmmakers*.


The Wikipedia information platform has so far been financed by donations
from Silicon Valley tech giants, among others. These include primarily the
market-dominating Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, Apple et
cetera, all of which earn money through traffic with content from
Wikipedia. In specialist circles, these donations are regarded as a
reciprocal business: Donors and Wikipedia profit from each other.

Wikimedia is the operating organization behind Wikipedia, but it has long
been looking for a stable business model to finance itself. In the spring
of 2021, Wikimedia finally announced that it would build a corporate
interface that would simplify the automated use of Wikipedia content and
for which commercial companies would pay. In other words: money is to be
made with the content on Wikipedia. For example, with services such as the
voice assistants Siri 
or Alexa, which access content via Wikipedia. The donation business based
on reciprocity, as described above, would thus be transformed into a proper
business relationship. The name for it: Wikimedia Enterprise API.

For this business to be profitable in the long term, Wikimedia must ensure
the comprehensive supply of information on Wikipedia, but also enhance it
for the social networks
 with
high-quality images and films. Expanded offerings increase demand. And in
order to secure the capital-rich clientele in the long term - according to
the law of Internet capitalism - Wikipedia could also become the dominant
platform in the education sector for images and films that can be accessed
as free as possible.
Contempt for the state and collectivism

Wikimedia Deutschland's intensive lobbying campaign for so-called "free
licenses", which has been ongoing for several years, should also be
understood in this context. Public films, especially documentaries, are to
be offered free of charge on Wikipedia via CC licensing (Creative Commons
licenses). Many know this campaign under the formula "Public money = Public
good". A vulgarization of the idea of the common good that devalues the
legal status of goods whose production takes place through state
redistribution or in publicly supported economic segments such as the film
and television industry. The claim is an expression of a typical
contemporary amalgamation of libertarian contempt for the state and
collectivist ideals, which in this case hides quite shamelessly behind
rhetoric about the common good and flickering fantasies of the "free
Internet”.

In recent years, Wikimedia's lobbying activities around the reform of
European copyright law have resulted in striking rejection from German
production and copyright associations. With the public broadcasters, on the
other hand, they have been somewhat successful: At the intensive
instigation of Wikimedia, there have been pilot tests with CC-licensed
clips from productions of the "Terra X" documentary series (ZDF) in the
last two years. And indeed, CC clauses are increasingly found in the fine
print of individual Terra X production contracts. This is the result of
so-called "round tables" at which, it should be noted, no representation of
the German producer community was present. Wikimedia, at any rate, is
celebrating its statistics today; the Terra-X clips are generating
respectable user numbers on the Wikipedia page.

The German film and television industry and all those creatively involved
are now rubbing their eyes in the face of how this rose-tinted deception is
catching on, not only among broadcaster executives but also in media policy
circles. They have all failed to ask the obvious question: Why does
Wikimedia need CC-licensed public service content at all? Wikimedia could
also simply enter into a blanket licensing agreement with the relevant
collecting societies such as VG Bild-Kunst. Just like schools,
universities, and libraries do. And just as Wikimedia itself wants to
conclude user agreements with Google
, Apple, Amazon or
Facebook for facilitated access to