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

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks, Christian and Liam -- this looks very nicely handled.
Liam - wow, now that ABC link is really a blast from the past :)  S

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:54 AM Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Dear Željko,
>
> I wish to make a reply to some of the comments you raise - primarily to
> emphasise to the rest of the subscribers on this list that there is already
> an extensive community discussion about this Frankfurter Allgemeine
> Zeitung (FAZ) opinion column on the German Wikipedia 'Kurier' forum,
> starting from here:
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Antwort_von_Wiki_Loves_Broadcast_zu_FAZ-Artikel_vom_18.01.2022
> I encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the issues raised on the
> original, and the reply, articles - to do so at that forum.
>
> Relatedly, there is also this point-by-point rebuttal thread on Twitter,
> which has been shared by WM-DE too:
> https://twitter.com/leonidobusch/status/1483409545473015810?s=21 [with
> each tweet being machine-translatable inside twitter's own interface].
>
> But mostly, I wish to emphasise this letter, which written by the
> volunteer community leaders behind the "Wiki Loves Broadcast" (WLB)
> project. The FAZ opinion column is referring at a community-originating
> volunteer campaign to obtain free-licensing for audiovisual material
> produced for public service broadcasters. And so, I feel their response
> which should be the thing which is emphasised:
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_FAZ-Beitrag_vom_18.01.2022
> [English language machine-translated version:
> https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_FAZ-Beitrag_vom_18.01.2022?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=wapp
> ].
> The WLB homepage is here:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast.[1]
>
> To the other issues raised:
> The concept of a free-license means that anyone can use use the material
> for any purpose, including commercially: and as we know, many already do.
> The FAZ opinion column conflates this fundamental principle of
> free-licenses with an entirely separate project being run at the WMF. The
> "Enterprise" API project is not licensing content - everyone can *already* use
> it. Rather, it is a *service* with higher-speed/volume data throughput
> than could (or should) be provided for free for commercial organisations,
> who wish to use it. As we say: "Same water, thicker pipe." And ironically,
> for the argument being made in FAZ, this API does not include any
> multimedia content on Wikimedia projects. I say "should", because if it
> were a service provided at no-cost to largest commercial users, that would
> mean subsidising their business model with donors' money.
> Also, since Željko asked if there was any comments provided by the WMF, I
> would like to point out that myself and the WMF Comms team were
> coordinating with WM-DE last week about this reply article in FAZ. And
> furthermore that the *Enterprise *project FAQ on Meta - which is also
> fully translated into German, and has many responses regarding the
> financial and legal aspects
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ
>
>
> Sincerely,
> - Liam / Wittylama
> *Wikimedia Enterprise *Project Manager, WMF
>
> [1] somewhat relatedly, I ran a similar campaign with the ABC in my home
> country Australia a decade ago, and every now and then I still see the
> video files from it appearing in unexpected places across the internet:
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2012/03/25/abc-joins-wikimedia-in-sharing-historic-footage/
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 12:53, Željko Blaće  wrote:
>
>> Thank you for engaging with this topic in public and doing the
>> translation and sharing here (adding open-glam list).
>>
>> Aside from being a nice Sunday read I think this is a super useful case
>> study for people working in the cultural sector and advocacy for open. Was
>> this published elsewhere in English?
>>
>> I would love for us to have a better platform to comment and discuss
>> individual aspects of both articles (Discourse as WM Spaces would be good -
>> no?), but anyway few inline comments below.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 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.
>>>
>>
>> I see the article did not get a huge amount of comments and in that way
>> it failed to attract much attention or there were echoes elsewhere?
>>
>> https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzialisierung-ihrer-inhalte-17736141-p2.html#lesermeinungen
>>
>>
>>
>>> Below you find our response, published this week in the Frankfurter
>>> 

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

[Liam Wyatt]

Dear Željko,

I wish to make a reply to some of the comments you raise - primarily to
emphasise to the rest of the subscribers on this list that there is already
an extensive community discussion about this Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung (FAZ)
opinion column on the German Wikipedia 'Kurier' forum, starting from here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Antwort_von_Wiki_Loves_Broadcast_zu_FAZ-Artikel_vom_18.01.2022
I encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the issues raised on the original,
and the reply, articles - to do so at that forum.

Relatedly, there is also this point-by-point rebuttal thread on Twitter,
which has been shared by WM-DE too:
https://twitter.com/leonidobusch/status/1483409545473015810?s=21 [with each
tweet being machine-translatable inside twitter's own interface].

But mostly, I wish to emphasise this letter, which written by the volunteer
community leaders behind the "Wiki Loves Broadcast" (WLB) project. The FAZ
opinion column is referring at a community-originating volunteer campaign
to obtain free-licensing for audiovisual material produced for public
service broadcasters. And so, I feel their response which should be the
thing which is emphasised:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_FAZ-Beitrag_vom_18.01.2022
[English language machine-translated version:
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_FAZ-Beitrag_vom_18.01.2022?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=wapp
].
The WLB homepage is here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast.[1]

To the other issues raised:
The concept of a free-license means that anyone can use use the material
for any purpose, including commercially: and as we know, many already do.
The FAZ opinion column conflates this fundamental principle of
free-licenses with an entirely separate project being run at the WMF. The
"Enterprise" API project is not licensing content - everyone can *already* use
it. Rather, it is a *service* with higher-speed/volume data throughput than
could (or should) be provided for free for commercial organisations, who
wish to use it. As we say: "Same water, thicker pipe." And ironically, for
the argument being made in FAZ, this API does not include any multimedia
content on Wikimedia projects. I say "should", because if it were a service
provided at no-cost to largest commercial users, that would mean
subsidising their business model with donors' money.
Also, since Željko asked if there was any comments provided by the WMF, I
would like to point out that myself and the WMF Comms team were
coordinating with WM-DE last week about this reply article in FAZ. And
furthermore that the *Enterprise *project FAQ on Meta - which is also fully
translated into German, and has many responses regarding the financial and
legal aspects
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ

Sincerely,
- Liam / Wittylama
*Wikimedia Enterprise *Project Manager, WMF

[1] somewhat relatedly, I ran a similar campaign with the ABC in my home
country Australia a decade ago, and every now and then I still see the
video files from it appearing in unexpected places across the internet:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2012/03/25/abc-joins-wikimedia-in-sharing-historic-footage/


On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 12:53, Željko Blaće  wrote:

> Thank you for engaging with this topic in public and doing the translation
> and sharing here (adding open-glam list).
>
> Aside from being a nice Sunday read I think this is a super useful case
> study for people working in the cultural sector and advocacy for open. Was
> this published elsewhere in English?
>
> I would love for us to have a better platform to comment and discuss
> individual aspects of both articles (Discourse as WM Spaces would be good -
> no?), but anyway few inline comments below.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 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.
>>
>
> I see the article did not get a huge amount of comments and in that way it
> failed to attract much attention or there were echoes elsewhere?
>
> https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzialisierung-ihrer-inhalte-17736141-p2.html#lesermeinungen
>
>
>
>> Below you find our response, published this week in the Frankfurter
>> Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is useful for further debates.
>>
>
> One needs to register (or even pay?) to get to this article?  I wonder
> what was the quality and quantity of responses here?
>
> https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen-fuer-das-gemeinwohl-17753492.html
>
>
>> Kind regards
>> 

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

[Željko Blaće]

Thank you for engaging with this topic in public and doing the translation
and sharing here (adding open-glam list).

Aside from being a nice Sunday read I think this is a super useful case
study for people working in the cultural sector and advocacy for open. Was
this published elsewhere in English?

I would love for us to have a better platform to comment and discuss
individual aspects of both articles (Discourse as WM Spaces would be good -
no?), but anyway few inline comments below.


On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 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.
>

I see the article did not get a huge amount of comments and in that way it
failed to attract much attention or there were echoes elsewhere?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzialisierung-ihrer-inhalte-17736141-p2.html#lesermeinungen



> Below you find our response, published this week in the Frankfurter
> Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is useful for further debates.
>

One needs to register (or even pay?) to get to this article?  I wonder what
was the quality and quantity of responses here?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen-fuer-das-gemeinwohl-17753492.html


> 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.
>

This is crude simplification...
It would have been great for this to be responded to with some counter
arguments or maybe it is still possible by WMF directly?


> 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.
>

I feel this is something WMF should also respond to with clarification, at
least to the author and his society if not in FAZ, than on wikimedia.org.

 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.
>

This also posed some interesting questions for Wikimedians to discuss with
so many failures in making Wikipedia media rich. Wikipedia copy-cat
websites are in abundance (can it get worse?) and on the other hand there
is next to zero effort (and resources allocated) to have position and
relations formulated towards non-corporate social networks (not even when
it is easy!).


> 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
> 

[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: 

[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 -- 

[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=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: 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: 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