Hoi,
What you describe is a standard approach to what is not the real
problem.The problem is in diversity. It is a stated objective and the
Wikimedia Foundation does a comparatively good job.. except that it could
be so much better.
Another issue with concentrating on fundraising is that it is known that
(read Gapminder) genuinely rich people live in every country. The Wikimedia
Foundation as a rule does not target the truly rich and consequently the
average donation is low. It makes us independent of the vagaries of the
opinions of the really rich. As Wikimedia becomes a truly global
organisation, it will raise funds everywhere and it will report everywhere
what WMF does for them locally.
As we report on what we do locally, it follows that we have an interest for
what we can do locally. As local children do use Commons we ask people to
upload pictures of a local policeman, firefighter, nurse, police car
ambulance etc for them to use. As students read in their own language we
easily offer e-books using the hub best suited for the purpose. When as a
response we are asked to provide services, we prioritise the local service
and we will internationalise and localise to get the most out of our
investments.
As we become more global and diverse, the percentage of what the provision
of our services will represent more and more the global distribution of
people. It will grow our community, it will grow our audience and we will
evolve away from an organisation managed from "the center of the world".
Plenty of challenges ahead but not so much the amount of money the highest
earners in the WMF get paid. At that I do not give a fuck as long as the
job gets done and, so should you.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 23:15, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Strainu,
>
> The outlier problem is manageable I believe, given that the Form 990 lists
> the compensation of the dozen highest-paid employees (going up to just over
> $400,000 in 2019).
>
> There were actually more people (four) north of $300,000 in 2018 than
> there were in 2019 (two) – a reflection of long-term C-level vacancies, I
> believe. So the average does tell us something.
>
> As for people working at the Foundation easily being able to earn much
> more in for-profit companies, the same applies to us, mate. :) Instead of
> working for free on Wikipedia, you and me could easily be doing work
> elsewhere that pays *much* better. :)) Also, I don't ask people in
> second- and third-world countries to give me more money each year –
> pretending to be hard up, while earning a burgeoning six-figure salary and
> living a first-world lifestyle.
>
> Levity aside, and returning to the topic of the upcoming fundraisers, I am
> aware that there are many reasonably or even extremely wealthy people in
> India who can well afford to donate to Wikipedia. And donating can be a
> good feeling, for anyone who is able to afford it. On the other hand it
> seems to me from watching social media that the people who are most
> affected or even distressed by Wikipedia's meretricious claims of poverty
> are often those who are *genuinely* not well off themselves. The messages
> resonate with them, and they falsely assume Wikipedia is in a similar
> position. :/ I wouldn't want people with $100 in the bank to give $2 so
> that people in SF can pocket a six-figure salary.
>
> Another point about fundraising from relatively poor people and countries:
> overall, according to the most recent Wikimedia fundraising report, the
> lion's share of donations in 2020/21 (around 94%) came from US, European
> and Australian donors. So the main financial burden is borne by the richest
> societies, which is as it should be. But it may be an idea to make a public
> commitment that money collected in places like India will never go to pay
> for expenses or salaries in the US, but will always be spent locally (again
> without ever implying that continuation of local services is *dependent*
> on new donations).
>
> It might also be good to increase the proportion of staff based in those
> countries – which, to be fair, I believe the Foundation is already in the
> process of doing.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:31 AM Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andreas, I understand this email won't address your more serious
>> questions, but I believe it's fair to point out that the average salary
>> will tell you nothing relevant. Without drilling down on job family, your
>> results will be skewed by outliers.
>>
>> I can name out of the top of my head 10 people working at the foundation
>> in 2019 which I believe could get half a million dollar offers from
>> software companies in the bay area (that's $500.000 per year before tax).
>> While it's likely the Foundation doesn't pay this much, they're probably
>> not paying at 50% discount either.
>>
>> It's also worth asking if the salary costs include other type of
>> compensation,such as visa support or relocation costs.
>>
>> Also, maybe a lawyer can answer some of the questions the WMF won't
>> answer, as they are familiar with form 990 and the "tricks" of filling it.
>>
>> Strainu
>>
>>
>> Pe joi, 3 martie 2022, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> a scris:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > To bring some sort of closure to this thread about Wikimedia salary
>> costs, Wikimedia CEO Maryana Iskander did eventually post a response on
>> Meta.[1] My question and her reply are copied in full below.
>> >
>> > What please was the 2019 salary cost per WMF employee, per the most
>> recent Wikimedia Foundation Form 990?
>> >
>> > According to the linked Form 990, the WMF had salary costs of
>> $55,634,913 (page 1, line 15, "Salaries, other compensation, employee
>> benefits") in 2019, and a total of 291 employees (page 1, line 5). On the
>> face of it, this makes for an average salary cost of over $191K per
>> employee.
>> >
>> > Is this the correct figure, or if not, what is the correct calculation
>> for the average salary cost per employee in 2019? Are there estimates for
>> more recent years? Thanks, --Andreas JN466 01:04, 17 February 2022
>> (UTC)[reply]
>> >
>> > Hi Andreas - I am six weeks into the job and have seen your questions
>> about salaries at the Wikimedia Foundation in various public forums. I
>> would like to try and give you a response. What interests me most is
>> understanding the motivations for your questions so that I can attempt to
>> share appropriate information. You are welcome to contact me directly at
>> miskander<
>> https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/jiZCnbhuUZi7Hpf8KqsEHXt0SN6owx0bjebYerkxpmxJAXQeLwDEUXJlkBSND1k_KKAT_HGgJax2rAHcxuDhk9LayaxRvh0yA7OWGh0_Mq0X6vLvKVNkvEHfGZfYjYYcQ1q3ItszeGDk_4Vb5Q=s0-d-e1-ft#https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/At_sign.svg/16px-At_sign.svg.png
>> >wikimedia.org for a conversation as I won’t respond further here.What I
>> can share is the following:Calculating an average salary based on the Form
>> 990 is highly misleading. It produces totals that match our highest-paid
>> employees, as you see on the 990 form. This is true of many organisations,
>> not only the Wikimedia Foundation. As we will not release non-public salary
>> information in public forums, we accept that this number is much higher
>> than the true average salary. We currently have over 500 staff all over the
>> world that are in a wide variety of job types and levels, each of which are
>> paid differently and by location. An average is difficult to calculate and
>> while it may provide a data point, it lacks meaning for evaluating our
>> performance as an organisation. An average salary cost, even based on
>> non-public data, is not useful for most of the issues that concern me most.
>> We hire in over 50 countries, which is a reflection of our values as a
>> global movement, but introduces complexity in ensuring we can offer
>> competitive packages that will attract mission-driven talent, and
>> especially engineers who we need to support the technology obligations of
>> the Foundation. People are the biggest investment we make in supporting the
>> Wikimedia projects and community, so this is a topic of critical importance
>> to me. Finally, I have also checked that we are in line with other open
>> knowledge organisations (e.g., Mozilla, Creative Commons, EFF) in the
>> financial, salary, budget, and staff information that we
>> publish. MIskander-WMF (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
>> > I'll just leave some general comments on Maryana's response here.
>> > 1. An organisation committed to transparency shouldn't give a friendly
>> or beholden inquirer any different information than a hostile one in
>> response to questions of fact. In both cases, the information should simply
>> be accurate. I have no desire to ingratiate myself.
>> > 2. As for my motivation, it's surely one that any Wikipedian can relate
>> to: I would like the public to have access to accurate information. I
>> sometimes write about these topics[2][3] and assist journalists with
>> related research.
>> > 3. I don't accept that calculating an average for 291 employees
>> produces a figure that matches "our highest-paid employees". On the
>> contrary, it produces a figure for ALL "employees" in the strict sense of
>> the word (excluding freelancers). Even factoring in freelancers, the 291
>> employees listed on the Form 990 were by far the majority of the total
>> number of people working for the WMF in 2019, and not some sort of elite.
>> > 4. I did not ask for the release of non-public information. I simply
>> wanted to know how many people's pay, approximately, the front-page figure
>> of $55.6 million represents. I thought it was 291, based on the "Total
>> number of individuals employed in calendar year 2019" given in the Form
>> 990. Anne/Risker asserted the $55.6 million figure also included the pay of
>> the 82 contractors listed in Part V, line 1a. Which is it? Are some or all
>> of those contractors included in the salary costs total? The WMF won't say.
>> > 5. Salary costs are the WMF's biggest expenditure item. They reached
>> $69M in 2020/21 – a tenfold increase in the course of a decade. Throughout
>> that period of staff and salary growth, the Wikimedia Foundation regularly
>> and purposely created an impression in the public's mind that it was
>> struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running –
>> donations were solicited by telling the public that money was urgently
>> needed to keep Wikipedia "ad-free", "keep Wikipedia online", "protect
>> Wikipedia's independence", etc. Money used to fund organisational growth
>> should not be collected under the pretence of financial emergencies
>> jeopardising the continuation of basic services; members of the public
>> should know what they are funding.
>> > 6. Another Indian fundraiser is due to start in a few weeks' time.
>> Former WMF CEO Katherine Maher acknowledged to me[4] that there were
>> problems with the messaging in the last Indian fundraiser, resulting in
>> press stories that were "misleading and alarmist". I hope that the WMF will
>> do its best this year to ensure that the Indian press is accurately
>> informed about Wikimedia's financial past and present situation, including
>> the Wikimedia Endowment, and that fundraising messages, emails and
>> statements given to the press will not continue to imply that Wikipedia's
>> "independence", online "accessibility" or "survival" will be endangered
>> unless the Indian public donates money.
>> > 7. While I'm on this topic, the Wikimedia Endowment, now well on its
>> way to the $200M mark, is completely non-transparent. It has no public
>> records and no audited accounts; people have no way of knowing how the
>> money is invested, what if anything it is spent on, how much Tides and
>> other consultants and contractors are paid for holding and administering
>> the fund, and so on. In my view, both the community and the public are owed
>> a little more transparency than that.
>> > Andreas
>> > [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IRS_tax_related_information/2019_Wikimedia_Foundation_Form_990_Frequently_Asked_Questions&diff=22851697&oldid=22849131
>>
>> > [2]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-18/Op-ed
>> > [3] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/
>> > [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27371849
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 2:10 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear WMF accounts staff,
>> >> Could you kindly clarify whether the "Salaries, other compensation,
>> employee benefits" figure in Part I, line 15 of the Form 990 relates solely
>> to the 291 employees indicated in Part I, line 5, or whether it also
>> includes salaries, compensation and benefits for the 82 contractors listed
>> in Part V, line 1a of the Form 990.
>> >> Thank you.
>> >> 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/TWKZYK33UXQMMAOYLULG56JJXMLPZQ3W/
>> 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/S24SQDX5IUDMQHR7GLLGWEVO7AKXTEPN/
> 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/PAXTUA7VQ2CZN5UQLGGYMMWOJGIXVZCS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
