this post was submitted on 31 May 2021
27 points (88.6% liked)
Open Source
32665 readers
904 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Couldn't this be outdated as it's nearly a decade since?
I feel like this article doesn't really evaluate what organizational priorities and processes that Wikipedia is deal with. Also doesn't talk about the need for high skill employees that you can't get if you don't have the salary to pay for such skills.
Having only 40 people working on fundraising internationally is very little for a fundraising campaign, not only that but some of these can be hired freelance or their contracts can be short time. In contrast smaller organizations will hire much more people working for less money and and a smaller region.
I'm talking from my own experience here though, and don't really have any sources for what is usual for fundraising campaigns.
I recommend reading this in addition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
IDK, there is only a 13.8% 'profit' margin. Expenses are growing as well. But I do think the campaign rhetoric can be a bit hard, but I trust the decisions made by the board. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning from the general secretary or whatever Wikipedia has.
Well the question really is what kind of expenses there are? 400k/yr salaries for executives for example are a bit excessive for a non-profit I think.
Not really. Non-profits also needs people of the right skills to make such a big organization as Wikipedia is run well. There are very few in the world who have that skillset, and that skillset therefore has a big pricetag if you want someone who can make the organization improve and do well.
I wouldn't hire just about anyone for a type of job like that, and very few with the right skillset would settle for less of a pay if there are other jobs they can go for instead.
Yeah this is the same argument you usually hear also in relation to IMHO excessive salaries of Mozilla executives for example.
But I am not sure of that is really true.
I see two main counter-arguments:
Large companies in other countries do not pay nearly as much for their top level executives and yet seem to be doing fine? Extreme case would be many Japanese conglomerates that pay only really modest sums to their top level staff.
A non-profit usually has completely different values and requirements, and at least in my experience having people there that would otherwise work at top-level commercial firms is rather counter-productive that they really fail to understand the organizational culture and purpose.
400k pr year a sallary for these top positions aren't a lot at all in my opinion, particurarly when compared to other businesses. But we can agree to disagree.
Sure depends on the country and the living costs and all that. Probably doesn't sound that much from a Norwegian perspective ;)
But a good way to look at it is how many times the executives make compared to the median employee. Which is probably not a good ratio at the WMF.
It might be a joke. Although we have good social programs and a good economy it's not like the average Norwegian is loaded and everyone has a high-skill job.
And again you don't take in relation the skill difference between the jobs. In addition a wage of 400K pr. year is a drop in the ocean among it's large budget right, it's not a lof money and not to big corporations and non-profits. How much "a lot of money" is relative to it's context, and here we are talking about a giant organization that is growing each year by tremendous bounds while it's success wouldn't have happened by itself.
I find
a bit ignorant TBH
What I meant is that due to various factors the typical Norwegian earns (but also has to spend) much more than pretty much anyone else in Europe. This of course means that they are not rich in their own country, but when looking at salaries from other places 400k may not seem as much as it is in reality.
It would be a lot.
I don't think there is a country except maybe like Dubai where 400k a year as a sallary 'is nothing', but even there it would be a lot.
But in an organization were talking about about 130 million USD in pure income, 400 thousand USD a year as a leader sallary isn't that much.
If you want context about Norway: Because of unionization, the social democratic regulations it means that the country's wages are much more even. Specialized jobs which would otherwise have a incredulous salary is brought down while most job salaries are brought up, and jobs that don't really have much benefit can't exist in the economy, and therefore you can't have 'grocery packers' in Scandinavia for example. This builds a strong economy, but there still must logically be different value to different jobs as skills can be more rare or more difficult to get.
There is ofc as you say the difference in valuta, but 400K pr year would be 'a hell of a lot of money'. A very high earning job would be more like 100K pr year, and the median yearly salary for people are between 20 and 30K. Those under at the limit at being poor get's state funds so they can have at least a almost a minimum income lifestyle. (Although things have gotten worse since we've had a right leaning government for 8 years now)
I don't even earn a median yearly sallary myself, but I hope to one day.
According to Wikipedia a non-profit:
Which to me just sounds like a business for profit just with extra steps.
Since non-profit organizations provide a social benefit and literally their name says non-profit then workers shouldn't be paid more than they need or rather, shouldn't be paid based on their skillset or shouldn't be expected to pay high like that. Seems counter-intuitive that an organization that wants to provide a benefit somehow still has to make the same money as a for profit.
Well, there are many different kinds of non-profits and the above definition is kind of the minimal legalistic one. Most "non-profits" are founded for a different purpose then just the tax-benefits the "non-profit" legal status gives them in most countries.