i dont think anyone is ignoring that. the meme is talking about how it was built, not how it’s currently maintained. it definitely didn’t start off spending that much. all that spending is a consequence of it’s popularity, not the reason for it.
Some would say that most of the spending is based on greed. Individual salaries doubled to tripled in the last decade, with their head earning three quarters of a million now.
It was a tenth 15 years ago.
They started out right, like they all do. Then personal money catches up.
You thinking a $750,000 salary for the CEO of one of the top ten visited websites in the world and arguably one of the most important knowledge resources we’ve probably ever created is ‘greed’ is pretty hilarious.
Thinking one guy deserves that much salary for the work of millions of volunteers over decades is what’s hilarious. Do you think those giant pleas that they post when they need money would be as convincing if they listed his salary?
I think you should consider the opportunity cost of what they would be making elsewhere. Salaries need to be competitive, otherwise you are at the mercy of those who are willing to work for less and hope that the reason is benevolent.
That would make more sense if Wikipedia was a profit generating enterprise that needed to satisfy shareholders. It’s run like a charity through donations, though.
Fifteen other people sit on the board of trustees that oversees wikimedia. The only person on that board who gets paid is Jimmy.
I don’t buy that argument at all, it just doesn’t make any sense for a position like Wikipedia. Sure, if you’re in a highly competitive and specialised industry where connections and insider information matters I would get it, but just running a “simple” organisation like Wikipedia, no way.
Yes? And by simple I meant in the manner that it’s not a competitive company. They aren’t there to bring in the AI revolution or invent the next iPhone. Their primary goal is to just keep the servers running, not create record profits for shareholders.
High six figure salaries in general seems foreign to me. A core part of the nordic model is to limit wage gap between high education jobs and low education jobs, so the entire CEO wage structure in the US seems completely backwards.
i dont think anyone is ignoring that. the meme is talking about how it was built, not how it’s currently maintained. it definitely didn’t start off spending that much. all that spending is a consequence of it’s popularity, not the reason for it.
deleted by creator
that’s the spirit
deleted by creator
Some would say that most of the spending is based on greed. Individual salaries doubled to tripled in the last decade, with their head earning three quarters of a million now.
It was a tenth 15 years ago.
They started out right, like they all do. Then personal money catches up.
You thinking a $750,000 salary for the CEO of one of the top ten visited websites in the world and arguably one of the most important knowledge resources we’ve probably ever created is ‘greed’ is pretty hilarious.
Thinking one guy deserves that much salary for the work of millions of volunteers over decades is what’s hilarious. Do you think those giant pleas that they post when they need money would be as convincing if they listed his salary?
What does that have to do with Wikipedia specifically?This isn’t a problem of wikipedia it’s a problem of capitalism
I wanted to fact check you on this, and you speak true.
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries
Makes me question my willingness to donate money to them.
I think you should consider the opportunity cost of what they would be making elsewhere. Salaries need to be competitive, otherwise you are at the mercy of those who are willing to work for less and hope that the reason is benevolent.
That would make more sense if Wikipedia was a profit generating enterprise that needed to satisfy shareholders. It’s run like a charity through donations, though.
Fifteen other people sit on the board of trustees that oversees wikimedia. The only person on that board who gets paid is Jimmy.
I don’t buy that argument at all, it just doesn’t make any sense for a position like Wikipedia. Sure, if you’re in a highly competitive and specialised industry where connections and insider information matters I would get it, but just running a “simple” organisation like Wikipedia, no way.
You think $750k for a CEO of a “simple” company is high?
Yes? And by simple I meant in the manner that it’s not a competitive company. They aren’t there to bring in the AI revolution or invent the next iPhone. Their primary goal is to just keep the servers running, not create record profits for shareholders.
High six figure salaries in general seems foreign to me. A core part of the nordic model is to limit wage gap between high education jobs and low education jobs, so the entire CEO wage structure in the US seems completely backwards.
It may seem foreign, but it is the state of things. $750k/yr for a $100mil non-profit CEO is about average.
Aside from nagging a bit more often for donations, has the site gotten worse in any way as a result?