You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
Last time I heard about wikipedia's donation campaign (maybe ~~2~~ 4 years ago or so), it was notorious for advertising in such a way as to imply your funds would be used to keep wikipedia alive, whereas the reality was that only a small part of Wikimedia Foundation's income was needed for Wikipedia, and the rest was spent on rather questionable things like funding very weird research with little oversight. Did this change? If it didn't, I wouldn't particularly advise anyone to donate to them.
I actually took a look at Wikipedia's accounts last week as I remembered that campaign when I saw the latest campaign and did some due diligence before donating. I didn't donate, but I'm still glad Wikipedia exists.
What I remembered: That hosting costs were tiny and Wikimedia foundation had enough already saved up to operate for over a hundred years without raising any more.
What I saw: That if that was true, it isn't any longer. It's managed growth.
I don't think they are at any risk of financial collapse, but they are cutting their cloth to suit their income. That's normal in business, including charities. If you stop raising money, you stagnate. You find things to spend that money on that are within the charity's existing aims.
Some highlights from 2024: $106million in wages. 26m in awards and grants. 6m in "travel and conferences". Those last two look like optional spends to me, but may be rewards to the volunteer editors. The first seems high, but this is only a light skim
Net assets at EOY = $271 million. Hosting costs per year are $3million. It's doing okay.
If you're curious; https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
Love that everyone on this thread is a financial analyst and a 501c consultant.
For-profit companies have the margins they do because they’ve successfully detached humanity from their spending obligations. Wikipedia does not need to do quarterly global lay-offs or labor off-shoring when their technology doesn’t meet release deadlines. They are a nonprofit. They exist to bring factual, accessible information to the world. If you support for this cause, donate. If you don’t, don’t donate or don’t use. If you care for the cause but want the CEO to take a paycut, well, find them one who will stick around for more than a few years on less than the average mega CEO salary. Because most of them have not.
So people shouldn't have an opinion unless they're professionally qualified? I'm not sure that's how the internet works.
And also, people absolutely should check how their money will be spent when they consider donating. It's their money, remember.
I get that, and it's often true I think. But when the thing that they do that you use and like is such a tiny part of their spending, is it still true?
I care about Wikipedia's website. I would donate to that. I don't care about the other 90% of the things they would spent my donation on. Should I still donate?
If you’re asking that question because you’re genuinely conflicted about donating and you’re not just here spreading divisive nonsense on behalf of Elon Musk, you could do a deeper delve into the entire foundation or look up the Wikipedia page on Income Statements.
You seem to be hung up on the operating expenses. That’s just a finance term for certain operational costs like the electricity bill and insurance. It does not mean the total of what it costs to run the organization and that everything else is in excess. Similarly, salary expenses includes everyone from the HR department to the custodians, not just the rich CEOs.
As I explained, I was going to donate. I did my due diligence about where my money would go and made my decision. I provided the link to Wikipedia's own declared for the benefit of others and shared some of my reasonings elsewhere in this post.
But in your world, anyone who questions anything is a shill for Musk? Or just those who hold a differing opinion to yours?
No shit, Sherlock. But where did I mention CEOs? Where did I mention Musk, come to that?
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. Goodbye.
Thanks for the link! Yeah, $3M for hosting out of their massive budget is what I was talking about - Wikipedia could lose 90% of their cashflow and not be in any danger of going offline. I don't see how to estimate how much of that "salaries" part is related to Wikipedia rather to their other business. But even taking the most optimistic possible reading, I think it's still true that the marginal value of donations to Wikimedia foundations will not be in support of Wikipedia's existence or even in improvements to it, but in them doing more unrelated charity.
(If you want to donate specifically to charities that spread knowledge, then donating to Wikipedia makes more sense, though then in my opinion you should consider supporting the Internet Archive, which has ~8 times less revenue, and just this year was sued for copyright infringement this year and spent a while being DDOSed into nonfunctionality - that's a lot of actually good reasons to need more money!).
Is it your impression that paying the people who work for you is optional for a technology company?
The salaries mostly are in the $100k-350k range, maybe up to $500-700k in the C suite. They’re perfectly reasonable by the standards of a San Francisco tech company that operates at the scale that Wikipedia does. The full list of exact salaries and recipients is listed in their form 990 filings if you want to read them for yourself.
Edit: Phrasing
What a bad-faith argument. You seem willfully obtuse towards any data presented to you and unnecessarily hostile in all of your comments. I took a look at the most recent 990 form you reference, and it lists compensation for a mere 13 individuals, with a total compensation just over $4-million in sum. This is in no way counter-evidence that spending (ultimately due to the decisions of these executives) is at runaway levels. Salaries and wages have increased 22% compounding year-over-year for the last four years on average. This is a 120% increase in only four years (from $46,146,897 to $101,305,706).
These trends have been continuously called out for almost a decade now, but this exponential growth continues nonetheless. All while expenses for core responsibilities remain flat. Wikipedia should be setup to succeeded indefinitely at this point if it weren't for these decisions.
I'm just going to let that little exchange stand on its own.
Hm, you're right. I had looked at some kind of summary that listed people for every year, and somehow thought that it was breaking down salaries for everyone, but it's only the top people.
Let's look a different way. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf&page=9 says that there are 233 people who earn more than $100k (so basically, full-time people in a white-collar role). So if you make a ballpark estimate that for each one of those people, there's one other person doing janitorial work or similar that makes average $50k/yr, and average out the $88M they spent on salary in 2022 over all those 466 people, you get $327k per year for the white collar people. Presumably there's also some amount on part-time work, or grants, or something like that. But the point is, it's not that there is some absurd amount of money going missing. It's just that they employ a few hundred people and pay SF-tech-company salaries.
Didn't you just get super offended that I pointed out that paying the people who work for you is, in fact, a "core reponsibility", and so this argument doesn't make sense?
I'm happy with Wikipedia paying their people. If there was one person making $5M per year, then I'd be fine with that, even though there isn't. If there was one person making $50M per year, maybe I'd have some questions, but nothing like that is happening.
You said I sound hostile. Stuff like this is why. I've been dealing with maybe 5-10 different people who all have some kind of different reason of bending their way around to the conclusion "and so Wikipedia sucks." I don't think spending money that's coming in, on paying people to do Wikipedia work, spells doom for Wikipedia. I don't think that makes any sense. And, there's been such a variety of "and so that's why Wikipedia sucks" comments I've been reading that all don't make any sense if you examine them, that it's made me short-tempered to any given one.
I like Wikipedia. I think it's good.
I'm going to try to keep this super simple:
At this point, I sincerely think you are being obtuse; unless you believe everyone at Wikipedia, on average, is receiving 22% raises, every single year. This is not Wikipedia "paying the people who work for you," it's aggressive expansion, at an exponential level. In the words of Guy Macon from almost a decade ago, "Wikipedia has Cancer." I don't believe any company, non-profit or for-profit, can sustain this limitless expansion in the long run. And Wikipedia's management does this all while trying to guilt trip people for donations, usually under the guise of needing it to survive. In sum, I don't agree with the financial decisions of Wikipedia's management, and therefore, no longer donate to them.
On the other hand, I don't dislike Wikipedia or the services they provide. I'll echo your own words: I like Wikipedia, I think it's good, and I never said otherwise. I even referenced their website when writing all of my responses on this topic. I find it unfortunate that you interpret these sort of critiques as "and so Wikipedia sucks." Furthermore, I don't like how you justify your hostility based on critical responses. This is a discussion board, not an echo chamber. However, I'm very thankful that you didn't respond with "go fuck yourself" or "kiss my ass" like you did in your last response to me. Also, I hope your having a good start to the weekend. ✌
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311370/wikimedia-foundation-annual-funding/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311451/wikimedia-foundation-annual-expenses/
They raised more money, so they spent more money. That's how it's supposed to work when you're a nonprofit. At no point did they spend more than they made. They used it to employ some people and fund some research. So in your mind, in order to avoid "limitless expansion" and "I don't agree with the financial decisions of Wikipedia's management", they should have just kept it in the bank? Or told people not to donate? The last time people donated, we got Wikipedia for it. That sounds great. I'm in favor of giving them more money so they can keep doing more stuff like that, because it seems like it's working.
Your complaint makes absolutely no sense, and I just sent them another $20.
Great points and thank you for the shoutout for Internet Archive. I just made my first donation.
Yep. Just like for-profit companies, having a diverse range of revenue streams is necessary for securing the financial health of the organization. While Wikipedia receives significant donations from companies like Google and Microsoft, it is essential to also solicit contributions from individuals to ensure that their income is not overly reliant on a single source. Just like in for-profits, Wikimedia likely determines the percentages of income from various sources needed to maintain this diversity. This concept seems particularly important for Wikipedia given its mission to provide unbiased information.
On another note, I’ve seen your same “100 years” notion mentioned a few times on this post. I can’t imagine that everyone who’s saying it independently had the idea to analyze their financial statements and calculate projections over 100 years. Is this an article you’re quoting? Just curious.
This perspective is very common in online communities about any sort of charity or non-profit.
"Don't donate money to whatever charity, they just waste the money on whatever thing"
Truthfully, it's just an excuse to assuage the guilt arising from refusing to support these organisations.
Sometimes.
Sometimes it's a pretty accurate statement.
I used to run a medium-large charity. I have a fair bit of experience in fundraising and management. Most donators would be shocked at how little their donation actually achieves in isolation. Also at the waste that often goes on, and certainly the salaries at the upper tiers.
And I could also say that guilt is exactly why people donate. It's to feel good about themselves, they're buying karma. Central heating for the soul. I won't say that's a bad thing, but it is a thing. It's also exactly how charities fundraise, because it works. That's why your post and tv adverts are full of pictures of sad children crying. Every successful charity today is that way because it knows how to manipulate potential supporters. Is that always wrong? Of course not, charities couldn't do good things without money. But sometimes the ethics in fundraising are extremely flexible.
Usually it's a gateway argument towards the right...
Well, that's definitely a super trustworthy thing, not at all relevant to the question of whether there is misinformation floating around that is targeted at Wikipedia.
I looked up their financial reports somewhere else in these comments when talking to someone else, and long story short, it's not true. Also, just to annoy anyone who's trying to spread this type of misinformation, I just set up a recurring $10/month donation to Wikipedia. I thought about including a note specifically requesting that it be used only for rather questionable things and funding very weird research, but there wasn't a space for it.
I wondered when writing my comment whether people would combine this with the vague statement in the opening post and conclude "aha, I will now take this as misinformation without checking", but then I looked at your other comments and saw you were actually talking about some India-related conspiracy I heard nothing about. Yet apparently you nevertheless think my comment is intentional misinfo?? That isn't very coherent, is it now?
I was talking about your comment. The idea that because they pay people salaries, including a few hundred K per year for the people at the top, they’re drowning in money and there’s no point in donating as long as they can pay their hosting bills and nothing else, is wrong. Furthermore I suspect that at least some of the bunch of people who suddenly started coming out of the woodwork to say a few variations on that exact same thing are part of some kind of deliberate misinformation, just because it’s kind of a weird conclusion for a whole bunch of people to all start talking about all at once. Doubly so because it isn’t true.
There’s a whole separate thing where one of the other commenters sent me an article saying Israel is attacking Syria with nuclear weaponry and I only don’t know about it because I consume hopelessly pro-Western propaganda sources like Wikipedia, and he sent me India.com as his backing for it. That’s nothing to do with you, though.
I in fact don't think that - to get the sort of people you want to be running your company, a good salary is necessary. I suspect a lot of the people that wikimedia employs are unnecessary because this is way too much money to be spending on salaries overall, but I have no way of checking it since they don't provide a breakdown of the salaries involved. I do think, however, that a company that's not drowning in money wouldn't be giving a bunch of generic research grants.
That's valid, though I note that in the worlds where I am a normal person and not an anti-wikipedia shill, the reason why I'm saying these things now and not at other times is because I saw this post, and you wrote this post because you saw other people talk about some India-related Wikipedia conspiracy theory, and one reason why you'd see these people crawl out of woodwork now is because wikipedia ramps up their donation campaign this time of year, prompting discussion about wikipedia.
The main issue I take with your opening post is its vagueness. You don't mention any details in it, so it effectively acts as a cue for people to discuss anything at all controversial about wikipedia. And the way you frame the discussion is that such narratives "are fundamentally false" because Wikipedia "is a force for truth in the world that’s less corruptible than a lot of the others" - that's assuming the conclusion. It's no surprise that this results in your seeing a lot of claims about Wikipedia that you think are misinformation!
P.S. Rethinking my previous comment a bit, it's probably good overall that reading my comment made you donate to charity out of spite - even a mediocre charity like Wikimedia most likely has a net positive effect on the world. So I guess I should be happy about it. Consider also donating to one of these for better bang on your buck.
To clarify, you don't think not-for-profits should fund grants for things that (by vote of the board) aligns with their mission?
I'm trying to figure out your beef with them.
Yes they do. It’s named by the individual, their position, and the exact salary they earned in each year. Look up the form 990s.
Completely true. I decided that being vague wasn’t great but it was better than brigading against the person I had in mind when that wasn’t the point. I figured people who had seen the stuff would know what I was talking about and figure it out, which mostly turned out to be accurate.
The narrative that led me to make the post was that Wikipedia is doxxing its editors to any fascist government that asks. I talk more about it here:
https://ponder.cat/post/1100747/1312503
Not quite. Personally, I think WP is a force for truth in the world, but that wasn’t why I am justifying this, it’s just me talking.
Also, I had legit forgotten that the government that WP has been fighting in court not to dox its users to, is India. I connected it to a later person who sent me a source from India.com, after spending so much time talking to people who think Israel is nuking Syria or Wikimedia is skimming $300 million of “excess” money off every single year (see the link above where someone references that misinformation and then I address it). Part of the reason I am short-tempered about false claims that make Wikipedia sound bad is that I’ve been talking with people who are making 4 or 5 different big ones just in these comments alone, and they all turn out to be bullshit, but the sum total of all of them getting repeated, I think, can be significant.
Just to be clear, I’m not necessarily saying you are one of those misinformation people. But the claim that Wikimedia has so much money that donations are unnecessary, putting “salaries” they’re spending donations on in quotes, things like that, is definitely one of those misinformation claims.
I will investigate this claim independently.
That's not allowed on Wikipedia, you have to use verifiable information from reliable secondary sources instead.
Was this "weird research" basically research into things like "Why are white, wealthy males the ones most likely to be WP editors?"
Pathos is a simple marketing mode that is one of three used by every company and I don’t really see a problem with it. It’s intentionally contrary to the one for-profit companies use to gain revenue—fear.