And yet, for organizational efficiency, the Red Cross earned three stars from Charity Navigator, rather than only two.
Also, the CEO of Red Cross was compensated with 0.01% of the expenses. I'm not sure of Sue Gardner's total compensation these days, but it was last reported at a half-year rate of $75,000, wasn't it? A similar ratio as the Red Cross would put Wikimedia Foundation expenditures at $1.5 billion per year, based on CEO compensation. Something doesn't compute. The responses thus far trumpet the unusual energy and resources derived from such a disproportionately large volunteer base. I have to agree! Indeed, in 2007, there were about as many volunteers doing just as much work, but the staff was only about one-fourth what it is today. What is substantially different about the Wikimedia Foundation's mission and accomplishments today than were already in place in 2007? My only striking conclusion is how much more money the Foundation is now drawing in on the revenue side, and that the GFDL license was altered and swapped. The encyclopedias seem about the same as they were in 2007, just bigger. Commons is about the same. Wikiquote seems pretty close to the way it was in 2007. Is it possible that what we're witnessing is fairly plainly geometrically-increasing fundraising, which is supporting a geometrically-increasing staff, which then feeds back into the cycle again? Not that there's anything wrong with that! _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
