[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Gnangarra,

Surprisingly enough, Covid-19 had little discernible effect on WMF spending
outside the US, which reached its highest ever level in 2020/2021.

Below are the non-US expense totals for the last five fiscal years, per the
Form 990 (Schedule F, usually starts around p. 30) for each[1]:

2016/2017: $11,636,258
2017/2018: $15,191,106
2018/2019: $16,639,727
2019/2020: $19,387,650
2020/2021: $20,076,181

Spending in the global south in 2020/2021 was also the highest it's ever
been, at $3.8 million (based on adding the totals for Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Asia, Middle East and North Africa, South America, and Central
America and the Caribbean), with the 2019/2020 total the second highest at
$3.0 million.

Andreas

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/


On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:01 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> Kaya
>
> "Global South" a term we had discontinued to emphasise as a way to divide
> the community did apply to more than just India.
>
> I really dont think looking at 2020/2021 figures is really fair either by
> yourself or by the fundraising people if that's what they used.  That
> period had a significant downturn in everyone's capacity to do anything.
> Everything the WMF does would be in some way to support volunteers either
> directly or indirectly; whether that is keeping the servers running and
> updating software, providing community support through funding initiatives,
> raising awareness, or simply managing the whole circus.  I'm not supportive
> of playing mind games nor word games with statistics and dollar signs by
> anyone, especially where it pits the value of volunteers against the value
> of staff. We are as a community better than that.
>
> Getting good messaging out there is necessary, we should be moving away
> from those early messages and evolving new messages that reflect where we
> are as a movement now and where we want to be in 10 years.  What we don't
> need is messaging that confuses people. After 20 years we need any
> promotion of the movement to reflect the community as a valuable long term
> respectable, trustworthy, reliable, and neutral partner organisation.
>
>
> Boodarwun
> Gnangarra
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 20:06, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Hi Gnangarra and all,
>>
>> I only mentioned how little money went to India in 2020/2021 because of
>> the WMF's recent claim in the Indian Express that "a lot" of the money
>> raised is flowing into the Global South.[1]
>>
>> You raise the messaging used to request donations. Here are six key
>> phrases from the India emails (as linked on Meta[2]) that caught my eye (my
>> emphases):
>>
>> Phrase 1: We *choose not to charge a subscription fee*, but that doesn't
>> mean we don't need support from our readers
>> Phrase 2: kindly consider giving again, or even increasing your gift, *to
>> keep Wikipedia free* and independent.
>>
>> Should the option of charging a subscription fee for "The Free
>> Encyclopedia" even be hinted at in a fundraising email? Bear in mind that
>> the WMF Mission is "to make and keep useful information from its projects
>> available on the internet *free of charge, in perpetuity*." It is only
>> because of this commitment that volunteers are prepared to work for free.
>>
>> Also, isn't there something of a logical contradiction in begging people
>> – especially people in developing countries – for money "to keep Wikipedia
>> free"?
>>
>> Phrase 3: About a year ago, you donated Rs. 313 to *keep Wikipedia
>> online for yourself and millions of people around the world*. Each year,
>> fewer than 2% of Wikipedia readers choose to support our work.
>> Phrase 4: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia *remains
>> independent, ad-free, and growing* for years to come
>> Phrase 5: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small
>> donation? It will *keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing* for
>> years to come
>>
>> Wikipedia's independence (also used as a hook on the Wikipedia banners)
>> is safer than ever, if it's to be measured by the WMF's money reserves,
>> which at an estimated $400 million are now greater than they've ever been.
>>
>> Wouldn't we like to see the WMF saying more about what it actually does
>> with the money, rather than falling back on these old stock phrases from
>> yesteryear, about keeping Wikipedia online, or keeping it free? They might
>> have been appropriate fifteen or twenty years ago, when the Foundation was
>> finding its feet financially, but seem very out of step with the current
>> financial realities.
>>
>> Phrase 6: 31% of your gift will be used to *support the volunteers* who
>> share their knowledge with you for free every day.
>>
>> 31% of 2020/2021 donations revenue would have been about $50 million.
>> I've been told the 31% figure comes from the Annual Report[3] (where it is
>> called "*Direct support to communities*" and refers to 31% of spending,
>> which is much less than 31% of revenue). But even so, it is unclear to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Gnangarra]

Kaya

"Global South" a term we had discontinued to emphasise as a way to divide
the community did apply to more than just India.

I really dont think looking at 2020/2021 figures is really fair either by
yourself or by the fundraising people if that's what they used.  That
period had a significant downturn in everyone's capacity to do anything.
Everything the WMF does would be in some way to support volunteers either
directly or indirectly; whether that is keeping the servers running and
updating software, providing community support through funding initiatives,
raising awareness, or simply managing the whole circus.  I'm not supportive
of playing mind games nor word games with statistics and dollar signs by
anyone, especially where it pits the value of volunteers against the value
of staff. We are as a community better than that.

Getting good messaging out there is necessary, we should be moving away
from those early messages and evolving new messages that reflect where we
are as a movement now and where we want to be in 10 years.  What we don't
need is messaging that confuses people. After 20 years we need any
promotion of the movement to reflect the community as a valuable long term
respectable, trustworthy, reliable, and neutral partner organisation.


Boodarwun
Gnangarra


On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 20:06, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Gnangarra and all,
>
> I only mentioned how little money went to India in 2020/2021 because of
> the WMF's recent claim in the Indian Express that "a lot" of the money
> raised is flowing into the Global South.[1]
>
> You raise the messaging used to request donations. Here are six key
> phrases from the India emails (as linked on Meta[2]) that caught my eye (my
> emphases):
>
> Phrase 1: We *choose not to charge a subscription fee*, but that doesn't
> mean we don't need support from our readers
> Phrase 2: kindly consider giving again, or even increasing your gift, *to
> keep Wikipedia free* and independent.
>
> Should the option of charging a subscription fee for "The Free
> Encyclopedia" even be hinted at in a fundraising email? Bear in mind that
> the WMF Mission is "to make and keep useful information from its projects
> available on the internet *free of charge, in perpetuity*." It is only
> because of this commitment that volunteers are prepared to work for free.
>
> Also, isn't there something of a logical contradiction in begging people –
> especially people in developing countries – for money "to keep Wikipedia
> free"?
>
> Phrase 3: About a year ago, you donated Rs. 313 to *keep Wikipedia online
> for yourself and millions of people around the world*. Each year, fewer
> than 2% of Wikipedia readers choose to support our work.
> Phrase 4: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia *remains
> independent, ad-free, and growing* for years to come
> Phrase 5: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small
> donation? It will *keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing* for years
> to come
>
> Wikipedia's independence (also used as a hook on the Wikipedia banners) is
> safer than ever, if it's to be measured by the WMF's money reserves, which
> at an estimated $400 million are now greater than they've ever been.
>
> Wouldn't we like to see the WMF saying more about what it actually does
> with the money, rather than falling back on these old stock phrases from
> yesteryear, about keeping Wikipedia online, or keeping it free? They might
> have been appropriate fifteen or twenty years ago, when the Foundation was
> finding its feet financially, but seem very out of step with the current
> financial realities.
>
> Phrase 6: 31% of your gift will be used to *support the volunteers* who
> share their knowledge with you for free every day.
>
> 31% of 2020/2021 donations revenue would have been about $50 million. I've
> been told the 31% figure comes from the Annual Report[3] (where it is
> called "*Direct support to communities*" and refers to 31% of spending,
> which is much less than 31% of revenue). But even so, it is unclear to me
> what specifically this amount refers to. It is certainly an order of
> magnitude more than the WMF's grants to the community in 2020/2021.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/raju-narisetti-interview-wikipedia-trust-transparency-7940621/
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Indian_email_texts
> [3]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 10:55 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter where the money goes, everyone benefits and there was a
>> period where the WMF was doing a lot of work in India without fundraising
>> there. Its all relative Australia was contributing over 2m per year(highest
>> per capita of anywhere at the time) yet there was nothing being spent in
>> Australia.
>>
>> The issue is the messaging requesting donations should be honest. At
>> least two of those 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Gnangarra and all,

I only mentioned how little money went to India in 2020/2021 because of the
WMF's recent claim in the Indian Express that "a lot" of the money raised
is flowing into the Global South.[1]

You raise the messaging used to request donations. Here are six key phrases
from the India emails (as linked on Meta[2]) that caught my eye (my
emphases):

Phrase 1: We *choose not to charge a subscription fee*, but that doesn't
mean we don't need support from our readers
Phrase 2: kindly consider giving again, or even increasing your gift, *to
keep Wikipedia free* and independent.

Should the option of charging a subscription fee for "The Free
Encyclopedia" even be hinted at in a fundraising email? Bear in mind that
the WMF Mission is "to make and keep useful information from its projects
available on the internet *free of charge, in perpetuity*." It is only
because of this commitment that volunteers are prepared to work for free.

Also, isn't there something of a logical contradiction in begging people –
especially people in developing countries – for money "to keep Wikipedia
free"?

Phrase 3: About a year ago, you donated Rs. 313 to *keep Wikipedia online
for yourself and millions of people around the world*. Each year, fewer
than 2% of Wikipedia readers choose to support our work.
Phrase 4: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia *remains
independent, ad-free, and growing* for years to come
Phrase 5: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small
donation? It will *keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing* for years
to come

Wikipedia's independence (also used as a hook on the Wikipedia banners) is
safer than ever, if it's to be measured by the WMF's money reserves, which
at an estimated $400 million are now greater than they've ever been.

Wouldn't we like to see the WMF saying more about what it actually does
with the money, rather than falling back on these old stock phrases from
yesteryear, about keeping Wikipedia online, or keeping it free? They might
have been appropriate fifteen or twenty years ago, when the Foundation was
finding its feet financially, but seem very out of step with the current
financial realities.

Phrase 6: 31% of your gift will be used to *support the volunteers* who
share their knowledge with you for free every day.

31% of 2020/2021 donations revenue would have been about $50 million. I've
been told the 31% figure comes from the Annual Report[3] (where it is
called "*Direct support to communities*" and refers to 31% of spending,
which is much less than 31% of revenue). But even so, it is unclear to me
what specifically this amount refers to. It is certainly an order of
magnitude more than the WMF's grants to the community in 2020/2021.

Andreas

[1]
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/raju-narisetti-interview-wikipedia-trust-transparency-7940621/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Indian_email_texts
[3]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/


On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 10:55 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> It doesn't matter where the money goes, everyone benefits and there was a
> period where the WMF was doing a lot of work in India without fundraising
> there. Its all relative Australia was contributing over 2m per year(highest
> per capita of anywhere at the time) yet there was nothing being spent in
> Australia.
>
> The issue is the messaging requesting donations should be honest. At least
> two of those statements are very much questionable, and at the same time we
> shouldn't be sending multiple requests close enough to each other that
> people are complaining which means many others are just sending emails to
> spam which become permanent filters.
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 at 23:33, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> I am happy to give you the TL;DR version:
>>
>> As best I can make out, the WMF's average salary cost per employee is now
>> about $200,000.
>>
>> More could be said, of course:
>>
>> – The WMF had already exceeded its revenue goals for the 2021/2022 fiscal
>> year by the end of March, bringing in over $150 million in the first three
>> quarters[1] (total expenses last year were $107 million).
>>
>> – Including the endowment, I estimate the WMF now has about $400 million
>> in assets (almost all in cash and investments).
>>
>> – In India, past donors are reporting being inundated with daily WMF
>> emails telling them money is needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent,
>> ad-free and thriving.[1]
>>
>> – Internet hosting costs are $2.4 million per year, and Erik Möller
>> thought in 2013 the Wikimedia mission was sustainable on $10M+/year.
>>
>> – Very little of Wikimedia's money actually goes to India (0.64 million
>> in 2020 for all of South Asia, per Form 990).[3]
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3_Advancement.pdf=9
>> [2] 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 at 16:33, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dan,
>
> I am happy to give you the TL;DR version:
>
> As best I can make out, the WMF's average salary cost per employee is now
> about $200,000.
>
> More could be said, of course:
>
> – The WMF had already exceeded its revenue goals for the 2021/2022 fiscal
> year by the end of March, bringing in over $150 million in the first three
> quarters[1] (total expenses last year were $107 million).
>
> – Including the endowment, I estimate the WMF now has about $400 million
> in assets (almost all in cash and investments).
>
> – In India, past donors are reporting being inundated with daily WMF
> emails telling them money is needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent,
> ad-free and thriving.[1]
>
> – Internet hosting costs are $2.4 million per year, and Erik Möller
> thought in 2013 the Wikimedia mission was sustainable on $10M+/year.
>
> – Very little of Wikimedia's money actually goes to India (0.64 million in
> 2020 for all of South Asia, per Form 990).[3]
>
> Andreas
>

Those are interesting data points..

Dan
___
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/IKT4OOB3D62UTUNRXUSFIPDEJJSNUQD4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Gnangarra]

It doesn't matter where the money goes, everyone benefits and there was a
period where the WMF was doing a lot of work in India without fundraising
there. Its all relative Australia was contributing over 2m per year(highest
per capita of anywhere at the time) yet there was nothing being spent in
Australia.

The issue is the messaging requesting donations should be honest. At least
two of those statements are very much questionable, and at the same time we
shouldn't be sending multiple requests close enough to each other that
people are complaining which means many others are just sending emails to
spam which become permanent filters.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 at 23:33, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dan,
>
> I am happy to give you the TL;DR version:
>
> As best I can make out, the WMF's average salary cost per employee is now
> about $200,000.
>
> More could be said, of course:
>
> – The WMF had already exceeded its revenue goals for the 2021/2022 fiscal
> year by the end of March, bringing in over $150 million in the first three
> quarters[1] (total expenses last year were $107 million).
>
> – Including the endowment, I estimate the WMF now has about $400 million
> in assets (almost all in cash and investments).
>
> – In India, past donors are reporting being inundated with daily WMF
> emails telling them money is needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent,
> ad-free and thriving.[1]
>
> – Internet hosting costs are $2.4 million per year, and Erik Möller
> thought in 2013 the Wikimedia mission was sustainable on $10M+/year.
>
> – Very little of Wikimedia's money actually goes to India (0.64 million in
> 2020 for all of South Asia, per Form 990).[3]
>
> Andreas
>
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3_Advancement.pdf=9
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/deemopahan/posts/10159230509968878
> [3]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=29
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 3:46 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 23:25, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> If you've spotted an error in my reasoning or think you can provide a
>>> better estimate, please do so and share your working. Many eyes make all
>>> bugs shallow.
>>>
>>
>> My feedback is that you've put so many walls of text and numbers on this
>> mailing list, that whatever point you're attempting to make is buried
>> underneath it.
>>
>> Dan
>> ___
>> 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/ASE3NXY474JRM4J57AWAT5JQ6FXS6S4O/
>> 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/2DAPOURP64GR6SJAHHCACIR6FMRJBM2J/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
GN.
___
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/XWIKK5Z25G4APUOKZZW263P3HG5GQOHA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dan,

I am happy to give you the TL;DR version:

As best I can make out, the WMF's average salary cost per employee is now
about $200,000.

More could be said, of course:

– The WMF had already exceeded its revenue goals for the 2021/2022 fiscal
year by the end of March, bringing in over $150 million in the first three
quarters[1] (total expenses last year were $107 million).

– Including the endowment, I estimate the WMF now has about $400 million in
assets (almost all in cash and investments).

– In India, past donors are reporting being inundated with daily WMF emails
telling them money is needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent, ad-free
and thriving.[1]

– Internet hosting costs are $2.4 million per year, and Erik Möller thought
in 2013 the Wikimedia mission was sustainable on $10M+/year.

– Very little of Wikimedia's money actually goes to India (0.64 million in
2020 for all of South Asia, per Form 990).[3]

Andreas


[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3_Advancement.pdf=9
[2] https://www.facebook.com/deemopahan/posts/10159230509968878
[3]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=29

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 3:46 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 23:25, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> If you've spotted an error in my reasoning or think you can provide a
>> better estimate, please do so and share your working. Many eyes make all
>> bugs shallow.
>>
>
> My feedback is that you've put so many walls of text and numbers on this
> mailing list, that whatever point you're attempting to make is buried
> underneath it.
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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/ASE3NXY474JRM4J57AWAT5JQ6FXS6S4O/
> 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/2DAPOURP64GR6SJAHHCACIR6FMRJBM2J/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 23:25, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> If you've spotted an error in my reasoning or think you can provide a
> better estimate, please do so and share your working. Many eyes make all
> bugs shallow.
>

My feedback is that you've put so many walls of text and numbers on this
mailing list, that whatever point you're attempting to make is buried
underneath it.

Dan
___
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/ASE3NXY474JRM4J57AWAT5JQ6FXS6S4O/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Philippe Beaudette]

Are we back to this?  Seriously?  I thought this topic was dead for at
least six months.  It’s almost enough to make me walk away and give up on
this list.

Philippe


On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 5:25 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As the topic of WMF salaries has come up again in another thread – a while
> ago I asked WMF accounts staff to clarify here on this list whether the
> "Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits" figure in Part I, Line 15
> of the Form 990 related solely to the number of employees indicated in Part
> I, Line 5, or whether it also included salaries, compensation and benefits
> for any contractors listed in Part V, Line 1a of the Form 990, as people
> had been speculating here on this list.
>
> While the WMF chose not to reply here, I can report that they did
> eventually include a couple of notes in the Form 990 FAQ that answered this
> question.[1] They explain that Line 5, the number of employees, only
> includes –
>
> "individuals that were issued W-2s in the calendar year. Thus, the total
> shown is the number of US-based full-time and part-time employees employed
> during the calendar year. It does not include non-US-based workers, as well
> as contractors which may be hired part-time or for specific assignments, as
> those individuals are not issued W-2s from the Foundation."
>
> They explain further that the salary costs total in Line 15 –
>
> "includes salary, benefits, retirement, wellness, and payroll taxes for
> full-time and part-time staff members in the US and outside of the US
> employed by Wikimedia Foundation or its Employer of Record. These costs as
> well as salaries vary significantly by geography. This number does not
> include fees paid to contractors, vendors, or consultants. Please also note
> that the amount shown is for the fiscal year (July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021)
> while other information in the Form 990 is as of the calendar year (January
> 1- December 31, 2020)."
>
> So now we know that contractors are definitely NOT included in the salary
> costs total, but a number of non-US employees are. I have asked how many
> non-US employees there were in 2020, but have not received an answer to
> date.[2]
>
> However, as I have learned since, the Form 990 does actually enable us at
> least to determine an upper bound for the number of non-US employees there
> might have been. Schedule F of the Form 990 (page 29) tells us that in
> 2020, the Foundation had a total of 54 "employees, agents, and independent
> contractors" outside the US.[3]
>
> So let us put this information together.
>
> In the 2020 Form 990, we have 320 employees in Line 5, a maximum potential
> number of non-US employees of 54, and salary costs of $67,857,675.
>
> As the Foundation appears unwilling to tell us the number of full-time
> equivalents (FTEs) this salary costs total relates to, and refuses to say
> how much of it was spent on US employees and how much of it was spent on
> non-US employees, we are restricted to using an informed guess to work out
> average salary costs overall. In doing so, we have to bear in mind the
> following:
>
> 1. The number of employees in Line 5 includes part-time staff and people
> that worked only for part of the year. It is bound to be higher than the
> actual number of FTE employees.
> 2. The number of employees in Line 5 relates to the 2020 calendar year,
> whereas the salary costs total relates to the fiscal year 2020/2021 – a
> six-month difference. So in that sense the number of employees in Line 5 is
> lower than it would be if it were based on the fiscal year, as WMF staff
> numbers increase all the time (the Line 5 figure increased from 291 in 2019
> to 320 in 2020).
> 3. Only some of the 54 "employees, agents, and independent contractors"
> based outside of the US will have been non-US employees whose salary costs
> are included in the Line 15 total. After all, we all know that there are
> independent contractors outside the US, and they would have been included
> in the 54.
>
> So where does that leave us? Let us pretend that ALL of the 54 non-US
> people were actual employees included in the salary costs. This
> overestimate will perhaps make up for the fact that staff numbers increased
> in those six months. As for the fact that this new total of 374 employees
> includes part-timers and people who left during the year, let's just forget
> about that and assume they were all FTEs for the entire year. This will
> result in an overestimate of the employee number and thus an underestimate
> of average salary costs, but let's err on that side rather than
> overestimating salaries.
>
> So we have 2020 salary costs of $67,857,675 divided among 374 employees
> (US and non-US, but excluding contractors). The average salary cost per WMF
> employee, then, is :
>
> $181,438.
>
> Bear in mind, however, that this is the 2020/2021 figure; present-day
> figures are likely to be about 10 per cent higher. So we've probably
> reached the $200,000 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi all,

As the topic of WMF salaries has come up again in another thread – a while
ago I asked WMF accounts staff to clarify here on this list whether the
"Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits" figure in Part I, Line 15
of the Form 990 related solely to the number of employees indicated in Part
I, Line 5, or whether it also included salaries, compensation and benefits
for any contractors listed in Part V, Line 1a of the Form 990, as people
had been speculating here on this list.

While the WMF chose not to reply here, I can report that they did
eventually include a couple of notes in the Form 990 FAQ that answered this
question.[1] They explain that Line 5, the number of employees, only
includes –

"individuals that were issued W-2s in the calendar year. Thus, the total
shown is the number of US-based full-time and part-time employees employed
during the calendar year. It does not include non-US-based workers, as well
as contractors which may be hired part-time or for specific assignments, as
those individuals are not issued W-2s from the Foundation."

They explain further that the salary costs total in Line 15 –

"includes salary, benefits, retirement, wellness, and payroll taxes for
full-time and part-time staff members in the US and outside of the US
employed by Wikimedia Foundation or its Employer of Record. These costs as
well as salaries vary significantly by geography. This number does not
include fees paid to contractors, vendors, or consultants. Please also note
that the amount shown is for the fiscal year (July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021)
while other information in the Form 990 is as of the calendar year (January
1- December 31, 2020)."

So now we know that contractors are definitely NOT included in the salary
costs total, but a number of non-US employees are. I have asked how many
non-US employees there were in 2020, but have not received an answer to
date.[2]

However, as I have learned since, the Form 990 does actually enable us at
least to determine an upper bound for the number of non-US employees there
might have been. Schedule F of the Form 990 (page 29) tells us that in
2020, the Foundation had a total of 54 "employees, agents, and independent
contractors" outside the US.[3]

So let us put this information together.

In the 2020 Form 990, we have 320 employees in Line 5, a maximum potential
number of non-US employees of 54, and salary costs of $67,857,675.

As the Foundation appears unwilling to tell us the number of full-time
equivalents (FTEs) this salary costs total relates to, and refuses to say
how much of it was spent on US employees and how much of it was spent on
non-US employees, we are restricted to using an informed guess to work out
average salary costs overall. In doing so, we have to bear in mind the
following:

1. The number of employees in Line 5 includes part-time staff and people
that worked only for part of the year. It is bound to be higher than the
actual number of FTE employees.
2. The number of employees in Line 5 relates to the 2020 calendar year,
whereas the salary costs total relates to the fiscal year 2020/2021 – a
six-month difference. So in that sense the number of employees in Line 5 is
lower than it would be if it were based on the fiscal year, as WMF staff
numbers increase all the time (the Line 5 figure increased from 291 in 2019
to 320 in 2020).
3. Only some of the 54 "employees, agents, and independent contractors"
based outside of the US will have been non-US employees whose salary costs
are included in the Line 15 total. After all, we all know that there are
independent contractors outside the US, and they would have been included
in the 54.

So where does that leave us? Let us pretend that ALL of the 54 non-US
people were actual employees included in the salary costs. This
overestimate will perhaps make up for the fact that staff numbers increased
in those six months. As for the fact that this new total of 374 employees
includes part-timers and people who left during the year, let's just forget
about that and assume they were all FTEs for the entire year. This will
result in an overestimate of the employee number and thus an underestimate
of average salary costs, but let's err on that side rather than
overestimating salaries.

So we have 2020 salary costs of $67,857,675 divided among 374 employees (US
and non-US, but excluding contractors). The average salary cost per WMF
employee, then, is :

$181,438.

Bear in mind, however, that this is the 2020/2021 figure; present-day
figures are likely to be about 10 per cent higher. So we've probably
reached the $200,000 mark now or are very close to it – at least in the
case of US employees, because remember, the FAQ points out that non-US
employees may earn significantly less.

Of course, the WMF could always give us more precise data, such as the
actual number of FTEs; employee numbers and salary cost figures for one and
the same timeframe; separate figures for US and non-US employees;
current-year 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Gnangarra]

Sorry wasnt making fun of his or anyone elses english but rather
highlighting the English language in general with its US, Uk, Ca, Au, SA
and how it gets taught rules to 2nd or 3rd language speakers as the primary
common language we all speak its a fallacy we speak it the same way.

My sincere apologies to anyone that mistook the way I criticized English

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 21:19, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I really should be separating these responses into two threads, but they
> are part of this discussion, and need to be addressed appropriately. The
> first was that employing in low socio-economic countries to reduce employee
> costs is an offensive, and unfair proposal in a community thats striving
> for equity.
>
> The second part is* "**I'll just leave some general comments on Maryana's
> response here"   *Maryana clearly answered you questions around the tax
> form and you were invited to direct further questions directly to her. Your
> comment and post here is totally inappropriate, now lets look at your
> individual points.
>
> 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...
>
> The response is the same as whats in the FAQ
> 
>  ,
> I see a big assumption you make that the only issue is its not what you
> wanted.
>
> 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.
>
> The only dispute on the accuracy is coming from you and based on what
> appears to be a misinterpreted tax form despite the clarity given in the
> FAQ...  I would expect the IRS (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service)  to be
> appropriately skilled to review tax forms and raise any discrepancy with
> the WMF alongside the due diligence carried out by the Auditors and the
> Board.  So what is your motivation is the writing for the media, just a
> lack of understanding of US tax codes and how expenses are declared. If any
> of us were expert in the US tax codes we'd be working in the US betting
> paid significantly more than anyone at the WMF.  We have always assumed
> good faith, I see nothing from the response to your questions that do
> otherwise.
>
> 3. I don't accept that calculating an average for 291 employees produces a
>> figure that matches "our highest-paid employees"...
>
> Welcome to tax forms the distribution of information is never simple or
> logical as each piece of information and reporting is distributed across
> many areas, as differing rulings and laws change where information is or
> how it appears. That gets complex when you look at summary information
> rather than the finited detail.
>
> 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... [truncated]... Which is it? Are some or
>> all of those contractors included in the salary costs total? The WMF won't
>> say.
>
> The WMF has said on the FAQ page, Maryanna has also responded.  Maryanna
> is in an unfair position; she wasnt with the WMF during the periods you are
> playing with yet she takes time to answer with the information you request.
> Then offers you the option to dig deeper by explaining your reasons for
> doubt, (oh I love the nuances of English some would use the term motivation
> instead).
>
> 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
>
> Yep salaries will always increase as will related expenses, WMF has
> significantly increased staff that automatically brings additional costs.
> These arent increases on whims, it's because of the expanding demand on the
> WMF from the community. These have the added bonus of disproportionate
> climbing expenses the same ones we are experiencing in our daily lives from
> internet bills, power bills, to insurances, and even taxes.
>
> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Gnangarra]

I really should be separating these responses into two threads, but they
are part of this discussion, and need to be addressed appropriately. The
first was that employing in low socio-economic countries to reduce employee
costs is an offensive, and unfair proposal in a community thats striving
for equity.

The second part is* "**I'll just leave some general comments on Maryana's
response here"   *Maryana clearly answered you questions around the tax
form and you were invited to direct further questions directly to her. Your
comment and post here is totally inappropriate, now lets look at your
individual points.

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...

The response is the same as whats in the FAQ

,
I see a big assumption you make that the only issue is its not what you
wanted.

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.

The only dispute on the accuracy is coming from you and based on what
appears to be a misinterpreted tax form despite the clarity given in the
FAQ...  I would expect the IRS (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service)  to be
appropriately skilled to review tax forms and raise any discrepancy with
the WMF alongside the due diligence carried out by the Auditors and the
Board.  So what is your motivation is the writing for the media, just a
lack of understanding of US tax codes and how expenses are declared. If any
of us were expert in the US tax codes we'd be working in the US betting
paid significantly more than anyone at the WMF.  We have always assumed
good faith, I see nothing from the response to your questions that do
otherwise.

3. I don't accept that calculating an average for 291 employees produces a
> figure that matches "our highest-paid employees"...

Welcome to tax forms the distribution of information is never simple or
logical as each piece of information and reporting is distributed across
many areas, as differing rulings and laws change where information is or
how it appears. That gets complex when you look at summary information
rather than the finited detail.

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... [truncated]... Which is it? Are some or all
> of those contractors included in the salary costs total? The WMF won't say.

The WMF has said on the FAQ page, Maryanna has also responded.  Maryanna is
in an unfair position; she wasnt with the WMF during the periods you are
playing with yet she takes time to answer with the information you request.
Then offers you the option to dig deeper by explaining your reasons for
doubt, (oh I love the nuances of English some would use the term motivation
instead).

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

Yep salaries will always increase as will related expenses, WMF has
significantly increased staff that automatically brings additional costs.
These arent increases on whims, it's because of the expanding demand on the
WMF from the community. These have the added bonus of disproportionate
climbing expenses the same ones we are experiencing in our daily lives from
internet bills, power bills, to insurances, and even taxes.

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.

Is this the motivation, are you looking for; inside information to write
news stories as hinted at in response one. You have an acknowledgement from
Katherine that there were issues in the message, using more of those
nuances that are so eloquently part of the English language. Perhaps
instead of playing games with numbers for months you could have just asked
directly if this issue had been addressed by the fundraising team.  Perhaps
even queried if safe guards had been put in place like 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Gnangarra]

>
>
> I think great care has to be taken when considering a place with low costs
of living for employee's in that the movement does not become yet another
corporation that exploits workers because it is cheaper, especially when we
are claiming it as improving cultural diversity.  I would much rather see
the WMF be a leader in raising employment conditions  to the standards
enjoyed in the richer countries, not just weekly income but health, safety,
and retirement benefits.  In the richer countries there's better
education,  more recreational time, there are welfare measures which all
contribute to a wider social capacity in participation. If the consensus is
that a position is worth 500k in the US then its worth that everywhere, we
should disconnect cultural diversity from rates of pay and employment
conditions.

If we looked deeper we'd see that in the lower socio-economic countries
those participating have a higher local comparative standard of living due
their ability to have free time, better access to equipment and to have had
a meaningful education.  In wealthier countries EU, US, Australia the
ability to participate reaches a lot lower socio-economically because of
free education, welfare and for some health care. OECD defines poverty as
half the average household income, using myself as an example from a "rich
country", I'm on a pension/welfare, my income is below that  OECD line but
I can still contribute in meaningful ways. Someone in say the example of
India equally below the OECD poverty line, could not contribute due to the
various constraints and efforts needed just to survive.

Equity comes in many forms including in wages if we want to treat everyone
equally then must endeavour to focus not only on staff distribution but
also  with what people are being paid regardless of where they are.  The US
is the standard that we have, then thats what we must provide to every
employee.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 19:40, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Bodhisattwa,
>
> I quite agree. A somewhat similar set-up exists in Germany where donations
> are collected by the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft ("Wikimedia Patron
> Society"), a subsidiary of Wikimedia Germany. The Fördergesellschaft then
> sends a part of its funds to the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States
> and uses the rest to fund Wikimedia Germany:
>
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de/use-of-funds
>
> However, this is the only such arrangement I am aware of. (Wikimedia UK
> used to have a similar one, but this ended when various conflicts of
> interest arose in the chapter, prompting a governance review.[1])
>
> In my opinion, the kind of decentralised arrangement you suggest is much
> more compatible with a worldwide movement. Such decentralisation and
> distributed decision-making also aids diversity, in a far more
> down-to-earth sense than talking about it does. (For example, Wikimedia
> Germany writes and designs its own fundraising banners, and over the years
> they've often been more culturally appropriate – and honest – than the WMF
> ones.)
>
> But, coming back to the question of where staff should be located, to the
> extent that the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States does take on
> global responsibilities (e.g. for keeping the software up to date ... I
> really like the new Reply feature on talk pages, for example), I think it
> would be desirable to have more of its staff outside the United States,
> including places like India.
>
> San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the world,
> and if Covid and Zoom have taught us anything it's that it is really not
> necessary to be physically in the same place all the time to work together.
> Hiring more staff abroad rather than in Silicon Valley is another thing
> that would make the WMF culturally more diverse.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/investigation-into-governance-at-wikimedia-uk-launched.html
>
> https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/wikimedia-uk-trustees-have-been--too-involved--to-effectively-govern-charity.html
>
> https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:37 AM Bodhisattwa 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> Regarding the money raised in India, there is actually another option
>> which can be more useful for the Indian volunteers. The money does not need
>> to be transferred out of India to US and then come back through different
>> grants as foreign money under strict regulations from the government. The
>> money can just be kept in India in an organization account which will agree
>> to be the custodian of it. A process can then be initiated to sustain the
>> Indian affiliates and communities for future with that money as per
>> movement strategy recommendation. I think that would be far better an
>> option for us than to increase the number of growing WMF staffs in India or
>> pay them salary with that money.
>>
>> Regards,
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[effe iets anders]

Perhaps a conversation about the most optimal location for WMF (which I
imagine is more relevant in a strategy framework) is more constructive in
its own thread. I imagine that this has been part of plenty strategic
conversations over the past years, and will be in the future - meaning that
there are likely some people who have more insightful things to say about
this, than the people who open a thread about form 990 :)

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:40 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Bodhisattwa,
>
> I quite agree. A somewhat similar set-up exists in Germany where donations
> are collected by the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft ("Wikimedia Patron
> Society"), a subsidiary of Wikimedia Germany. The Fördergesellschaft then
> sends a part of its funds to the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States
> and uses the rest to fund Wikimedia Germany:
>
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de/use-of-funds
>
> However, this is the only such arrangement I am aware of. (Wikimedia UK
> used to have a similar one, but this ended when various conflicts of
> interest arose in the chapter, prompting a governance review.[1])
>
> In my opinion, the kind of decentralised arrangement you suggest is much
> more compatible with a worldwide movement. Such decentralisation and
> distributed decision-making also aids diversity, in a far more
> down-to-earth sense than talking about it does. (For example, Wikimedia
> Germany writes and designs its own fundraising banners, and over the years
> they've often been more culturally appropriate – and honest – than the WMF
> ones.)
>
> But, coming back to the question of where staff should be located, to the
> extent that the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States does take on
> global responsibilities (e.g. for keeping the software up to date ... I
> really like the new Reply feature on talk pages, for example), I think it
> would be desirable to have more of its staff outside the United States,
> including places like India.
>
> San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the world,
> and if Covid and Zoom have taught us anything it's that it is really not
> necessary to be physically in the same place all the time to work together.
> Hiring more staff abroad rather than in Silicon Valley is another thing
> that would make the WMF culturally more diverse.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/investigation-into-governance-at-wikimedia-uk-launched.html
>
> https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/wikimedia-uk-trustees-have-been--too-involved--to-effectively-govern-charity.html
>
> https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:37 AM Bodhisattwa 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> Regarding the money raised in India, there is actually another option
>> which can be more useful for the Indian volunteers. The money does not need
>> to be transferred out of India to US and then come back through different
>> grants as foreign money under strict regulations from the government. The
>> money can just be kept in India in an organization account which will agree
>> to be the custodian of it. A process can then be initiated to sustain the
>> Indian affiliates and communities for future with that money as per
>> movement strategy recommendation. I think that would be far better an
>> option for us than to increase the number of growing WMF staffs in India or
>> pay them salary with that money.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bodhisattwa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:45 Andreas Kolbe  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Bodhisattwa,

I quite agree. A somewhat similar set-up exists in Germany where donations
are collected by the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft ("Wikimedia Patron
Society"), a subsidiary of Wikimedia Germany. The Fördergesellschaft then
sends a part of its funds to the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States
and uses the rest to fund Wikimedia Germany:

https://spenden.wikimedia.de/use-of-funds

However, this is the only such arrangement I am aware of. (Wikimedia UK
used to have a similar one, but this ended when various conflicts of
interest arose in the chapter, prompting a governance review.[1])

In my opinion, the kind of decentralised arrangement you suggest is much
more compatible with a worldwide movement. Such decentralisation and
distributed decision-making also aids diversity, in a far more
down-to-earth sense than talking about it does. (For example, Wikimedia
Germany writes and designs its own fundraising banners, and over the years
they've often been more culturally appropriate – and honest – than the WMF
ones.)

But, coming back to the question of where staff should be located, to the
extent that the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States does take on
global responsibilities (e.g. for keeping the software up to date ... I
really like the new Reply feature on talk pages, for example), I think it
would be desirable to have more of its staff outside the United States,
including places like India.

San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the world, and
if Covid and Zoom have taught us anything it's that it is really not
necessary to be physically in the same place all the time to work together.
Hiring more staff abroad rather than in Silicon Valley is another thing
that would make the WMF culturally more diverse.

Regards,
Andreas

[1]
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/investigation-into-governance-at-wikimedia-uk-launched.html
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/wikimedia-uk-trustees-have-been--too-involved--to-effectively-govern-charity.html
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:37 AM Bodhisattwa 
wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> Regarding the money raised in India, there is actually another option
> which can be more useful for the Indian volunteers. The money does not need
> to be transferred out of India to US and then come back through different
> grants as foreign money under strict regulations from the government. The
> money can just be kept in India in an organization account which will agree
> to be the custodian of it. A process can then be initiated to sustain the
> Indian affiliates and communities for future with that money as per
> movement strategy recommendation. I think that would be far better an
> option for us than to increase the number of growing WMF staffs in India or
> pay them salary with that money.
>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:45 Andreas Kolbe  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Gerard Meijssen]

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  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  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Bodhisattwa]

Hi Andreas,

Regarding the money raised in India, there is actually another option which
can be more useful for the Indian volunteers. The money does not need to be
transferred out of India to US and then come back through different grants
as foreign money under strict regulations from the government. The money
can just be kept in India in an organization account which will agree to be
the custodian of it. A process can then be initiated to sustain the Indian
affiliates and communities for future with that money as per movement
strategy recommendation. I think that would be far better an option for us
than to increase the number of growing WMF staffs in India or pay them
salary with that money.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa




On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:45 Andreas Kolbe  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  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  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

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  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  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[The Cunctator]

Frankly, I think we should all be thanking Andreas for not backing down.

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 12:08 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Andreas,
>
> Are you ... sealioning WMF staff?  Please don't.  
>
> You've been posting a lot
> 
>  lately,
> when that happens one can forget to be kind.  I do find you're taking an
> overly jaundiced view.
>
> Fewer, shorter messages keep the list more usable by others. You don't
> need to respond to everyone.  Rants and nitpicks are better suited to
> channels *without* *mass **push-*notifications, like the wiki.  There's
> an FAQ
> 
>  on
> Meta for every 990, as you know
> ,
> for Qs like this.
>
> And you should stop calling out individual staff, period.  Including for
> salary analyses. That is the least informative (for reasons Christophe laid
> out) and most disruptive use of the public information which we are all
> glad to have access to.
>
> Warmly, SJ
> (ramping back my own posting for a while!)
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:11 AM Andreas Kolbe  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/DJ5FEGQDMECLWVQCFBFBLNY7LKEXMSBC/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> 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/KURR7UZYRJNZ67J6LA2ERSWUVZE5MOCE/
> 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/QNQCW4ARCS7TTST7W2HIVW44WN3XRWNT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Strainu]

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  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

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
 JN
466
 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[image:
(_AT_)]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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Samuel Klein]

Andreas,

Are you ... sealioning WMF staff?  Please don't.  

You've been posting a lot

lately,
when that happens one can forget to be kind.  I do find you're taking an
overly jaundiced view.

Fewer, shorter messages keep the list more usable by others. You don't need
to respond to everyone.  Rants and nitpicks are better suited to channels
*without* *mass **push-*notifications, like the wiki.  There's an FAQ

on
Meta for every 990, as you know
,
for Qs like this.

And you should stop calling out individual staff, period.  Including for
salary analyses. That is the least informative (for reasons Christophe laid
out) and most disruptive use of the public information which we are all
glad to have access to.

Warmly, SJ
(ramping back my own posting for a while!)


On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:11 AM Andreas Kolbe  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/DJ5FEGQDMECLWVQCFBFBLNY7LKEXMSBC/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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/KURR7UZYRJNZ67J6LA2ERSWUVZE5MOCE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org