AlDente @ AlDente @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

269

Joined

2 yr. ago

Me too buddy

I'm going to try to keep this super simple:

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).

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?

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. ✌

I'm daily driving a '92! ☺️

Great points and thank you for the shoutout for Internet Archive. I just made my first donation.

Is it your impression that paying the people who work for you is optional for a technology company?

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.

Kiss my ass. Get the fuck out.

Yikes, wow! Totally not an unhinged response. You seem hyper-focused on whatever what said today and assume everything is related to it. I haven't even read Musk's statements because his opinions don't mean anything to me. In reality, concerns with Wikipedia's financials are nothing new. One of the OG posts highlighting concerns circulated in 2016 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer) and has continuously been updated with each new year's disclosures. I believe I first saw it when the author did a Q&A on r/IAmA, 8 years ago (link). In sum, nothing has been done to change course and spending has only increased. In reality, the Wikipedia Foundation and Endowment have over $400-million in assets and core functionality should be able to continue indefinitely. I want to see Wikipedia succeed, and I think it could easily be set for lifetimes if managed appropriately. Looking at core responsibilities (internet hosting), there is no reason why Wikipedia can't thrive on their investment income. I can only assume those encouraging Wikipedia's current path hope for someone with a bigger checkbook to come by and bail them out (with strings attached, of course).

I'm not going to disagree with your comments in regards to the compensation for the singular CEO. However, I think this is a more widespread issue within the foundation. (I did say "executives" in my last comment.) The chart below is straight from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki page and one expense category is increasing a lot quicker than the others. This chart is a little outdated now, but salary expenses have continued to increase. According to the last disclosure, salaries and benefits are now over $101-million. That's almost double where the chart left off, all while other expense categories have barely moved. Internet hosting in 2023 was only $3.12-million.

Wikimedia has a lot of cash on hand. Even with the exorbitant spending over the years, the foundation and endowment combined have accumulated over $400-million. Through interest alone, I don't see why the core functions of Wikipedia should ever be in financial jeopardy. This is especially the case if you consider that, even without persistent requests for donations, donations won't just stop completely.

Legal fees were $493,315 for the fiscal year ending in 2023. Web hosting expenses were $3,120,819. They spent more on travel and conferences than both these combined ($4,180,219). Also, they pay their CEO more than all legal expenses.

I would really like to see Wikipedia become fully self-sufficient, so it can't be threatened by a hostile takeover. They could do that through investment income without ever touching their principal, especially if they started reasonably managing expenses years ago.

Edit for accuracy: so, earlier I totally misread the only paragraph with "legal" mentioned in last financial disclosure (here). There's no other mention of legal directly, so it must be lumped in with one of the other expense buckets. Maybe part of "professional service expenses" at $15,464,635?

Sure, I'm not against that and I never said otherwise. It also helps keep costs down. I definitely don't want to see an Elon-enshitified version of Wikipedia with ads and paid content creators. I mostly like Wikipedia just as it is. The one exception would be that I don't like how they try guilt tripping everyone for donations.

With $400-million between Wikipedia and their endowment, they should easily be able to cover the $3-million in web hosting expenses, without ever touching the principal of their investments. Wikipedia should be already setup to run in perpetuity, if not merely decades.

Because in this case, all the increases in contributions go straight to the executives. I think I've been very on-point with this. On most days, I would expect Lemmizens to be overwhelmingly anti-CEO. I guess this isn't one of those days.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwith and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia?

Yes $2,335,918 in 2019 per their disclosures. They spend more on travel expenses.

Wikipedia is a non-profit. The goal shouldn't be to rake in tons of cash.

Their own charts in your link show that web hosting expenses have flatlined over the last decade. Digging into the PDFs in the sources, you can see this was only $2,335,918 in 2019. They even spent more on travel and conferences that year. As contributions continue to grow, the spending category that is growing far faster than any other is salaries and wages. Their CEO made $789k in 2021, all while content is created by volunteers. I like Wikipedia and the content they host; however, I think any increase in contributions is just going to line the pockets of the executives.

Edit, just to be clear: I'm not defending the wildly inflated numbers quoted above; however, I believe they are right in concept. The executives are the ones bleeding the foundation dry. The chart I previously mentioned is below. Internet hosting and many of the other smaller expense categories have been relatively flat year-over-year, but salaries and wages are increasing at an unsustainable runaway pace.

My post has nothing to do with wokeness or whatever Musk is ranting about. The guy who wrote the essay I linked, originally posted it in 2016/2017? and has been keeping it updated. This abuse of spending is not a new topic. But sure, keep donating so the executives can take home more pay.

Here's another good summary: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer

I donated to Wikipedia once before, but never again. Their endowment has grown to a level where they should be completely self-sustained. However, spending is out of control.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer

Edit: I'm glad Wikipedia exists, but to say they are hurting for more cash is completely false. Even according to their own financial disclosures, web hosting expenses have stabilized under $4-million a year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation). As contributions continue to grow, it is spent on higher salaries for executives. The CEO made $789k in 2021, all while content is created by volunteers.

Edit, edit: a relevant chart straight from the Wikimedia Foundation Wiki page is below. Internet hosting is one of the smallest expense buckets and has been relatively flat year-over-year. Alternatively, salaries and wages are on an unsustainable upward trajectory. This chart is even a few years old and salaries have almost doubled in the last three years to over $101-million in 2023, all while hosting expenses have remained flat.

Yes, this is what the highly credible NYPD was claiming. However, the B&T requires the user to twist the rear to lock and unlock the action when cycling. This motion is not visible in the assassination video. Also, there would be no purpose in slapping the back of the slide to ensure it's in battery, as is done in the same video.

How do you know Hestkuk's jacket doesn't come in 8 colors?

His base salary was 1 million in 2022 and he had a net worth of 43 million as of February this year, which includes his stocks. Why are you making shit up?

Sh.itjust.works is pretty nice.

Will you buy the dip? It'll be a nice opportunity.