Nice To Sea they have the money!
I'm using it day by day!

ps: U have two good friend's in the internet Google and Wikipedia! :D

psps:
Google (male)
Wikipedia (female)

Pobably :) :toast:

I support the concept of wiki, but I dont like the way they are running themselves and paying themselves FAT FAT SALARIES for what is essentially a non-profit venture.

Look at this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF page 13, and page 11.

3 fundraising staff earning $510,000 incl. expenses is approx $120,000 each, plus $1000 per week expenses each per week.

4 developers and 1 sys admin, plus a few contracting expenses, $375,000. That's an average of $70,000 for the developers and $100,000 for the admin.

5 people in Finance/admin costing $1,619,000 (incl. expenses).

LIke I said, while I support the wiki concept, these people are paying theseselves serious dollar and/or running huge expense accounts. I'm not sure that they will maintain so much private charitable donations when people really understand what the individuals are putting in their pockets; it's hardly charity or non-profit budgeting.

Remember lemonadesoda that these are very demanding jobs which require some of the best people in the world. I suspect they could get very good jobs working for the likes of google or microsoft. If you want the best, then you pay for the best. It's difficult for us to judge how well money is being spent.

Yes you can get cheaper employees, perhaps even free, but can they run one of the largest websites in the world?

The wikimedia foundation board arent no mugs either (some of which have donated large sums of money)

wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Neeru_Khosla_to_Become_Wikipedia_Advisor_Dec_2008
wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board

I'm sure they are trying to get as much value for money as they can, like every other charity.

I disagree entirely.

If it is a non-profit organisation it needs an entirely different "business model". It should not go paying higher-than-commercial salaries. Either, it needs to operate on part-time goodwill of key individuals, or it needs to have a revenue model to pay these fat salaries. BUT, they cannot just go cap in hand and expect the community to cough up private gifts to pay these fat salaries. It beggars belief!

lemonadesodaI disagree entirely.

If it is a non-profit organisation it needs an entirely different "business model". It should not go paying higher-than-commercial salaries. Either, it needs to operate on part-time goodwill of key individuals, or it needs to have a revenue model to pay these fat salaries. BUT, they cannot just go cap in hand and expect the community to cough up private gifts to pay these fat salaries. It beggars belief!

The salaries arent that fat. They are salaries of what you'd expect a decent developer, finance analyst etc. to earn.

As for expenses, you have no idea what the expenses include? Maybe these jobs require a lot of travelling around the world? Staying in hotels?

The basic salaries by themselves arent that remarkable.

These are skilled jobs and a lot of charities pay the going rate for these type of jobs.

edit:

A developer earning $70k. Is that really that much for someone with the experience to runa site like wikipedia? I know people taking computer science degrees who expect to earn 50-60k staright out of university, some of who will. The best almost definitely will.

I dont think you read my post very well. I gave them "$1000" a week as expenses.

If you think the salaries are small and the expenses are higher, then perhaps you need to think why they obfuscated the numbers, rather than ANY COMMERICAL ORGANISATION that would report a detailed breakdown of costs, separated between salaries, expenses, and overheads, for 100% transparency.

And I certainly hope that all the staff, esp. finance, admin, and programmers, dont have to spend their entire year in hotels. LOL. :roll:

I think you are really missing the point. The wiki foundation lives on the free contributions made by the community and on the free contributions and gifts made by OTHER charitable organistions, many of them state funded. (Look up the Advisory Board and see who pays their living costs) or who has paid foe the development of much of the software used by wiki).

What exactly do you mean by decent finance analyst? This is a charity not an investment bank! LOL :roll:

I know what you're saying, but you simply won't get people working for $50k a year if they can't live off the money. The only sufficiently qualified people you'd get at lower salaries are rich philanthrapists who don't need the money or people who aren't wealthy but are willing to work for $50k.

If say I was a developer who could earn $100k at google, but instead work at wikipedia for $50k, I am effectively donating $50k a year to wikipedia (think about this as me working for google and donating $50k a year to wikipedia so that they can hire a $100k a year developer, they are equivalent). People can be good, but that is stretching a bit.

Also maybe not finance analysts, but accountants etc. I said finance/business analysts because wikipedia is effectively purely about investment as there is no actual tangible product. So it may require a lot of analysis and expertise in that area.

edit:

You will find that people who work high up in charities are actually earning a lot less than what they could earn in the private sector.

Has wikipedia got 100% better in the last year (not talking content, but content management and other services)? If not, then why have budgets doubled comparing next year to last year?

If those budgets were covered by income (not gifts from the community) then one could argue it's none of our business... BUT, it is. As a charity it faces the same scrutiny from the community as does the public purse of government. Perhaps more so.

Anyway, I dont want to ambush the thread further. I think we just take a different "business view" of what is going on.

Good to hear Wiki's a great site and far as im concerned deserved the money it got for being the fine resource it is. Long live Wikipedia. :toast:

lemonadesodaI support the concept of wiki, but I dont like the way they are running themselves and paying themselves FAT FAT SALARIES for what is essentially a non-profit venture.

Who cares man. They are making money off of lazy people (like myself). Good for them. I mean if you "donate" money to them you're just essentially paying for the service.

The real tragedy is the educational system. The libraries, encyclopedias and any traditional way of learning is becoming a dinosaur. The classic way to retrieve information is being neglected because of sites like Wikipedia. I think its a cool site but many people accept anything on it as fact without doing any cross referencing. G-d forbid it goes down one day. I think our educational system would collapse. :laugh:

TheMailMan78...G-d forbid it goes down one day. I think our educational system would collapse. :laugh:

LOL, you are probably right.

"Who cares?". No I do care. Why? Because I think wikipedia is great. So why the concern? Because anything unsustainable is unsustainable. If their revenue/cost model is one of "charity" then they need to behave like one. If their revenue/cost model is like a commercial enterprise, then likewise, they need to behave like one.

Wiki is, IMO, in the middle of an identity crisis. It doesnt quite know what it is or what it wants to be.

lemonadesodaLOL, you are probably right.

"Who cares?". No I do care. Why? Because I think wikipedia is great. So why the concern? Because anything unsustainable is unsustainable. If their revenue/cost model is one of "charity" then they need to behave like one. If their revenue/cost model is like a commercial enterprise, then likewise, they need to behave like one.

Wiki is, IMO, in the middle of an identity crisis. It doesnt quite know what it is or what it wants to be.

Well it is a charity. Its a service you don't pay for. If they pay themselves a million dollars an hour it costs you nothing. If people want to give them money as a "thank you" then more power to them.

Its for a website. In the end no one suffers. It's not like they say its for children starving in Africa.

Exactly. UNICEF collects millions for its various relief activities, yet its officers roam in expensive cars, paid high, etc.

Since its a charity arn't you able to access their financial reports and see what they are doing. Also if they say they were a business they wouldn't be tax exempt. At least thats the rules here in the UK i'm just assuming they are the same/similar in the US.

btarunrExactly. UNICEF collects millions for its various relief activities, yet its officers roam in expensive cars, paid high, etc.

Exactly. There is something called corporate governance as well as business and moral ethics. Whether people or organisations apply them is in a sense irrelevant, but it gives us a yardstick as to what we perceive and accept as appropriate behaviour. And we can all be our own judges as to the priorities of what counts.

Seems like charity and non-profit governance as well as NGO governance as well as government governance are all seriously underdeveloped areas requiring further thought, comment, and change.

PS. Let TPU governance shine a bright light through these muddy affairs and become a beacon of honour! :pimp:

Hmm, we need a new "governance brand concept" just like "bio". Theres money to be made... LOL ;) Let me think of a logo.

I think I'll have to agree with lemonadesoda. If they go about lining their pockets with gold, they can no longer call themselves non-profit.

why would anyone donate money to an online encyclopedia? there are all sorts of real encyclopedias online for free that dont want your donations and are more credible.

Don't see a point in donating to wikipedia. I have yet to take a class where the teacher/professor allowed wikipedia as a source for a paper or project. They have all specifically banned the use of that website.

BrooksyXDon't see a point in donating to wikipedia. I have yet to take a class where the teacher/professor allowed wikipedia as a source for a paper or project. They have all specifically banned the use of that website.

Workaround: Use a Wikipedia article for your homework, rely on its citations (each important statement or sentence is backed by a citation/footnote). Cite the footnotes as sources in your homework. Win.

I doubt I'd ever donate to wikipedia. For example the article quality is to be frank shit. Apart from the chemistry articles there is no formal layout and in the games section they create articles on games that aren't out yet and have plot synopsis that isn't complete etc.

I think wikipedia is very well structured, and I have never gotten false information. Everything is cited, and if it isnt, it warns you about missing citations. To my belief, there is no encyclopedia more extensive than wikipedia. Ive never searched for something I couldnt find, not to mention that you shouldt even be citing wikipedia, it has its own citations, that is why they forbid citing it, because legally it is wrongful, being that their information wasnt rightfully theirs in the first place.

Anti-Asian and non-Neutral

Much in Wikipedia is false info. Have a look at the large number of articles against India and about 'anti-Christian violence' in India. They are all copy-pasted from Christian sites. There is no neutrality. There is also anti-Asian slant all over, though the site is most used by Asians.

If you try any neutral editing, a group of Baptists and Catholic Admins gang up against you and Block you. It is all funny.

Fixed :D

rsajanMuch in Wikipedia is false info[citation needed]. Have a look at the large number of articles against India and about 'anti-Christian violence' in India. They are all copy-pasted from Christian sites. There is no neutrality.[citation needed] There is also anti-Asian slant all over[citation needed], though the site is most used by Asians.[citation needed]

If you try any neutral editing, a group of Baptists and Catholic Admins gang up against you and Block you. It is all funny.

I've no issues with its neutrality. You're forewarned about an article whose neutrality is disputed.

No. You try putting up a Neutrality warning in any of the anti-Indian articles; it is immediately edited away by some motivated Admin and if you do it again, you are immediately Blocked. Try questioning the neutrality of any such article and you will need no more citations.

Many missionary and proselytizer-groups have paid employees to monitor Wiki. The more False stories they plant about Christian agony in Asia, the more donations they can claim from credulous Western donors.

Wikipedia is a lot larger than some odd article that relies heavily on sources. In a political article, you're bound to have polarisation of views, no encyclopedia or information resource is immune to this. If you disagree with that particular article, move on to something else. Try editing the article, back everything you say with sources (citations linking to websites/newsgroups/etc). I can tell from your earlier post and this one, that you make claims without citations. To give you an example, this article caused so much drama with the Indian and Pakistani posters that it was all over the news and someone had to intervene and rewrite the whole thing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_liberation_war

This is where this sub-topic ends. Thanks!