WMF Annual Report (2010-11) Options

[thekohser]

If you can stand reading it.

(link)

[gomi]

There are a couple of remarkable things:

1) They spend well over $7m on salaries, for a total of 80 employees;

2) They made only $37,000 on investment return on investable assets of $5.8m, an investment return of 0.6%;

3) As noted, they have (at year-end) over $12m of cash that is NOT included in "investments". Even on a short-term basis, this is a quasi-endowment that should be invested;

4) $5.9 for "operating expenses" and travel seems very high for 80 employees. Only $1.8m of nearly $18m in expenses is for hosting -- they spend $1.7 on the Board, and 18% of their total expenses, or $3.6m on administration;

5) Hilariously, the alphabetize their donor list by first name, making it virtually impossible to find specific individuals on it.

It is a very unusual profile for a "charitable" organization with only 80 employees.

It is instructive to compare Wikimedia with the Mozilla Foundation and Corporation.

[Malleus]

There are a couple of remarkable things:

1) They spend well over $7m on salaries, for a total of 80 employees;

That does indeed seem remarkable.

[Cla68]

There are a couple of remarkable things:

1) They spend well over $7m on salaries, for a total of 80 employees;

That does indeed seem remarkable.

Does that include health benefits and the like?

[gomi]

There are a couple of remarkable things: 1) They spend well over $7m on salaries, for a total of 80 employees;

That does indeed seem remarkable.

Does that include health benefits and the like?

In the U.S., employee "benefits" (chiefly health insurance) add an average of $15,000 to employee compensation. In addition, taxes that include (I'm approximating here) 6.5% for Social Security/FICA, 1.5% for Medicare, 5-6% for unemployment insurance, and some other costs. Most of these (excluding Medicare) end after the first $70k or so of income.

Now, if 80 employees get $7.2m, that is an average of $90k per employee. The first thing to realize is that they pay Sue Gardner $500k or whatever, so really it is $6.7m for 79 employees, or an average of about $85k each. Take $15k from that ($70k) and then another 15%, and you are at base pay of perhaps $60k. It's not distributed like that, of course -- the engineers make $100k and the admin staff make $30k.

The real question is what in the world 80 Wikimedia employees are doing with their time?

[thekohser]

The first thing to realize is that they pay Sue Gardner $500k or whatever...

Last year's total salary and bonus compensation to Sue was $222,550, which was 2.23% of all expenses. This is according to Charity Navigator, and the figure was corroborated by other WMF financial discussions I've seen. Although, my numbers posted at about $240,000.

The "$500K" figure that became a meme a few years ago was budget for Sue, Erik, their personal assistant, benefits, taxes, and some relocation costs.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[gomi]

The "$500K" figure that became a meme a few years ago was budget for Sue, Erik, their personal assistant, benefits, taxes, and some relocation costs.

Thanks for the correction. I regret the error.

I should add that the $200k salary range is not inappropriate for an executive of a non-profit of this scale. I am not trying to defend WMF, but I do think it is important, when criticizing them, to know what is typical in the non-profit world.

When I have more time I will try to work up the comparison with the Mozilla Foundation and Corp, which seems the most apposite.

[thekohser]

The "$500K" figure that became a meme a few years ago was budget for Sue, Erik, their personal assistant, benefits, taxes, and some relocation costs.

Thanks for the correction. I regret the error.

I should add that the $200k salary range is not inappropriate for an executive of a non-profit of this scale. I am not trying to defend WMF, but I do think it is important, when criticizing them, to know what is typical in the non-profit world.

When I have more time I will try to work up the comparison with the Mozilla Foundation and Corp, which seems the most apposite.

Gomi, I recognize your points, but we should also remember that many legitimate non-profits: (a) actually provide a recognizable humanitarian benefit, rather than erode centuries-old processes that sustain scholarship and knowledge, and (b) don't have 99% of their mission being fulfilled by non-paid volunteers who require virtually no direction from the corporate entity.

I.e., the Wikimedia Foundation's 11 projects are hardly any different now than they were 6 years ago when the entire Foundation budget was under $500,000.

[melloden]

The "$500K" figure that became a meme a few years ago was budget for Sue, Erik, their personal assistant, benefits, taxes, and some relocation costs.

Thanks for the correction. I regret the error.

I should add that the $200k salary range is not inappropriate for an executive of a non-profit of this scale. I am not trying to defend WMF, but I do think it is important, when criticizing them, to know what is typical in the non-profit world.

When I have more time I will try to work up the comparison with the Mozilla Foundation and Corp, which seems the most apposite.

Gomi, I recognize your points, but we should also remember that many legitimate non-profits: (a) actually provide a recognizable humanitarian benefit, rather than erode centuries-old processes that sustain scholarship and knowledge, and (b) don't have 99% of their mission being fulfilled by non-paid volunteers who require virtually no direction from the corporate entity.

I.e., the Wikimedia Foundation's 11 projects are hardly any different now than they were 6 years ago when the entire Foundation budget was under $500,000.

The WMF is a big supporter of the free culture/FOSS, etc. community. They are rather similar to Mozilla, but obviously there are some big differences as well.