Wikimedia Foundation Form 990, Seth Finkelstein sleuths Jimbo's income Options

[thekohser]

Wikimedia Foundation Form 990, Jimmy Wales Speaking Fee $75,000+
Infothought blog, by Seth Finkelstein
May 14, 2009

Somehow, that doesn't feel like "charity work" to me. I actually wouldn't mind so much if he said something like "No, I don't take any money out of the Wikimedia Foundation, since it's a nonprofit, which could pay chump-change anyway. Instead, I fleece executives who have far more money than sense, and are crazy enough to pay me tens of thousands of dollars to spout buzzwords and blather. What do you think, that I'm some sort of silly *altruist*?" (of course, more elegantly phrased). There would still be a problem of it being built on exploitation. But it's the "charity work" part which strikes me as wrong. Nothing which results in one gig paying more than the entire salary of the person in charge of keeping the site running, can fairly be described as "charity work".

I had hoped for a bit more dirt. Seth finds that the salaries are not too extravagant. This may be true, but remember, this Form 990 accounts for July 2007 through June 2008 -- well before SpiderHand Sue's budget of $472,000 for the Gardner/Moeller compensation fund even kicked in. Next year's Form 990 will tell the real story.

Look, it would seem that "Program Service Accomplishments" are what a dutiful reporter should be looking at. At the WMF, they account for only 31.6% of the total revenues of the organization.

Let's compare:

REAL CHARITIES:

• American Red Cross spent 103.7% of revenues on program services.
• Breast Cancer Research Foundation spent 83.4% of revenues on program services.
• Doctors Without Borders spent 82.8% of revenues on program services.
• United Way of America spent 80.5% of revenues on program services.

FAKE CHARITIES:

• Electronic Frontier Foundation spent 44.2% of revenues on program services.
• Wikimedia Foundation spent 31.6% of revenues on program services.
• Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal Organization (the folks who pay tele-centers to call you at dinner time for donations by phone, and who should not be confused with the American Deputy Sheriffs Association, which was forced to fold after breaking the law and spending 0.2% on services benefiting deputies) spent 15.6% of revenues on program services.
• Wishing Well Foundation spent 13.2% of revenues on program services, even after rebuke by the New York Times.

Now, really. Based on this important statistic alone, with which category of "charity" is the Wikimedia Foundation associating itself -- the good guys or the bad guys?

Also, "Savings and temporary cash investments" at the WMF increased nearly $2 million from the middle of 2007 to the middle of 2008. That's a lot of squirreling away nuts for the winter, for a $6.5 million organization.

And, by the way, if you're ever wondering just how much the server equipment and the Internet hosting costs for this massively popular website -- about $1.6 million. Good thing they have $6.5 million in income to guarantee coverage of that.

P.S. Somebody has to tell Seth about making snappier titles for his blog articles.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[TungstenCarbide]

Wikimedia Foundation Form 990, Jimmy Wales Speaking Fee $75,000+
Infothought blog, by Seth Finkelstein
May 14, 2009

"the Chief Technical Offer, who is responsible for keeping the servers running overall, is paid $62,473."

Crazy - he's worth five times that much. Running a top website on a shoestring while Jimbo's jetting around and getting Russian massages. I bet he can barely afford his silicon valley apartment.

[anthony]

Wikimedia Foundation Form 990, Jimmy Wales Speaking Fee $75,000+
Infothought blog, by Seth Finkelstein
May 14, 2009

"the Chief Technical Offer, who is responsible for keeping the servers running overall, is paid $62,473."

Crazy - he's worth five times that much. Running a top website on a shoestring while Jimbo's jetting around and getting Russian massages. I bet he can barely afford his silicon valley apartment.

When the worth of a CTO is measured solely by how little they spend, it's no wonder they don't get paid that much.

There's still no English Wikipedia Full History Dump. Let's get basic competence first, and talk about raising salaries later.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Jon Awbrey]

There's still no English Wikipedia Full History Dump. Let's get basic competence first, and talk about raising salaries later.

I'm sure they have a Full History Dump in the works, but San Φrancisco has very strict regulations about what you can dump in the Bay.

Not like Φlorida …

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

• American Red Cross spent 103.7% of revenues on program services.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Does this mean they were going into debt, or laundering money, or spending some surplus from last year, or just using a narrower definition of "revenue"?

[TungstenCarbide]

Wikimedia Foundation Form 990, Jimmy Wales Speaking Fee $75,000+
Infothought blog, by Seth Finkelstein
May 14, 2009

"the Chief Technical Offer, who is responsible for keeping the servers running overall, is paid $62,473."

Crazy - he's worth five times that much. Running a top website on a shoestring while Jimbo's jetting around and getting Russian massages. I bet he can barely afford his silicon valley apartment.

When the worth of a CTO is measured solely by how little they spend, it's no wonder they don't get paid that much.

There's still no English Wikipedia Full History Dump. Let's get basic competence first, and talk about raising salaries later.

If I'm not mistaken, full dumps have been made available to researchers by sending them a hard drive with a full copy (sorry, can't find the link). Full history dumps for the public have to go through a process to remove things like oversighted stuff.

[Eva Destruction]

• American Red Cross spent 103.7% of revenues on program services.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Does this mean they were going into debt, or laundering money, or spending some surplus from last year, or just using a narrower definition of "revenue"?

At a guess, there were probably some government funds in there that don't formally count as "revenue". Just a guess.

[Somey]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Does this mean they were going into debt, or laundering money, or spending some surplus from last year, or just using a narrower definition of "revenue"?

According to the Charity Navigator, they have about a year's worth of expenses available as net assets (presumably in somewhat-liquid form), so they're probably just operating at a slight deficit.

Btw, there's no entry on Charity Navigator for the WMF yet - no doubt the possibility that Wikipedia might be a "charity" hadn't occured to them, either!

[gomi]

• American Red Cross spent 103.7% of revenues on program services.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Does this mean they were going into debt, or laundering money, or spending some surplus from last year, or just using a narrower definition of "revenue"?

More likely they have an endowment or investment returns. Most colleges and universities spend more than their "income" (tuition plus fund-raising) on operations, typically funded from an endowment. Endowment draws do not count on 990s as "income".

[thekohser]

Btw, there's no entry on Charity Navigator for the WMF yet - no doubt the possibility that Wikipedia might be a "charity" hadn't occured to them, either!

Somey, fear not -- I have been on top of this. The requisite for Charity Navigator to list a non-profit (among other things) is that they have four (or was it five?) complete years' worth of Form 990's to analyze. I think that after this 990, or definitely after next year's, Charity Navigator (and GuideStar.org) will have enough data to bring the hammer down. I assure you, the WMF will not score well on any traditional benchmark of efficiency. I'll put $100 to your favorite highly-rated charity on that assurance.

Greg

[thekohser]

Some interesting things about this Form 990...

(1) In Schedule A, Part II-B, they are to list the five highest paid contractors for outside work. They list only three, and two out of the three have addresses in Chicago. Is the Chicago connection simply a carry-over from Jimbo's days as a currency options analyst-turned-soft-porn-merchant?

(2) In Form 990, Part VII, Line 103c, they list some "Miscellaneous Income". The value?

$666

Now, who says Wikipedia isn't evil? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Some interesting things about this Form 990...

(1) In Schedule A, Part II-B, they are to list the five highest paid contractors for outside work. They list only three, and two out of the three have addresses in Chicago. Is the Chicago connection simply a carry-over from Jimbo's days as a currency options analyst-turned-soft-porn-merchant?

(2) In Form 990, Part VII, Line 103c, they list some "Miscellaneous Income". The value?

$666

Now, who says Wikipedia isn't evil? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Beastly. Especially since any accountant worth his salt could have made it $598. Any miscellaneous income in the $600 range and you know somebody's trying to hide something by filing the 1099, or trying to insult you by filing the 1099.

[anthony]

Some interesting things about this Form 990...

(1) In Schedule A, Part II-B, they are to list the five highest paid contractors for outside work. They list only three, and two out of the three have addresses in Chicago. Is the Chicago connection simply a carry-over from Jimbo's days as a currency options analyst-turned-soft-porn-merchant?

(2) In Form 990, Part VII, Line 103c, they list some "Miscellaneous Income". The value?

$666

Now, who says Wikipedia isn't evil? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Beastly. Especially since any accountant worth his salt could have made it $598. Any miscellaneous income in the $600 range and you know somebody's trying to hide something by filing the 1099, or trying to insult you by filing the 1099.

Huh? Corporations don't get 1099s. At least, they aren't required to get one and generally don't get one.

[Milton Roe]

Some interesting things about this Form 990...

(1) In Schedule A, Part II-B, they are to list the five highest paid contractors for outside work. They list only three, and two out of the three have addresses in Chicago. Is the Chicago connection simply a carry-over from Jimbo's days as a currency options analyst-turned-soft-porn-merchant?

(2) In Form 990, Part VII, Line 103c, they list some "Miscellaneous Income". The value?

$666

Now, who says Wikipedia isn't evil? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Beastly. Especially since any accountant worth his salt could have made it $598. Any miscellaneous income in the $600 range and you know somebody's trying to hide something by filing the 1099, or trying to insult you by filing the 1099.

Huh? Corporations don't get 1099s. At least, they aren't required to get one and generally don't get one.

Sorry, I thought they were talking about a contractor's misc income, not the corp's.

[thekohser]

Warning. Andrew Orlowski of The Register has taken an interest in this thread. Anything that anyone could add to the mix, urgently, would likely be appreciated.

Greg

[EricBarbour]

Okay, Greg:

It appears that after Seth posted the fee on his blog,
Jimbo's speaking fee mysteriously went from "Above 75.0k" to "50.0k to 75.0k".
Interesting timing.

I have a question. If he,

By "speculating on interest rate and foreign-currency fluctuations" he had soon earned enough to "support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives", according to Daniel Pink of Wired Magazine.

....then why does he need these stiff speaking fees?


(And furthermore: how seriously should the world take speaking.com, when they feature this contest?
Nothing makes me more confident about a website than blurry photos of a Dachshund mangling a toy octopus. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif))

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[sbrown]

I have a question. If he,

By "speculating on interest rate and foreign-currency fluctuations" he had soon earned enough to "support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives", according to Daniel Pink of Wired Magazine.

....then why does he need these stiff speaking fees?

Didnt he get divorced? Maybe thats expensive.

And of course he now has to pay for his own massages.

[Kelly Martin]

....then why does he need these stiff speaking fees?

How else is he supposed to afford to own a castle?

[EricBarbour]

....then why does he need these stiff speaking fees?

How else is he supposed to afford to own a castle?

And as it says right in that article,

Some members of the very community in which Wales is a celebrity say all the jetsetting has turned this former soft-spoken nerd into a self-involved egoist. After the site took off, there were reports of fallings-out with former associates and misuse of the foundation’s expense account (Wales and foundation officials denied any wrongdoing). He also edited his own Wikipedia biography, altering a sentence identifying a former colleague as Wikipedia’s cofounder (this is a big etiquette no-no: Wikipedia policy states that “unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian’s personal experience” is a violation, and Wales later told the press he regretted having done it).

He needs that $75k for a one-hour speech, because how else is he to hobnob with Arianna Huffington and Mort Zuckerman and (convicted felon) Martha Stewart? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[thekohser]

I have a question. If he,

By "speculating on interest rate and foreign-currency fluctuations" he had soon earned enough to "support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives", according to Daniel Pink of Wired Magazine.

....then why does he need these stiff speaking fees?

Word from insiders (I won't say whom, but his code name is Danny Merino) says that while Wales exited the currency options market and Bomis with a nice chunk of change (probably in the neighborhood of $1 million), it wasn't enough to sustain Wales for the rest of his life unless he lived rather frugally.