Even if they aren't, I don't see why the people doing good things in the world can't have something enjoyable.

If everyone who works for a charity has to work for at most minimum wage, then I don't think sites like Wikipedia or the Internet Archive would be as high quality as they are.

I think it's because a lot of people with limited means apparently donate to Wikimedia thinking it's a small non-profit on the verge of bankruptcy. And in no small part because they imply this every year during their fund drives.

I doubt they'd do as well fundraising if your average donator knew that Wikimedia was pulling in $100m a year, is paying it's directors and above $200-400k a year, and the vast majority of their dollars are not spent on "servers and power" like their ads imply.

Personally, I'm fine with their budget, but I do wonder if their fundraisers are as ethical as they could be.

This is my main issue. The minimum wage in Greece, where I a from, is less than 10k/year, some people who I know (including me) donated to them a few years back in hopes of helping because they make themselves seem like they are in the brick of collapse every time they fund-raise, only to learn that they give huge wages to their higher ups and waste the donations on things irrelevant to Wikipedia.

But Wikipedia doesn't, and couldn't run from Greece. It runs from San Francisco, because that's where they can be the most efficient at getting the most billionaires to help. In San Fran employees would probably worrying about money at $120k, and would be homeless way before they got to $10k. Also, WMP aren't hiring people at average wage - you're comparing the average job in Greece to running one of the most important organisations in the world from San Francisco. That's not a reasonable comparison. Of course WMP has to have brilliant, motivated, connected, experienced people at the top. They pay them far below average wage for people in that market.

Honestly you should compare what WMP pays with other similar sized global organisations.

> because that's where they can be the most efficient at getting the most billionaires to help

They should choose between the donors and the billionaires then. (regardless, they are a tech company, they could employ people remotely)

This still does not address the issue of the dishonest fundraising though (pretending that they need your help despite making 1/10th of their wage and not saying up-front on what they spend the money on). I am sure that you would be upset if you gave money to a beggar that you later see getting in his Mercedes, or if you donated money to an organization for the homeless but then realized that 90% of the money goes for researching new pie recipes. It honestly feels like that.

> They should choose between the donors and the billionaires then

Why? They have absolutely no reason to do that. They have a mission, they are raising money for that mission, and doing so very successfully.

> (regardless, they are a tech company, they could employ people remotely)

Could, and they know that, and they make hiring decisions based on their expertise and knowledge, and have deciided the organisation is better off hiring some people in SF.

> This still does not address the issue of the dishonest fundraising though (pretending that they need your help despite making 1/10th of their wage and not saying up-front on what they spend the money on)

I understand that you had a misunderstanding about what wikipedia is, how their community management works, and that you didn't make use of the public, publicised resources that make their spending completely transparent. That doesn't make them dishonest, it makes you lazy.

That is totally fine! But if people don’t want to donate for them, they should know so they can make that choice, and not be swindled by Wikipedia’s donation request banners that make it sound like the public good is perpetually on the verge of insolvency.

Thank you for informing me. I did not know about such parties.

Not only that but the execs and many pay themselves a nice fat salary with all the benefits and perks of course that most small to medium enterprises would be appalled at for a "struggling non-profit" that we have of their image.

From the banners one might conclude that they are facing imminent shut down and getting by in an unheated offices.

no way I'm giving them money especially after reading the threads here and people attack h_anna for exposing the truth.

What actually happens is that the organisation needs certain skills and networks and hires the right people to bring them in. The salaries are small compared to what the people getting them could get paid at other organisations. I know good people who turned down much bigger salaries to work at WMF.

Nobody has exposed anything, these are all public facts published and actively publicised by Wikipedia itself. They literally actively try to expand participation in local groups, and small parties for the people who gave their time is a gesture of thanks to those people, not some ostentatious overspend.

> The salaries are small compared to what the people getting them could get paid at other organisations.

six digit salaries is small to you?

Not to me - as you can see from the sentence you quoted - but for the people being hired and in context of the other organisations that are offering them jobs.

For the people running an organisation the size and importance of wikipedia? 6 figures is a laughable minimum. The legal and social responsibility, the vast and varied expertise required, the personal social networks you put on the line. We need the best people in those jobs to keep that organisation existing at all, let alone functioning at the level is has and does. Recruiting those people is competing against the rest of the world to hire them, and they are already taking a huge cut in remuneration because they want to do good.

okay well you can support their lifestyle and I will reap the benefits.

Depends on the market rate for their skills. In this case, yes, depending on where they will be expected to live a barely six digit salary could be low.