Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-05-28/Special report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


← Back to Special report

Discuss this story

Sounds like a reasonable and judicious use of limited non-profit funding. -- GreenC 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And...

[edit]

"High ranking employee, who probability had pending job offers, is payed extra money to stay on until her successor is found, after she quit" is not news. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Re-read the story. It's actually saying "high-ranking employee is paid more to be a 'special advisor' after her successor is in place." (and she is still a special adviser today. Note: this is a personal, volunteer edit) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And she did a great job as ED. Thanks Sue! I doubt that you'll find many Wikipedians who begrudge her the extra money. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not at all Is Lila staying on as an advisor too? wbm1058 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that really sounds like a great job done, well organized and documented, when you are needed for more than 2 years after your leave to "dig a document out of her files", "dug up files", "some remaining transition obligations", "briefing Lila on the organisation, its history, structure, operations, financials, guiding principles, etc.", "reconstruct how revenue targets had been developed", ... because you are the only one of 200+ people and the Board who knows that? Really, really great job - not only by the ED but also and especially by the Board! --T.i 03:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones — Oh, don't worry, you'll find plenty. Go ahead and start an advisory RFC of support for the WMF Board on this matter if you doubt me... Carrite (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you are saying that somebody should be paid 300k? For what? Isn't this a foundation? Since 2014 WP has crashed in terms of views and editor counts. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sue, you have done a great job! Jeblad (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AK & Tony1, you have done a great job! --T.i 03:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are worth every cent we pay them! Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this $188,841 was her severance package. This would have been her pay $112,500 Next year we will get to see Lila's severance. I imagine it will be much greater than this which will be slightly depressing but it is what it is. With respect to the latter yet unknown amount I would have much rather seen the money spent on expanding the community tech team but we had to pull the foundation out of the downward spiral it was in. I am just guessing however and had no involvement nor saw any details about this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Doc James is a former Board member.) I infer from your comment that the Board doesn't look at compensation for anyone other than the current ED, even that of other top executives or former executives retained in "special" roles? It sounds like the comment I read somewhere a few months ago (I forget where) is accurate: the Board appears to regard its duties as consisting more or less solely of hiring an ED. I also infer that the terms of any severance for the ED are not spelled out ahead of time in the ED's contract, as you say you don't know anything about Lila's. Is there anyone familiar with corporate governance who can say whether this is the norm? Anyway, I am excited to state that I am hereby offering to perform Gardner's current job for the WMF at half her salary. With that kind of savings the WMF could hire another developer to get to work breaking important parts of the site with no warning! --71.110.8.102 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These things are determined by a subcommittee of the board (which I was not on). Additionally Sue's arrangements were determined before I joined the board as was Lila's. And of course Lila's severance was determined after I left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a summary, 250K$ is huge, but 301K$ is not that huge. Great maths ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Is there a public source for the numbers on the severance package you quote? effeietsanders 06:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "I assume this". I have seen no evidence to back it up user:effeietsanders Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: But is there any basis for the assumption that it is split in the 188k lump sum and 112k salary, or is that a random number as example? Maybe I missed something here. effeietsanders 13:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay user:effeietsanders I understand now. If you look at page 52 and than turn you heard sideways you will see "Sue Gardner Special Advisor" Base compensation = 112,500 Other reportable compensation = 188,841 than a couple others for a total of 320,057. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is value in transparency, and policing how WMF spends it funds, but I can't help but read this with a tad of distaste. Part of it wonders how WMF salaries compare to those of other comparable NGOs, without it it is hard to say if - as I think is implied between the lines - those figures are too high or not. Part is that I, personally, think that The Signpost should neutrally report on the community controversies, including how some community members feel about WMF. Instead, I think TS is taking a non-neutral side in this, and I don't feel it is the right thing to do. How about TS prepares an article on WMF transparency? Budgets overview through history? How money spending trends evolved over the years? This would be the reporting I'd be happy to see. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and do it.[See also: m:Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap] In my eyes the text is very well as neutral as necessary - this is a news site not an article. --T.i 19:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Just do it!" Ok, see [Charity Navigator CE Compensation Report] (2012 data). They of course give ranges and medians and realize that larger non-profits ($13+ million in expenses is the largest group) and different locations and types of programs (education has the highest CEO salaries that I saw). But you might start on page 4.
Guidestar has a more up to date report (looks like same type of data, slightly different methods) at [1], but it costs $374 for a single reader. Tony1 (talk · contribs), could you be sure to include some type of comparisons when the usual hub-bub by the usual people (see below) happens when fund raising starts in December? There is a group of editors (or banned editors) who always make a point of tearing down the WMF and saying that anything the WMF spends is too much. Comparisons are the way to go here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once donated $5 to the WMF. Only 1/64.011th of her salary. I feel so bad, as a peon I should give more to my rightful lords and ladies. Someone Not Awful (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sure to tell my friends and acquaintances, when they find out I write stuff for WP, "Never, ever, ever give the WMF money — they have more than they need and they waste it." Further evidence here. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-05-28/Special_report&oldid=1136598671"