Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/News and notes

Discuss this story

So much money for (very high) WMF salaries but never enough for support for editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind so much decent salaries for qualified individuals, it's all of the money going for PR services that I question. I mean, does Wikipedia have a big PR problem that needs to be remedied? If so, how are they going about this? Commercials? Focus groups?

I also thought I'd see some mention of whether or not WikiMania was happening but nothing here or on the WMF-related page. Maybe you could add some information on this, whether it is going on or canceled or gone virtual? If this was already mentioned in a previous issue, sorry I guess I missed it. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious where the PR efforts are going. US? India? Waste of time. Indonesia? Might be worth it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Apparently the Signpost didn't cover the March announcement on Wikimania 2022: "Wikimania will take place this year from August 11-14. The conference will be primarily virtual, with support for local gatherings and events where possible." --Yair rand (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It was partially covered in the Technology report through coverage of the Wikimania Hackathon. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That report is a particularly unfitting place to put one, and we should have included coverage in NAN. Apologies for this oversight. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the claim in emails sent to donors is, "32% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers". I'd like to know how this figure was worked out. Andreas JN 466 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do the WMF think this is an impressive claim? I imagine people would assume the statistic was 100% minus the server costs if asked. Though I shouldn't complain about them making people less likely to donate, as I'm firmly in opposition to all their fundraising. — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: There is a little more information on this claim now on Meta. Of course, it is problematic in multiple ways. --Andreas JN 466 16:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your tireless patience in those Meta comments is admirable, Jayen466. But to be blunt, what I've learned from the WMF response is: the emails are both directly false (32%) and deliberately misleading ("to keep Wikipedia online"). — Bilorv (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the fact hundreds of us contribute our time, labor & materials for free has ever been considered by Foundation employees who push for more pay. Not that I think anyone should be paid less than a living wage, but IMHO the fact that what people come to Wikipedia (& its related websites for) is created by unpaid labor would make me uncomfortable if I insisted I should be paid more. Even prevailing wage might be asking too much. -- llywrch (talk)

FWIW, "Gluzdov.com, Inc." is usually known as Speed & Function. Legoktm (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CEO salary is astonishing. I wonder how you sleep at night knowing that you're making that amount of money from misleading fundraising banners and unpaid volunteers, many of whom are much more talented specialists than you. You must think you're an irreplaceable genius. I shouldn't be surprised given the ego of some of the Oxford people I've known in real life (the place where Iskander got her Master's), but I've never actually understood what goes on in their heads. — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could think of a lot more adjectives than 'astonishing', Bilorv. That said, that salary would pay the entire intercontinental scholarship bill for around 300 attendees to a Wikimania, or provide NPP with a complete, desperately needed rewrite of the code of its MetaWiki curation software extension ten times over... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I wonder how Maher would argue that she contributed more value than this per year. She wasn't even the front-facing public representative of Wikipedia—this has always been Jimmy Wales. — Bilorv (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]