211
Wikimedia Foundation refuses voluntary union recognition, hires union-busting law firm (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

Why are they not trying to stabilize their expenses as a donation dependent foundation?

They do? financials are publicly reported. there is a modest increase each year in salaries and infrastructure costs. which can be explained via inflation adjustments. (not saying it is if workers are unionizing) but from the financials only concerning bit are the grants/professional services line items which are entirely discretionary and/or legal.

so why are they spending exponentiall increasing amounts of money on other stuff.

they arent. do you know what 'exponential' means?

Shouldnt they try to build up 10+ years of reserves to ensure wikipedia survives when the money dries up?

Thats literally what they're doing. see graphs net assets.

Because if people stopped donating right now, they would run out of money next year.

so stop. seems like the issue will resolve itself. but the only concerning bit here is admin's fighting union. not their financials

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    1. "Modest increase" lmao. Literally like ~10% year over year for 20 years.

    2. The graph is very much exponential. If it had grown linear since 2006, they would have annual expenses of less than 5 million dollars. Recently it has started increasing slightly less fast, but its still increasing at an insane rate.

    3. The yearly expenses for 2025 were ~190 million dollars. The assets were 300 million. So they have assets to cover expenses for 1.5 years IF their expenses stopped growing.

    4. Large amounts of money breeds greed. The whole unionbusting thing is obviously a result of the upper management getting a little too comfortable with their reliable income stream.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    “Modest increase” lmao. Literally like ~10% year over year for 20 years.

    its literally tracking inflation when i looked at the costs.

    The graph is very much exponential.

    it very much isnt. the only line items that were exponential were the professional services and grants. the rest tracked inflation or were linear. and inflation is not in their control. its why the graph looks exponential but thats not a factor wikipedia controls.

    they would have annual expenses of less than 5 million dollars.

    literally impossible to have that situation in an economic system where inflation exists and salaries are your dominating expense.

    You need to normalize for inflation to see the increase accurately.

    If their expenses were growing exponentially we wouldnt see the net assets line growing faster.

    edit: just for the record, I'm just eyeballing their numbers. the signal that makes WMF's finances concerning is them fighting unionization. not the relative YOY changes, those mostly look reasonable.

    what fighting the union means: they're underpaying their staff and most compensation is going to admin. thats the problem, and it wont be resolved unless the workers force organizational changes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent