they run the most useful website on the internet it's fine
@vanillaopinions not outraged at the salaries but i bet you could replace most of them for half the price and not notice a difference in any way. those titles better be nominal nonsense for good fundraisers because there's no way wikipedia needs a $400-800k/yr product officer
@vanillaopinions Do these people not realise that this website has higher traffic than amazon, tiktok, pornhub and netflix like? I think these salaries are excessive but what kind of money are they supposed to be making in today’s society exactly? Minimum wage?
@vanillaopinions Like seeing all those ladies making serious cash!!!!
@vanillaopinions Wikimedia is a grift in the sense that they pretend like they run the website mouth to hand for donations when they also spend a ton of money on other ventures.
@vanillaopinions It's cash comp only, on stock options, no RSU. Given the complexity of the platform, the COO comp'ed at 500K, that's like less than 1/3 of similar positions at for-profit tech companies.
@vanillaopinions No they’re not fine!!! They’re way underpaid. Wikipedia should have the compensation packages that attract top talent to these roles and they’re stuck with rates that aren’t much over entry-level tech?
@vanillaopinions Katherine, Janeen, Amanda, Villagomez, Lisa, Robyn, Heather. If all these people were named Bob, would this still be a perceived problem?
@vanillaopinions It would be better if it wasn’t in a little red pop up window with a whole “we try VERYYY hard to keep this website up and the smallest donation would mean the world to us!!” It gives me the mental image of the tin cup being stuck out
@vanillaopinions While the site itself runs fine, my issue is that for all the money they spend on non-tech stuff, the number of active editors has basically been flat for the last 10 years.
@vanillaopinions apart from hosting costs (which are a tiny fraction of their budget) none of the WMF's money provides any kind of value for wikipedia