We're a small non-profit

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:09 pm

More lies from the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising team. Their latest pitch says "We're a small non-profit."

But if you know anything about non-profits, you know that the Wikimedia Foundation is actually relatively huge compared to other organizations.

For example...

Let's assume that approximately 1.5 million non-profits are registered with the Internal Revenue Service the way the WMF is. Only 35% of them were required to file a Form 990 the way the WMF is, owing to receipts of more than $50,000 per year. So already, the WMF is way bigger than 65% of all US-based non-profits.

But let's go further.

The mean annual revenue of Form 990-reporting non-profits is about $4.3 million. So, at about $70 million, the WMF enjoys annual receipts that are about sixteen times more than the average of the 35% of non-profits that report more than $50K in revenue.

Put yet another way, only 5.3% of reporting non-profit charities have over $10 million in annual receipts.

So if I had to make an educated estimate, I would say that the Wikimedia Foundation is among the 1% wealthiest non-profit organizations, and perhaps among the 2% or 3% most wealthy among non-profit charities required to report a Form 990. They are NOT a small non-profit.

Why do donors put up with this bullshit, year after year?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:22 pm

It is a form of snivelling that they aren't racking in billions.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 1:15 pm

They are technically a non-profit, even though quite a few people make quite a nice living from them. Of course, small is relative; compared to say Google or Amazon their turnover is small.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 1:49 pm

Poetlister wrote:They are technically a non-profit, even though quite a few people make quite a nice living from them. Of course, small is relative; compared to say Google or Amazon their turnover is small.

This didn't add nothing to the conversation -- it actually devalued the conversation.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:06 pm

I think Poetlister was making the point that WMF is engaging in ambiguous advertising: "small" is in reference to other top websites, rather than modifying "non-profit". This is perhaps how these people sleep at night. Of course, a normal reader wouldn't read it that way.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:24 pm

I've seen the same text recently over here. The term "SME" is widely used when talking about the size of businesses. According to the WMF's own encyclopaedia, an SME in the UK is defined as follows:

United Kingdom[edit]

In the UK a company is defined as being an SME if it meets two out of three criteria: it has a turnover of less than £25m, it has fewer than 250 employees, it has gross assets of less than £12.5m.[11]

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills estimated that at the start of 2014, 99.3% of UK private sector businesses were SMEs, with their £1.6 trillion annual turnover accounting for 47% of private sector turnover.[12][13]

In order to support SMEs, the UK government set a target in 2010 "that 25% of government’s spend, either directly or in supply chains, goes to SMEs by 2015"; it achieved this by 2013.[14]

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:45 pm

By definition, Wikimedia does not meet the criteria to be considered a "small business" because it is not a business. The small business definition used in the United States, at least by the SBA, is complicated, and depends on the industry in which that business operates. If Wikimedia were not a non-profit, they would best fit within NAICS code 519130 "Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals". The SBA's criteria for "small" in this industry code is "fewer than 1000 employees", so if the Foundation were a for-profit business in this industry, they would qualify as a "small business concern".

However, As Greg amply demonstrated, they cannot reasonably be considered a "small non profit", which is the exact language they used in their solicitation.

The fundraising appeal is the usual sort of not-quite-fraudulent but deceptively dishonest crap that we've come to expect from the WMF. In this case, I suspect what's driving this is the large number of their employees who see themselves as working for a "Internet publishing service" and are thus comparing their experience at the WMF with the experiences of people working for Facebook and Google, and finding the WMF to fall short. The solution, for them, is for the WMF to raise more money so it can make their experiences more like the palatial luxury that Google employees allegedly bask in. In short, they've come to realize that a stint at the WMF is not going to get them into Peter Thiel's Libertarian utopia, and they want Wikimedia's donors to fix this for them.

Of course, the people who work at the WMF who are not in its bloated and ineffectual engineering division are instead trying to leverage their time there to gain access to more legitimate postings elsewhere in the GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) industry. This industry is almost completely dominated by non-profits (there are very few for-profit galleries, libraries, archives, or museums), and in this industry the WMF is about average in terms of number of employees and probably somewhat above average in terms of revenue, but below average in terms of fixed assets. This is because (he WMF has almost no fixed assets, while most traditional GLAM industry members have significant fixed assets in the form of the artifacts that they have amassed in their collections, reflecting the fact that the WMF is not really a legitimate member of the GLAM industry.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:19 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:Of course, the people who work at the WMF who are not in its bloated and ineffectual engineering division are instead trying to leverage their time there to gain access to more legitimate postings elsewhere in the GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) industry. This industry is almost completely dominated by non-profits (there are very few for-profit galleries, libraries, archives, or museums), and in this industry the WMF is about average in terms of number of employees and probably somewhat above average in terms of revenue, but below average in terms of fixed assets. This is because (he WMF has almost no fixed assets, while most traditional GLAM industry members have significant fixed assets in the form of the artifacts that they have amassed in their collections, reflecting the fact that the WMF is not really a legitimate member of the GLAM industry.

I thought I sort of understood the Google aspect of Wikipedia, but this aspect was rather mysterious and fuzzy to me. I searched for "GLAM" in the archives, and there has been a fair bit of discussion. I'll need to read up a bit more to understand this aspect.

There's of course this, which I was trying to understand a few days ago. Liam Wyatt was the first Wikipedian-in-Residence at the British Museum.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:30 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:The fundraising appeal is the usual sort of not-quite-fraudulent but deceptively dishonest crap that we've come to expect from the WMF.

Are you really going to begrudge the hardworking engineers in San Francisco the price of a cup of coffee? </s>

I think Poetlister is on it. Small is relative and compared to Google and Facebook, WMF is small. They are also a non-profit. They are not "small" compared to other non-profits, they are small compared to other internet giants, which is the comparison they themselves make.

As for Greg's question as to why readers put up with bullshit advertising year after year — what choice do they have? Please do tell me how to get rid of the "Click here for secret trick how to make your buttcheeks soft" type ads? You can't. WMF has people working FULL TIME coming up with sneaky banner ads and they A/B test them for maximum effectiveness. Every year they raise more money, pretty much on the good will generated by the encyclopedia's expanding and improving content. There is no changing that, short of overhauling WMF, getting their fricking budget under control, and making honesty in fundraising a priority.

That won't come from a handful of complaints from readers about deceptive banner ads, it will come from the Board telling their top employee to get the fundraising house in order. A Board dominated by people that pig out at the trough filled every year by the very same deceptive ads. Good luck with that.

RfB

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:15 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Please do tell me how to get rid of the "Click here for secret trick how to make your buttcheeks soft" type ads? You can't.

https://adblockplus.org Works a treat for me 99% of the time.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:39 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I think Poetlister is on it. Small is relative and compared to Google and Facebook, WMF is small. They are also a non-profit. They are not "small" compared to other non-profits, they are small compared to other internet giants, which is the comparison they themselves make.

So that's why they said "We are a non-profit, small compared to other internet giant corporations"?

Oh, wait... they didn't say that at all.

Tim, you are willing to cut them some slack here because you are sold on the premise that their big, fat encyclopedia is improving, and therefore we should look the other way and "keep editing" while 280 parasites rob unsuspecting donors of their cash. I like you, but I think that's one of the more disgraceful things about you.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:51 pm

Reminds me of Sally

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:11 pm

Jim wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Please do tell me how to get rid of the "Click here for secret trick how to make your buttcheeks soft" type ads? You can't.
https://adblockplus.org Works a treat for me 99% of the time.

Run a javascript blocker and much of the mechanical stupidity on en.wp will disappear.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:41 am

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I think Poetlister is on it. Small is relative and compared to Google and Facebook, WMF is small. They are also a non-profit. They are not "small" compared to other non-profits, they are small compared to other internet giants, which is the comparison they themselves make.
So that's why they said "We are a non-profit, small compared to other internet giant corporations"?

Oh, wait... they didn't say that at all.

That's absolutely what they THINK they said.

thekohser wrote:Tim, you are willing to cut them some slack here because you are sold on the premise that their big, fat encyclopedia is improving, and therefore we should look the other way and "keep editing" while 280 parasites rob unsuspecting donors of their cash. I like you, but I think that's one of the more disgraceful things about you.

No, I'm all for calling them on their shit. That's fine. I just happen to believe that the positive aspect of The Project in actual practice is greater than the negative aspect generated by the pack of incompetents and grifters profiting from it.

People are free to donate or not donate as they wish. I hope they do NOT donate. For myself, I will continue doing my part to make the content of the encyclopedia bigger and better, along with thousands of others. I don't think any of that is "disgraceful."

t

Kevin · Unread post by **Kevin** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:59 am

Randy from Boise wrote:That's absolutely what they THINK they said.

Surely you don't actually believe that? They are raking in all those millions by knowing exactly what they are doing. And while their engineering might be laughable, their fundraising is first class.

Soldado Sin Nombre · Unread post by **Soldado Sin Nombre** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:36 pm

Surely you don't actually believe that? They are raking in all those millions by knowing exactly what they are doing. And while their engineering might be laughable, their fundraising is first class.

I'm convinced by the African child on a UNICEF flyer because much of Africa is a desert riddled with disease. The WMF uses the UNICEF approach, but they reside in a land of plenty. Arguably in the one of the world's most plentiful places. Certainly they could house themselves in a lower rent place like Redwood City, or Pleasanton or Freemont or even Concord, and still be within reasonable lunching distance from their huge pocketed benefactors. But they're not, they're in the high rent district, which is one of many, many things about the WMF that makes no sense.

The WMF does not reside in Africa, they reside in Monaco.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:48 pm

Soldado Sin Nombre wrote:I'm convinced by the African child on a UNICEF flyer because much of Africa is a desert riddled with disease. The WMF uses the UNICEF approach, but they reside in a land of plenty. Arguably in the one of the world's most plentiful places. Certainly they could house themselves in a lower rent place like Redwood City, or Pleasanton or Freemont or even Concord, and still be within reasonable lunching distance from their huge pocketed benefactors. But they're not, they're in the high rent district, which is one of many, many things about the WMF that makes no sense.

The WMF does not reside in Africa, they reside in Monaco.

Indeed, I'd be far more comfortable donating to them if they were running the WMF out of a strip mall in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. They used to run it out of a trailer in St. Petersburg, Florida, after all. There's no reason why they need to be in Silly Valley; Jimmy just wanted to be there to be close to the people he was trying to schmooze. They could probably cut their operating costs by 30% to 60% simply by moving to someplace with a lower cost of living.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:51 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Soldado Sin Nombre wrote:I'm convinced by the African child on a UNICEF flyer because much of Africa is a desert riddled with disease. The WMF uses the UNICEF approach, but they reside in a land of plenty. Arguably in the one of the world's most plentiful places. Certainly they could house themselves in a lower rent place like Redwood City, or Pleasanton or Freemont or even Concord, and still be within reasonable lunching distance from their huge pocketed benefactors. But they're not, they're in the high rent district, which is one of many, many things about the WMF that makes no sense.

The WMF does not reside in Africa, they reside in Monaco.
Indeed, I'd be far more comfortable donating to them if they were running the WMF out of a strip mall in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. They used to run it out of a trailer in St. Petersburg, Florida, after all. There's no reason why they need to be in Silly Valley; Jimmy just wanted to be there to be close to the people he was trying to schmooze. They could probably cut their operating costs by 30% to 60% simply by moving to someplace with a lower cost of living.

Better than that, they could cut the living expenses of every one of their employees as well.
Just moving to a Fremont office building would save them tons.

But then, they wouldn't be in SoDoSoPa.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:07 pm

Vigilant wrote:Better than that, they could cut the living expenses of every one of their employees as well.

Well, that's what I meant by cutting their operating expenses: they'd be able to justify paying their staff around half what they presently do (San Franscisco is 189% national average, while Sioux Falls is 95%). I wasn't even thinking about decreased rent.

Also, there's some really good food to be had in Sioux Falls. But I have to admit that I have a soft spot for South Dakota, even if the politics there are egregious.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:43 pm

Of course, the next issue is whether they could manage with fewer staff, whether they stay put or move elsewhere. The quality of the staff is a relevant issue too,

Soldado Sin Nombre · Unread post by **Soldado Sin Nombre** » Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:47 pm

The quality of the staff is a relevant issue too,

Would Google allow someone to continue as their Deputy Director if they had written an article entitled Children are Porn? The jist of the article is that Mr. Moeller is made weary by all the stuffed shirts out there trying to protect children from lecherous eyes. That's my take anyway. Admittedly, I haven't read a translation in a long time, as I've read enough of his self-satisfied ramblings to last a lifetime.

Maybe I'm making too big a deal out of it. Here, read for yourself and then decide if this mind is the material of a second-in-command for most normal companies.

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/4/4158/1.html

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu May 25, 2017 10:49 am

The 990 for FY 2015-6 is now available. Lila apparently received no severance payment. Moeller on the other hand was paid $208,306 to go away.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu May 25, 2017 12:17 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:The 990 for FY 2015-6 is now available.

That's quite an accomplishment, producing the fiscal year-end information in only eleven months' time!

Which is really special, given the federal requirement that the Form 990 be filed with the IRS by the 15th day of the fifth month after the close of the organization's accounting period. Sure, there is the 90-day extension form (8868) that one could file (once or even twice), and who is to say that the WMF didn't submit their Form 990 to the IRS right on time, then sat on the information and held it from the public for another five or six months?

We cannot know, because questions like that on a Wikimedia mailing list are surely grounds for a mailing list block of the person brave enough to make the query.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu May 25, 2017 2:19 pm

They still apply less than 60% of their revenues to the actual program expenses that fulfill the charitable mission of the organization. That's a terrible ratio compared to the non-profit leaders who aim for 90% or higher.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu May 25, 2017 4:59 pm

thekohser wrote:
Rogol Domedonfors wrote:The 990 for FY 2015-6 is now available.
That's quite an accomplishment, producing the fiscal year-end information in only eleven months' time!

Which is really special, given the federal requirement that the Form 990 be filed with the IRS by the 15th day of the fifth month after the close of the organization's accounting period. Sure, there is the 90-day extension form (8868) that one could file (once or even twice), and who is to say that the WMF didn't submit their Form 990 to the IRS right on time, then sat on the information and held it from the public for another five or six months?

We cannot know, because questions like that on a Wikimedia mailing list are surely grounds for a mailing list block of the person brave enough to make the query.

This may not be the right line of attack: the FAQ states "The 2015 Form 990 was filed with the IRS on May 15, 2017". It would take actual evidence to refute that assertion. Simply asking on the maliing list "Are you lying, because I think you might be" isn't going to get much traction. If you have a mole in the IRS who is prepared to swear that they saw the WMF 990 form in their office last November, then go for it.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu May 25, 2017 5:16 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Rogol Domedonfors wrote:The 990 for FY 2015-6 is now available.

That's quite an accomplishment, producing the fiscal year-end information in only eleven months' time!

Which is really special, given the federal requirement that the Form 990 be filed with the IRS by the 15th day of the fifth month after the close of the organization's accounting period. Sure, there is the 90-day extension form (8868) that one could file (once or even twice), and who is to say that the WMF didn't submit their Form 990 to the IRS right on time, then sat on the information and held it from the public for another five or six months?

We cannot know, because questions like that on a Wikimedia mailing list are surely grounds for a mailing list block of the person brave enough to make the query.

This may not be the right line of attack: the FAQ states "The 2015 Form 990 was filed with the IRS on May 15, 2017". It would take actual evidence to refute that assertion. Simply asking on the maliing list "Are you lying, because I think you might be" isn't going to get much traction. If you have a mole in the IRS who is prepared to swear that they saw the WMF 990 form in their office last November, then go for it.

I have an e-mail from a Wikimedia Foundation staff member stating that the WMF did indeed file for and was approved by the IRS for the delayed submission. Thank heavens we're not a formal news gathering organization. I'd have to be reprimanded.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:29 pm

I wonder which is really the more interesting question –

Why the WMF took the full eleven months legally allowed to file its returns
Why the WMF spent over $200,000 of donor funds to get Moeller to go away
Why the WMF spent just under two million dollars on legal fees
Who were the 17 contractors who received over $100,000 each from the WMF

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:38 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:I wonder which is really the more interesting question –

Why the WMF took the full eleven months legally allowed to file its returns - PROBABLY NOT INTERESTING

Why the WMF spent over $200,000 of donor funds to get Moeller to go away - VERY INTERESTING

Why the WMF spent just under two million dollars on legal fees - POTENTIALLY INTERESTING

Who were the 17 contractors who received over $100,000 each from the WMF - PROBABLY NOT INTERESTING

See above for my reaction...

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu May 25, 2017 8:01 pm

It would be interesting to know whether one of the 100K+ contractors was Kim Gilbey. As far as I can tell, her only qualification for being hired was having the same surname as the COO Terry Gilbey, who was paid off with a mere $80K, albeit after taking $170K for eight months in the job.

I quite agree about the filing delay.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu May 25, 2017 8:39 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:It would be interesting to know whether one of the 100K+ contractors was Kim Gilbey. As far as I can tell, her only qualification for being hired was having the same surname as the COO Terry Gilbey...

She has a PhD, but her LinkedIn indicates no employers since 2006. Maybe she's just not that into updating her LinkedIn.

Who knows?

Even Kim Gilbey wonders...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu May 25, 2017 9:21 pm

I'll bet that #4 is actually more interesting than you think.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri May 26, 2017 4:44 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:This may not be the right line of attack: the FAQ states "The 2015 Form 990 was filed with the IRS on May 15, 2017". It would take actual evidence to refute that assertion. Simply asking on the maliing list "Are you lying, because I think you might be" isn't going to get much traction. If you have a mole in the IRS who is prepared to swear that they saw the WMF 990 form in their office last November, then go for it.

WMF runs on a July to June fiscal year. Their 2015-2016 990 was therefore due at the IRS on December 15, 2016, that being the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of their fiscal year. If they filed it instead on May 15, 2017, it was six months late, unless they obtained two ninety day extensions.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri May 26, 2017 10:39 am

Kelly Martin wrote:WMF runs on a July to June fiscal year. Their 2015-2016 990 was therefore due at the IRS on December 15, 2016, that being the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of their fiscal year. If they filed it instead on May 15, 2017, it was six months late, unless they obtained two ninety day extensions.

thekohser wrote:I have an e-mail from a Wikimedia Foundation staff member stating that the WMF did indeed file for and was approved by the IRS for the delayed submission.

Graaf Statler · Unread post by **Graaf Statler** » Fri May 26, 2017 1:15 pm

But the real shocking thing is,they translate this messege to Dutch! We zijn een kleine vrijwilligers organisatie. But in Holland it means something like we have 200.000 euro turn over! It's a very small country, its misleading.
And if they did something userfull with the money, OK. But they don't. It,s there reputation. That is why people give them money, they think they desperate need it.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Fri May 26, 2017 4:21 pm

Is there a simple summary of the money flows between the WMF and the WM-NL chapter?

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Fri May 26, 2017 6:31 pm

I wrote:Lila apparently received no severance payment.

Historical research reveals the following.

Vigilant wrote:Here's an article at the signpost
The Signpost also asked Patricio Lorente whether Lila Tretikov, who stepped down as executive director at the end of March 2016 after months of public controversy (see previous Signpost coverage), received a similar kind of bonus upon leaving and whether she is currently employed by the Wikimedia Foundation as a special advisor or in any other capacity.

Patricio advised us as follows:
As I mentioned in my email to Wikimedia-l "Clarifications on 2014 Form 990," we disclose compensation in the 990 as appropriate, but we don't disclose it elsewhere or at other times. This is our normal practice, and recent leadership transitions will not change this. We will publish the 990s for 2015 and 2016, during which Lila was with the WMF on our normal schedule. They'll include the composition of all officers of the organization as appropriate, including the Executive Director. Lila is not currently employed by the WMF, as a special advisor, or in any other capacity.

As things stand, further details on Lila Tretikov's compensation upon leaving will thus only be known when the 990 form for the 2016 calendar year will be published, probably around this time of the year in 2018.
Pool time!
I say Lila took home in excess of $1M USD for time at the benighted WMF.

So another year to go before we find out how much Lila took to go.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri May 26, 2017 8:47 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Is there a simple summary of the money flows between the WMF and the WM-NL chapter?

If there is, the WMF is being remarkably less opaque than usual.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Fri May 26, 2017 8:53 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Is there a simple summary of the money flows between the WMF and the WM-NL chapter?
If there is, the WMF is being remarkably less opaque than usual.

I was hoping the Graaf might have some insider knowledge.

Graaf Statler · Unread post by **Graaf Statler** » Fri May 26, 2017 9:53 pm

I don't know. I only know there are very irritante banner, witch is suggest the end is near by. Help! We zijn een kleine vrijwilligersorganisatie, and Jimbo is looking you in the eyes.. They constantly pop up if you are not logged in. They must collect a awful amount of money, because Wikipedia is top ranking in Google. The Foundation collects this money or gets it, and Wikimedia-NL keeps 340.000 Euro from this money. Around 40.000 euro they collects themself.
Most money is spend in The Netherlands is spend on staf salery, 220.000 if I am correct. There are a few employees, 4 or 5. And the office, around 40.000.
Saturday meetings with 4 persons. ore 2, or three. A great new year party. They talk about the movement strategy, and the gender gab. Over en over en over.

And what they are doing? I really don't know after 8 years Wikipedia. To be honest, I don't have the slightest idea what they want, why they are there, what they are doing, I only know the members are very enthusiast about there activities, and that an other groep is doing everything to saboted them, and at the moment you dear to criticize them, you are trollt out! Like me.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sat May 27, 2017 5:59 am

Thanks anyway.

Graaf Statler · Unread post by **Graaf Statler** » Sat May 27, 2017 7:55 am

Once I asked on there Wikimedia- wiki, what are you doing, I don't understand. In my opinion you need a few people, and a friendly atmosphere like here, who like to write a article, like I did. Blocked. Like I am always blocked if I asked something like that.
Arbcom, look at my blog. The first arbitration statement. Forbidden to say anything about Wikimedia or it's members. If you say anything about them, you are blockt. A arbcom filled up with wikimedia members.The first arbcom case I stated, because I was sick and tired of the fact everyone calling me a troll. I went to arbcom, and that ended up in a global block at last.

Do I look like a troll? Do I look to someone who is a "cross wiki vandal" and a "long term abuser" and someone who is a danger for the "mental health" of the other users? Me, a writer, was the lowest of the lowest of the lowest. I am treated like a piece of dirt! I am a Psychotic you know. They wrote it down! Yes, look at my blog! They played games to let me look like that!

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon May 29, 2017 3:55 am

$375K for Ms. Tretiakova and over 300K for the Moelman...

Jimmy Wales listed as $0 income from his "employer"...

link https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... rm_990.pdf[/link]

Discuss.

RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon May 29, 2017 4:07 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Discuss.

Yes, we have been.

Merge, mods?

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Mon May 29, 2017 4:15 am

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Discuss.
Yes, we have been.

Merge, mods?

Done! Not sure how I did that, as I'm not supposed to have mod privs (I thought), and was just swinging by. Anyways - done

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon May 29, 2017 4:41 pm

Alison wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Discuss.
Yes, we have been.

Merge, mods?
Done! Not sure how I did that, as I'm not supposed to have mod privs (I thought), and was just swinging by. Anyways - done

I really disagree with this merge.

This amorphous thread was started over a misleading fundraising banner, not the specific event of a new 990 filing.

How is discussion being advanced through this sort of amalgamated hypercentralization?

RfB

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Mon May 29, 2017 4:46 pm

One could ask the same question about the small non-profit Wikipediocracy's claim to be criticism central, but that wouldn't be very nice. ^^

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Mon May 29, 2017 6:57 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:[...] over 300K for the Moelman...

The $300K for Moeller includes a payoff of just over $200K, presumably a year's salary, for severance. The possibilities seem to be (1) he had a cast-iron contractual entitlement based on some rather generous terms and conditions agreed when he was hired in 2007, immediately after his term on the Board (2) he had a sufficient case for legal action against the Foundation that it was easier or cheaper to buy him off than fight it out in court (3) he was such a nice person they decided to gift him a large chunk of the donor dollars as a sign of their affection.

I wonder which it was?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon May 29, 2017 7:25 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:How is discussion being advanced through this sort of amalgamated hypercentralization?

I'm tempted to agree with you, but the delay in filing their Form 990 bolsters the argument that the WMF isn't behaving the way a "small non-profit" would - more effectively, I would argue, than the content of the Form 990 itself.

Meanwhile, discussions about specific donors, or specific payment-recipients, might work better in their own threads if the organizations and/or people involved are controversial enough to warrant them. Otherwise they're just names on a list, at least as far as a casual/uninvolved reader is concerned.

Still, the merge wasn't a huge improvement or anything, so I don't suppose anyone would be too upset if it were split back to separate threads.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon May 29, 2017 7:39 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:The $300K for Moeller includes a payoff of just over $200K, presumably a year's salary, for severance. The possibilities seem to be (1) he had a cast-iron contractual entitlement based on some rather generous terms and conditions agreed when he was hired in 2007, immediately after his term on the Board (2) he had a sufficient case for legal action against the Foundation that it was easier or cheaper to buy him off than fight it out in court (3) he was such a nice person they decided to gift him a large chunk of the donor dollars as a sign of their affection.

I wonder which it was?

(4) He knows where all the bodies are buried.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Mon May 29, 2017 7:43 pm

If you want to split, the caesura is between Sept 2016 and May 2017. The new title could be something like FY 2015-6 form 990.