Comment on weaponized nerdery
Gloomy@mander.xyz 8 months agoI wanted to fact check you on this, and you speak true.
…m.wikimedia.org/…/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries
Makes me question my willingness to donate money to them.
Comment on weaponized nerdery
Gloomy@mander.xyz 8 months agoI wanted to fact check you on this, and you speak true.
…m.wikimedia.org/…/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries
Makes me question my willingness to donate money to them.
dariusj18@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I think you should consider the opportunity cost of what they would be making elsewhere. Salaries need to be competitive, otherwise you are at the mercy of those who are willing to work for less and hope that the reason is benevolent.
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 months ago
I don’t buy that argument at all, it just doesn’t make any sense for a position like Wikipedia. Sure, if you’re in a highly competitive and specialised industry where connections and insider information matters I would get it, but just running a “simple” organisation like Wikipedia, no way.
dariusj18@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You think $750k for a CEO of a “simple” company is high?
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 months ago
Yes? And by simple I meant in the manner that it’s not a competitive company. They aren’t there to bring in the AI revolution or invent the next iPhone. Their primary goal is to just keep the servers running, not create record profits for shareholders.
High six figure salaries in general seems foreign to me. A core part of the nordic model is to limit wage gap between high education jobs and low education jobs, so the entire CEO wage structure in the US seems completely backwards.
underisk@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
That would make more sense if Wikipedia was a profit generating enterprise that needed to satisfy shareholders. It’s run like a charity through donations , though. Nobody is gonna replace Jimmy unless he steps down willingly.