I think it's because a lot of people with limited means apparently donate to Wikimedia thinking it's a small non-profit on the verge of bankruptcy. And in no small part because they imply this every year during their fund drives.
I doubt they'd do as well fundraising if your average donator knew that Wikimedia was pulling in $100m a year, is paying it's directors and above $200-400k a year, and the vast majority of their dollars are not spent on "servers and power" like their ads imply.
Personally, I'm fine with their budget, but I do wonder if their fundraisers are as ethical as they could be.
This is my main issue. The minimum wage in Greece, where I a from, is less than 10k/year, some people who I know (including me) donated to them a few years back in hopes of helping because they make themselves seem like they are in the brick of collapse every time they fund-raise, only to learn that they give huge wages to their higher ups and waste the donations on things irrelevant to Wikipedia.
But Wikipedia doesn't, and couldn't run from Greece. It runs from San Francisco, because that's where they can be the most efficient at getting the most billionaires to help. In San Fran employees would probably worrying about money at $120k, and would be homeless way before they got to $10k. Also, WMP aren't hiring people at average wage - you're comparing the average job in Greece to running one of the most important organisations in the world from San Francisco. That's not a reasonable comparison. Of course WMP has to have brilliant, motivated, connected, experienced people at the top. They pay them far below average wage for people in that market.
Honestly you should compare what WMP pays with other similar sized global organisations.
> because that's where they can be the most efficient at getting the most billionaires to help
They should choose between the donors and the billionaires then. (regardless, they are a tech company, they could employ people remotely)
This still does not address the issue of the dishonest fundraising though (pretending that they need your help despite making 1/10th of their wage and not saying up-front on what they spend the money on). I am sure that you would be upset if you gave money to a beggar that you later see getting in his Mercedes, or if you donated money to an organization for the homeless but then realized that 90% of the money goes for researching new pie recipes. It honestly feels like that.
> They should choose between the donors and the billionaires then
Why? They have absolutely no reason to do that. They have a mission, they are raising money for that mission, and doing so very successfully.
> (regardless, they are a tech company, they could employ people remotely)
Could, and they know that, and they make hiring decisions based on their expertise and knowledge, and have deciided the organisation is better off hiring some people in SF.
> This still does not address the issue of the dishonest fundraising though (pretending that they need your help despite making 1/10th of their wage and not saying up-front on what they spend the money on)
I understand that you had a misunderstanding about what wikipedia is, how their community management works, and that you didn't make use of the public, publicised resources that make their spending completely transparent. That doesn't make them dishonest, it makes you lazy.
I doubt they'd do as well fundraising if your average donator knew that Wikimedia was pulling in $100m a year, is paying it's directors and above $200-400k a year, and the vast majority of their dollars are not spent on "servers and power" like their ads imply.
Personally, I'm fine with their budget, but I do wonder if their fundraisers are as ethical as they could be.