• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    108 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          68 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 months ago

            It may seem foreign, but it is the state of things. $750k/yr for a $100mil non-profit CEO is about average.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      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.

      Fifteen other people sit on the board of trustees that oversees wikimedia. The only person on that board who gets paid is Jimmy.