[Wikimedia-l] fundraising status?

[Andrew Gray]

On 25 December 2012 14:00, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:

> For those outside of the U.S.,
> http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wikimedia-Foundation-Reviews-E38331.htm
> (2.8, 55%) should resolve correctly. Because Glassdoor is susceptible
> to sour grapes, it is probably best read in comparison to similar
> nearby companies. For example:

(...)

> I hope the Board and leadership find some way to exceed the employee
> satisfaction scores of at least one of those nine others in the coming
> year.

Of the other nine companies, seven have a fairly clear bell curve
distribution of rankings (peaking around 3-4) and several hundred
comments; the two exceptions are Wikia (four comments) and Twitter
(19).

In the case of WMF, as well as having a low number of respondents
(currently 13, it's had another since your first email), the
distribution looks very different - it's skewed to the extremes and
has no "neutral" rankings at all. My gut feeling would be that this is
a sign not to place too much weight on it; it's a very small sample,
not helped by it being a small organisation, and the data doesn't
really look like the theoretically "similar companies".

The comments are interesting, but any interpretation of the numbers
should probably be treated very cautiously.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk