[Wikimedia-l] Strange, surprising, bold and unnecessary - reply to the WMF board statement

[Theo10011]

I would appreciate it if you not start this discussion with conflating my
recommendations and removing the context completely. First, there is a talk
page attached, it would be highly advisable to read that clarification and
context of why I chose what. Second, my second draft at the time was
reactionary to the one you see first by Delphine (user:notafish) which
started with appropriating 96,000 euros as the salary for this SG and
totaled close to half a million euros. I made my feelings known at the time
here[1] and elsewhere on the page and lists repeatedly.

The context that you are probably missing which I mentioned at the time was
that, it was premature to work on this budget without laying the
groundwork, my second draft mostly revised the figures downward to the bare
minimum, and it was limited by things like minimum wage laws and legal
requirements. As I recall it was met with disapproval in the private
discussions as "too low", I have no idea about the following discussion as
I disengaged soon after that point.

I still stand by my version of the budget - it had around 60,000 euros for
direct chapter development and spending on actual programs (like WLM or
GLAM-related outreach), salaries for 3 full time employees, 2 part-time
consultant and their associated travel costs. As mentioned by others and on
the page, it was a premature budget draft - if you or anyone feels they can
do better and still maintain the legal minimum for the
incorporated geography - by all means, go ahead.


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM, James Heilman <jmh649 at gmail.com> wrote:

> "The WCA is lead by the council, who are all volunteers. They will be
> supported by staff, but the council are in charge."
>
> I would love to have my Wikipedia work supported by staff too. Who is
> paying for said staff? How much are they projected to cost? In fact I
> would simply like some of the travel costs and accommodations for
> those involved in my Wikipedia projects covered. I am happy to cover
> my own costs.
>

As am I, and several others here. You are clearly conflating the objectives
of the two. One is volunteer editing work, the other is facilitating and
promoting the said work and idea. Projects with institutions, GLAMS,
outreach - cost money, they require support. Your argument seems to be
directed more towards the implicit nature of chapters vs. editors - I
suggest you start with the biggest one with a staff that actually fits your
classification.


>
> We have a second draft budget here
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_budget_2012-2013
> at more than $300,000
>
> We have $42,000 going to a translator / PR person? I have managed to
> find translators for more than 30 languages which have translated more
> than 1 million words in 2012 as part of this project
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force
> Most translation on Wikipedia is done by volunteers. Why is
> translation for this organization deem more important than say for key
> medical diseases?
>

Actually the 42,000 is for the PR/media-person who would be doing double
duty and filling in for chapter support and overseeing translations, based
in Belgium, which again would have to be above the minimum wage and close
to the industry average. Perhaps you would like to consider the spending
WMF or a large chapter like WMDE, even WMUK has towards this role and
compare them.


>
> I see that in the second draft the funding for the SG has decreased
> from 96000 euro to 60000 euro. I think the number I am looking for is
> around zero, we are an organization run on volunteers. The World
> Health Organization is willing to have a Wikipedian in Residence. I
> have found someone who will do it for free / the experience of working
> at the WHO but he needs some help covering his expenses. The person is
> willing to work full time to do out reach to 600 interns at the WHO
> who are usually young leaders in their respective medical communities
> from around the world.
>

It would be helpful if you dont start conflating the two worlds. You can
look through Meta to see several chapters have or have had employees who
are paid much more for the top position.

At this point, I understand that your work is primarily in the capacity of
a volunteer, it is not your day-job. What that budget is referring to, is
hiring employees. You are repeatedly comparing your work with what people
do during the day from 9 to 5. I believe you have a job in some capacity,
try and compare those numbers with your industry, and averages.

If you employ someone on a daily basis, I believe there exists a law in the
developed countries whereby you have to pay them a legal minimum - I
believe its called the Minimum wage. The other alternative is hiring people
and making them work daily, sometimes against their will, from 9 to 5, but
it had another term back in the day - slavery. I believe that is still
frowned upon.


>
> With respect to the law firm costs of $30,000. That is a lot for
> supporting collaboration between chapters. With respect to $10,000 for
> a chapters network / skype? But skype is free and we already have
> meta. It is inexpensive to set up a website.


Really? 30,000 is a lot for an year long consultation and retainer for a
law firm? The law firm is or was supposed to look over contracts, documents
and agreements of 40 other organizations in different languages and be
available to all 40 of those organizations if needed. Please feel free to
add a lower quote if you have one.


-Theo

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_budget_2012-2013#Personnel_Budget