[HN Gopher] Poll of Wikipedians concludes: Wikimedia fundraising...
___________________________________________________________________
Poll of Wikipedians concludes: Wikimedia fundraising emails are
misleading
Author : akolbe
Score : 131 points
Date : 2022-09-04 15:19 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lists.wikimedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (lists.wikimedia.org)
| mgdlbp wrote:
| The Wikimedia Foundation's formal community survey (this year's
| report to be released next month; last and previous years'
| available): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights
|
| and other surveys:
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Editor_surveys
|
| Edit: Wikimedia's surveys don't cover the issue in the OP, but it
| has been raised as a question for candidates in the ongoing
| Wikimedia Board community vote (until 2022-09-06):
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...
| pxeger1 wrote:
| The emails in question:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla...
| oli5679 wrote:
| I'd be really interested in seeing a breakdown of the salary
| expense by role and project.
|
| $67m is a lot of people!
| xtreak29 wrote:
| Some breakdown and comparison over the years https://meta.m.w
| ikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salar...
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| This is not a poll, this is someone who is very critical how
| wikimedia spends its money putting out an "opinions welcome" box
| on what amounts to a public square.
|
| Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails look
| fine:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla...
|
| So yeah, not a poll.
| bawolff wrote:
| Not really an unbiased poll, but there has been a clear trend
| of increased discontent among wikipedia editors over the
| wording of fundraiser messages.
| yorwba wrote:
| Isn't the usual collective decision-making process at Wikipedia
| to post somewhere to have a vote while exchanging arguments and
| counterarguments below?
|
| I fail to see how this is not a poll.
| a-nikolaev wrote:
| I think, Wikimedia's fundraising message should include the
| amount of money they have, the expenses they expect for the
| coming years (with a basic breakdown of how it is going to be
| spent), as well as a link to a detailed report of how much
| money they got and how they were spent for the previous years.
| Basically be transparent, b/c someone might want to spend their
| money on a different web project they like.
| pen2l wrote:
| Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't non-profit organizations
| obligated to have much of this public? Because if they
| aren't, then the non-profit organization is incredibly ripe
| for fraud and I wonder how many have already chosen the NPO
| structure for ill intents.
|
| The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a
| for-profit organization, when executives e.g. Mitchell Baker
| of Mozilla foundation, can command such large salaries and
| irresponsible spending. If abuse is as rife in non-profit
| structured organizations as it appears, IRS had better
| burnish its hammer and commit to resolutory action.
| [deleted]
| jonas21 wrote:
| Yes, all tax-exempt organizations in the US are required to
| publish a copy of IRS Form 990. This includes a breakdown
| of income, expenses (including executive compensation), and
| assets.
|
| The Wikimedia Foundation also publishes audited financial
| statements and a plan for the coming year. All of this is
| available here [1], which is the first result when you
| Google "wikipedia financials".
|
| [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-
| reports/
| yunohn wrote:
| > but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have
| much of this public
|
| Yes, they are legally obligated to disclose their finances.
| OP's point was it should be part of their fundraising
| message too.
| lumost wrote:
| Anecdotally, most non profits I've encountered operate in
| this way. Someone who is already wealthy, runs the show and
| pays themselves an egregious salary. They then hire lots of
| idealistic folks who either have money already or are ok
| being exploited due to idealistic bias.
|
| No one who "works" for the non profit gets paid reasonably
| except the executives, who are paid exorbitant wages.
| michaelo7 wrote:
| Wikimedia (the parent of Wikipedia) pays most people at
| Wikimedia very generously. The issue is most people
| involved, outside of tech, contribute little or nothing
| to Wikipedia which is the reason people are donating.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Sounds similar to Mozilla/MZLA with Thunderbird blog
| gimmicks of non-FOSS AI-generated wallpapers and a
| podcast. For an email client.
| foundart wrote:
| Echo Rita? From the context I assume it means large. Is
| that correct? What is the origin of that phrase?
| squiffsquiff wrote:
| Probably originated using speech to text recognition
| rather than a keyboard
| RickHull wrote:
| I'm guessing "egregious"
| lumost wrote:
| Aye - not sure what language model came up with that
| (mobile keyboard)
| a-nikolaev wrote:
| I think, Wiki fundraising message should be more
| informational, not an emotional cry for help and money. I
| myself don't want to be manipulated, give me the numbers
| and what you want to do with my money.
| gurchik wrote:
| > Then they get very argumentative when someone says the mails
| look fine
|
| Are you referring to this?
|
| > Thanks for commenting. Unfortunately though I have to
| disagree, The Land. In my view, getting people on very limited
| incomes to donate $2 they can't afford, by making them "believe
| that Wikipedia is in trouble and that they need to give money
| to keep it online", is unethical. All the more so if it's done
| in part to raise WMF executives' compensation to $350K and
| beyond (bear in mind that these salary figures are two years
| old). It's worth mentioning that some of those salaries have
| been rising steeply, even as the WMF claimed to be in urgent
| need of money. Compare the entries here in the 2020 Form 990 to
| the corresponding entries here in the 2018 form. As far as I
| can make out: the CEO's total compensation incl. benefits
| increased by 7% (to $423,318), the DGC's and GC's by 10%, the
| CFO's by 11%, the CTO's by 17%, the CAO's by 22%, the CCO's by
| 25%, the CT/CO's by 28%, and the CPO's by 32% - all over a two-
| year period when the annual inflation rate in the US was at 2%
| lkrubner wrote:
| $350K does not strike me as a lot of money for top executives
| at an organization as large as Wikimedia. In 2022, I've got
| startups (30 to 50 employees) offering me $225,000 to work as
| a software architect. At a larger organization I would expect
| $350k and I would expect the top executives to get paid more
| than me. If Wikimedia are hiring executives who could make $1
| million a year somewhere, who then work for $300k-$400k, the
| question comes up how much charity and sacrifice is it okay
| to expect from these executives. Should they think of this as
| a business or a charity? If they are working for less than
| what they would get at a different organization, then they
| are also making something of a sacrifice for the sake of
| Wikimedia. Which is fine, but I also understand why they
| would push for more money. In the end, the big question is,
| how much should Wikimedia professionalize? How much should it
| exist just as an idealistic experiment, versus how much
| should it be put on the basis of a stable business?
| yunohn wrote:
| > How much should it exist just as an idealistic
| experiment, versus how much should it be put on the basis
| of a stable business?
|
| Wikipedia is sustained by the volunteers, not the corporate
| bureaucrats. They existed before the c-level salary
| increases, but might flee as peak corporatism occurs.
| akolbe wrote:
| I feel really sorry for these executives who have to decide
| whether to earn $300,000 or $1M. :))
|
| Joking aside, a person in the US agreeing to earn $300,000
| rather than $350,000 - to a very large extent off the value
| created by volunteer labour, and off the public's donations
| - is not what I would call "charity" or a "sacrifice".
|
| I would remind you that some of this money is raised in
| India, South Africa and Latin America - by telling people
| there money is needed to "keep Wikipedia online" for them.
|
| Now, a real sacrifice by an American is when a senior with
| $18 to his name promises to donate to Wikimedia as soon as
| his social security check clears, as this fellow did:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_d
| e...
|
| I wish he hadn't been pressured into making that promise!
|
| Many of the small donations funding these salaries do
| actually come from people for whom donating that small
| amount really _is_ a sacrifice. These phrases, about how it
| 's "awkward" to ask, how Wikipedia has "no choice but to
| turn to you", they speak to them most of all, because they
| can relate to this situation.
|
| This is from an unpaid Wikipedia volunteer on the Volunteer
| Response Team: "I can't go into the specifics, but as a VRT
| agent I've received numerous emails from people on limited
| incomes who are donating money they need because they
| believe that Wikipedia is in trouble and that they need to
| give money to keep it online. I'm absolutely disgusted by
| this, and I think it will catch up to us in the long-run,
| as people won't want to give once they realize how
| deceptive these campaigns are."
|
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraisi
| n...
|
| So, please, if it's a question of brownie points for
| "charity" and "sacrifice", these executives are hardly at
| the front of the queue.
|
| There is not even any good reason for many of these staff
| positions to go to people in the US. Most of these are
| remote jobs. They could just as easily be done by someone
| in India, Poland or Singapore, and at a fraction of the
| cost.
|
| Let the people who are after that $1M-dollar job go to a
| for-profit company. Wikipedia doesn't need them.
| opportune wrote:
| Wikimedia HQ is in San Francisco. There are many 25 year
| old code monkeys here making more than the Wikimedia
| executive team. Sure, as of the last few years the world
| has changed enough that I agree it makes sense for
| Wikimedia to defrag and go remote, but until COVID it
| made complete sense for a technology-focused nonprofit to
| make its HQ in the Bay Area. It still does, BTW - it's
| never as simple as just hiring a remote team in Poland or
| India to cut costs.
|
| I don't think it would be bad per-se for the CEO to make
| up to $1M or for senior individuals to be making over
| $300k, or even for line developers to make up to around
| $200k. That is the cost of doing business, and I don't
| think Wikimedia should have to pay employees far below
| market rates just because it's a non-profit.
|
| That said, I completely agree with you that Wikimedia is
| way overzealous in asking for donations and it's
| sickening how they make people think Wikimedia
| desperately needs the money to continue operating
| Wikipedia when they just don't. Wikimedia actually funds
| a lot of stuff that, as someone that mostly just cares
| about Wikipedia, seems completely unnecessary. I'd much
| rather they cut the fluff and stop freaking people out
| (maybe change their strategy to soliciting donations from
| whales or at least a less aggressive banner) but I'd have
| no problem if they raised individuals' comp, within
| reason.
| gurchik wrote:
| > I completely agree with you that Wikimedia is way
| overzealous in asking for donations and it's sickening
| how they make people think Wikimedia desperately needs
| the money to continue operating Wikipedia when they just
| don't.
|
| Before going further, I want to say that you and I agree.
| I just want to add a bit more context to some of the
| details in your response.
|
| > Wikimedia HQ is in San Francisco. There are many 25
| year old code monkeys here making more than the Wikimedia
| executive team.
|
| This is true, but most Wikimedia employees don't live in
| SF. This page[1] says that half of the people working on
| teams based in the SF office were actually working
| remotely, and this sentence was added to the page in
| 2018.
|
| > I don't think Wikimedia should have to pay employees
| far below market rates just because it's a non-profit.
|
| Unfortunately this is already true. It looks like the
| average salary for a senior software developer at WMF is
| 132k[2]. When you consider that up to half of the
| employees live in SF, that is far below market rate.
| 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia
| _offices&diff=prev&oldid=17858253 2.
| https://www.levels.fyi/companies/wikimedia-
| foundation/salaries/software-engineer
| secondcoming wrote:
| What do they do though? Wikipedia is a product where
| volunteers edit content free of charge. Sure there are some
| infrastructure costs, but why does it need so many C-level
| executives? Looks like a gravy train to me
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| Its more than Wolkswagen average executive salary in
| Germany. These numbers look obscene to anyone besides the
| privileged SV bros.
| jackmott wrote:
| rkagerer wrote:
| Does Wikimedia need "best of the best" execs, or simply
| competent and stable leadership? Most of their value and
| lifeblood (content) comes from volunteers who would
| probably keep doing it even if a likeable monkey were on
| top.
| bawolff wrote:
| Honestly, i feel that the dysfunctional c-levels at WMF
| has cost the org much more in wasted time than what the
| higher salary would have cost.
|
| [Note, i used to work there many years ago. My opinions
| might not apply to the current leadership]
| nmstoker wrote:
| To me the crisis is less about funding (since despite the traffic
| it can operate on a fairly lean budget), and instead more the
| range of people who will edit Wikipedia articles.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| The wording in this years fundraising really pushed my buttons
| too.
|
| > 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way
| when we ask for an annual donation.
|
| This is why I donated in the past: because it is a resource that
| gives freely to the world.
|
| This wording shames non-doners and as a free resource for
| spreading knowledge to humanity I don't think it is fair to shame
| the target audience.
| williamtrask wrote:
| I'll take that over advertising any day of the week. This isn't
| remotely as misleading or damaging as half the ads I see on
| Facebook or Instagram every day.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's disingenuous and manipulative, which makes one wonder
| what else they are disingenuous and manipulative about. For
| an alleged nonprofit, it leaves a bad taste.
| sph wrote:
| Seconding GP, I'd rather have a misleading plea message
| than them trying to extract money out of my attention or
| data through ads. _That_ is manipulative, even though we as
| society are pretty used to it.
|
| What annoys me the most is that I've been donating to
| Wikipedia for over a decade and I still got the plea
| message, but if I click that little X button I don't see it
| anymore. Big deal.
| acheron wrote:
| They're disingenuous about claiming they need money for
| Wikipedia. They have way more than enough money for
| Wikipedia, they need more donations for their other random
| projects.
| bawolff wrote:
| This is a bit misleading. The money is mostly going to
| projects to improve wikipedia. Which is different from
| just keeping the site up, but its not like the money is
| being spent on things totally unrelated.
| jackmott wrote:
| nevrherd wrote:
| gurchik wrote:
| > 31% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers who
| share their knowledge with you for free every day.
|
| What exactly does this mean? I can't find any breakdown of how
| donations are allocated, so I don't know how this money is
| supporting the volunteers. I think this has been worded in a way
| that makes donators think the money is being paid to volunteers
| which I don't believe is the case for 99.9% of contributors (if
| not 100%?). Instead I think it's more likely that "supporting the
| volunteers" includes efforts that indirectly support them, like
| hosting in-person events.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I understand the benefit of recurring supporters and of
| maintaining in the public conscience the reminder that this is a
| publicly funded resource of the commons.
|
| There is no excuse though, to pleading for money in a way that
| suggests dire straits.
|
| What if an organization made a deal with people, to get them
| subscribed for something like $2 a year with a 'burst' up to the
| cap set by the user that triggers at some funding floor?
|
| $2/year until our endowment goes down to $30 million, then
| $10/year until it gets above $50 million.
| avg_dev wrote:
| > In fact, however, the Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever.
| Its assets and reserves (including an Endowment with the Tides
| Foundation now holding well over $100 million) have increased
| fivefold since 2015, and stood at an estimated $400 million at
| the end of March 2022.
|
| Fucks sakes. I just made a very sizable donation to them based on
| the huge banner ad that popped up and the fact that I use
| Wikipedia on a pretty much daily basis. Fuck me for trying to do
| the right thing. I'm sorry for the language. Honestly I'm really
| pissed off about it. I work for a living and where I live there's
| no taxable donation for this so it was just me trying to do
| something good. Well I guess when I calm down a bit I'll try to
| learn my lesson.
| Scarblac wrote:
| You still get a lot of use out of what they offer for free.
| akolbe wrote:
| See the Donations FAQ:
|
| https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ
|
| This says:
|
| ----------------
|
| What is your refund policy?
|
| If for any reason you wish to have your donation refunded,
| please contact us via email at donate@wikimedia.org[1] and
| include the following information:
|
| Full name of donor
|
| Date of donation -- All refund requests must be made within 90
| days of donation
|
| Amount donated
|
| Payment method used -- Do not include credit card numbers in
| your email
|
| Country of origin
|
| Reason for the refund
|
| All refunds will be processed as quickly as possible, but
| processing times may vary depending on the payment method.
| Please note: Some payment methods may not support refunds or
| require refunds to be made through the payment method (card)
| utilized, prompting additional information to process your
| refund.
|
| [1] Due to the volume of inquiries we receive, we use Zendesk
| as a donor response platform. By emailing donate@wikimedia.org,
| you understand that your information will be processed by the
| Zendesk Group in accordance with Zendesk's terms. Users from
| the following countries should consult Section A of Zendesk's
| privacy policy for more information about Zendesk's country-
| specific practices: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, New
| Zealand, and Singapore.
| dcow wrote:
| What is Wikimedia supposed to do? Only fundraise when they run
| out of money? That's a recipe for failure and I quite hope
| Wikimedia... doesn't. If you donate to Wikimedia you _are_
| helping keep them free. The raw size of their endowment doesn 't
| matter, nobody actively spends down their endowment on operating
| costs because it's not sustainable. Operating costs come from at
| most like 3-6% of your endowment. The wording is not manipulative
| by any stretch of the imagination.
| opportune wrote:
| Wikimedia has plenty of whale donors that aren't making spur of
| the moment donations based on banner ads.
|
| Wikimedia spends plenty of money on things that aren't growing
| their endowment or operating Wikipedia.
|
| I don't think anybody is asking Wikimedia to stop fundraising,
| just to be less deceptive and less zealous. Especially if the
| money is going to things like grants to other nonprofits or
| developing less-familiar parts of wikimedia that donors likely
| don't care about.
| [deleted]
| ninth_ant wrote:
| The manipulation is in the lack of distinction between
| Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires very little
| funding, but is also the most popular product of Wikimedia.
|
| Read the emails yourself:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVilla...
|
| They are playing off the public appeal of Wikipedia ---
| Wikipedia dominates the branding and word usage of the emails.
| It implies, falsely, that Wikipedia is verging on needing to
| run ads or run out of funds shorty. It's Wikimedia that needs
| the funding to stay operational, largely for products that are
| not Wikipedia.
|
| What are Wikimedia supposed to do? They could be honest in
| their communications, and be more clear what they are raising
| funds for.
| bawolff wrote:
| This isn't true. Most of software dev work is still going to
| wikipedia or stuff that is generic. The other products do not
| get much love (other than wikidata)
| Animats wrote:
| The Wikimedia Foundation wants to expand. Expand into other areas
| that are more labor-intensive. Wikimedia Foundation expenses:
|
| * $44,963,013 53% Support for Wikipedia.org
|
| * $39,162,136 46% Grantmaking and Program Development
|
| The growth is in the non-Wikipedia operations.
| bawolff wrote:
| Not a new thing. Also plenty of grants are probably for things
| you would consider supporting wikipedia, and parts of "support
| wikipedia.org" are probably for things you would think arent
| about wikipedia.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| Yet the banners are worded like they are struggling to keep the
| servers running.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| I think this is just the organizational equivalent of having a
| buffer rather than living "paycheck to paycheck".
|
| When Wikipedia has cash reserves a hundred times its yearly
| expenses, I'll listen.
| gred wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > In 2007, the year Wikipedia first became a top-ten website
| serving the world, the Foundation reported total annual
| expenses of $2 million.
|
| > The Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets and
| reserves [...] have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at
| an estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022.
|
| I'm sure the "mission" has expanded and costs are higher these
| days, but 200x baseline costs is pretty comfy.
| fisherjeff wrote:
| I find it a bit "unethical and misleading" of the author to
| list 2007 expenses and 2022 assets. As a sibling comment
| points out, it's really only <4x current annual expenditures,
| which, leaving aside disagreements on whether that level of
| spending is justifiable, doesn't seem unreasonable.
| jefftk wrote:
| I think they are using 2007 expenses to give a ballpark
| estimate for what "running basic Wikipedia" costs? That's
| back before the foundation dramatically expanded their
| activities.
| yunohn wrote:
| > current annual expenditures
|
| The vast majority is salaries, not operating costs.
| crote wrote:
| They aren't far off.
|
| At the moment, they have EUR250M in assets, and a further
| EUR100M endowment. Their assets have increased by double-digit
| millions every year for a decade.
|
| In my opinion, the yearly fundraising campaign is highly
| disingenuous. Basically, they are begging for money, claiming
| it is to "keep Wikipedia running". In reality, Wikipedia-the-
| website is an unlimited cash cow used to fund tangentially
| related pet projects at the Wikimedia Foundation. In 2008, the
| expenses were EUR5.6M. 2021 expenses are up to EUR112M - and I
| can _guarantee_ page views did not increase 20-fold!
|
| At the moment, hosting costs are about EUR3M / year. Let's
| round that up to EUR10M for sysadmin and development salaries,
| and they currently have enough money to keep _Wikipedia_
| running for 35 years.
|
| I'd be more than happy to donate to keep Wikipedia itself
| alive, but at the moment donating money to them is basically
| the same as throwing money in a bottomless pit.
| bawolff wrote:
| > At the moment, hosting costs are about EUR3M / year. Let's
| round that up to EUR10M for sysadmin and development salaries
|
| That rounding up makes no sense and is unrealistic.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| And look at how the emails stress Wikipedia: in the "how your
| money is spent" section, specifically using bold in the
| phrase suggesting Wikipedia, and dropping the bold to
| reference the other products.
|
| It's extremely misleading at best, given the numbers you
| cite.
| abbe98 wrote:
| Wikimedia does much more than just host Wikipedia. Even if
| they didn't host Wikipedia I would personally gladly donate
| to their legal and lobbying efforts.
|
| Only in Sweden where I live they have greatly contributed to
| freedom of panorama and ensuring public domain material
| remains in the public domain when digitized. They work
| towards things like these all across the world.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| That's fine, but I'm not interested in giving them money
| for anything other than making sure the website is running
| and has the support staff it needs. Their fundraising
| material makes it look like the money will be used for that
| when the reality is it will be used for other, practically
| unrelated things.
| bawolff wrote:
| I mean freedom of panorama is pretty directly related, as
| wikipedia needs to have users be legally allowed to
| upload images.
| zugi wrote:
| Thanks for pointing that out, but I see that as more
| evidence of deception. If I'm asked to donate to keep
| wikipedia free, I don't expect my donations to go to
| political lobbying on issues that I may or may not care
| about, and may or may not even agree with.
| abbe98 wrote:
| Actually both of the cases in question started as legal
| cases in which Wikimedia funded the defense of users who
| were being sued for contributing.
| 0thgen wrote:
| Anyone else see stuff like this and think: "Yea but it's
| wikipedia, they deserve whatever funding they want"
|
| I get they can probably be closer to perfect as an organization,
| but I'm still always left feeling that wikipedia was one of the
| top 3 things to come out of the invention of the internet
| akolbe wrote:
| That's at the heart of the issue. From a distance, it always
| feels uncharitable to many people to criticise anything about
| Wikipedia at all.
|
| But bear in mind this criticism comes from Wikipedians - some
| of the people who actually wrote the encyclopedia you love, and
| did so for free - and it criticises Wikimedia, not Wikipedia.
| They are not the same thing.
|
| Most of the Wikimedia executives are recent arrivals who only
| came once there was money. They have never written a Wikipedia
| article. Some can't even figure out how to leave a talk page
| message, and they couldn't tell you which side of a diff shows
| the new version of an article and which the old.
| jl6 wrote:
| > 98% of our readers don't give
|
| I'm actually kinda surprised that 2% of readers _do_ give. That's
| more than 5x the rate at which people click on banner ads, and
| we're talking not just about people clicking but about them
| actually parting with real money.
| esclerofilo wrote:
| It's easy to feel thankful to Wikipedia, motivating you to
| donate.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Wikipedia is among the greatest accomplishments of humanity.
| Anyone with an internet connection can learn about anything.
|
| That's not to say that Wikipedia is perfect, but it is
| certainly amazing.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| Here is Wikimedia's 2021 finanical report:
| https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021...
| akira2501 wrote:
| Just thinking of other non profits I've glanced at this does
| feel a little lopsided. $67m salary plus $12m professional
| expenses all to get $10m out the door on actual operations?
|
| What am I missing?
| pxeger1 wrote:
| WMF's "operations costs" that don't count as salaries are
| probably basically just the costs of server hosting etc. They
| don't do charity work like prototypical non-profits.
| stonogo wrote:
| You missed nothing. It's a "jobs for the boys" jackpot.
| bawolff wrote:
| Software developers are more expensive than other fields.
| q-big wrote:
| > Software developers are more expensive than other fields.
|
| Software developers _in the Bay Area_ are more expensive
| than other fields.
| bawolff wrote:
| Software devs in bay area are more expensive than non-bay
| area, but even outside bay area they are still higher
| than the average profession.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-04 23:01 UTC)