[pen2l]

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.

[jonas21]

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/

[lumost]

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]

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]

Sounds similar to Mozilla/MZLA with Thunderbird blog gimmicks of non-FOSS AI-generated wallpapers and a podcast. For an email client.

[foundart]

Echo Rita? From the context I assume it means large. Is that correct? What is the origin of that phrase?

[RickHull]

I'm guessing "egregious"

[lumost]

Aye - not sure what language model came up with that (mobile keyboard)

[squiffsquiff]

Probably originated using speech to text recognition rather than a keyboard

[vba616]

> aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public?

Of course they are required to file tax returns with executive salaries that are public! Why would you not check it? This is how cynicism destroys a civilization. People let institutions die because someone told them they were already dead.

>The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization

No it isn't, it's very clear cut. To people in the industry, there's no connection between salaries and "profit". That's just not what the word means to them. Random people on the internet get confused about this because they (definitely not only you) don't have any specific idea of what "profit" means.

In fact, "profit" doesn't even mean "having extra money after paying expenses and salaries" in the non-profit business.

At a non-profit, when they have more money at the end of the year than at the beginning, it's called a "surplus" rather than a "profit", and it doesn't have to be paid out to pesky "shareholders" so the organization just keeps it and does whatever with it next year.

Instead of a triad of directors, executives and shareholders (theoretically) in charge, the directors and executives run it (or fight over it).

[a-nikolaev]

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.

[yunohn]

> 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.