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.
No one who “works” for the non profit gets paid reasonably except the executives, who are paid exorbitant wages.
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/
Yes, they are legally obligated to disclose their finances. OP’s point was it should be part of their fundraising message too.
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).