4 ms·
But, according to the table, they have more revenue than expenses and revenue is growing just as fast if not faster than expenses.
by openasocket 9y ago
But, according to the table, they have more revenue than expenses and revenue is growing just as fast if not faster than expenses.
- akolbe 9y agoYes, and that revenue comes from begging banners that more often than not create the - entirely false - impression that if people don't donate, Wikipedia will blink out of existence. In the early days, when almost everything was volunteer-run, hosting costs were indeed Wikipedia's main expense (as explained in that old quote from Jimmy Wales). These days, hosting amounts to about 2% of expenses, and most of the rest goes to staff costs (incl. about two dozen people in fundraising alone). Meanwhile, most of the value - the actual content - is contributed by unpaid volunteers. The paid staff have absolutely nothing to do with it. Nobody minded working for free when there was just enough money to cover hosting costs. Now, however, there is an influx of $100 million in donations a year, and none of that benefits the average contributor, the people actually writing Wikipedia. That grates a little, much like in the monkey fairness experiment (Google it if you're unfamiliar with it).