5 ms·

I somewhat agree with your examples, except Wikipedia. It has no business being much more than a server farm and software tweaker. That's not something that nee

I somewhat agree with your examples, except Wikipedia. It has no business being much more than a server farm and software tweaker. That's not something that needs large ongoing investment by many people. http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/21/wikipedia-keeping-it-free-just-pay-us-our-salaries/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/21/wikipedia-keeping-it-fr...

hk__2 9y ago
> It has no business being much more than a server farm and software tweaker Isn’t that true for literally all Web-based businesses? Is Twitter "much more than a server farm and software tweaker"?
- barrkel 9y ago
  Twitter isn't a charity.
nerdponx 9y ago
Servers are expensive.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Look at the graphs in that article.
- dom0 9y ago
  No, actually most of Wikimedia's spending is largely unrelated to Wikipedia.
- hk__2 9y ago
  In 2016, the Foundation got over $70M in revenue and spent $2M of that in Web hosting. Processing all those donations cost them more than hosting Wikipedia. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY15-16.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/Wikim...
cromulent 9y ago
Sure, that's one point of view. However, the "business" of the Wikimedia Foundation can be determined by its board of directors so long as it falls within the articles of incorporation and the IRS guidelines. It's not for us to decide. So, when the Wikimedia Foundation decides to fund grants to help increase gender diversity in Wikipedia content, that's totally legitimate. It can decide what its business is. From my perspective, Wikipedia is a global treasure and if they want to spend money to make sure it gets better, rather than just on servers and wiki tweaks, that's fine by me. No-one is forced to donate.
gadders 9y ago
Wikipedia has Cancer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

hk__2 9y ago

> It has no business being much more than a server farm and software tweaker Isn’t that true for literally all Web-based businesses? Is Twitter "much more than a server farm and software tweaker"?

barrkel 9y ago
Twitter isn't a charity.

nerdponx 9y ago

Servers are expensive.

barrkel 9y ago
Look at the graphs in that article.
dom0 9y ago
No, actually most of Wikimedia's spending is largely unrelated to Wikipedia.
hk__2 9y ago
In 2016, the Foundation got over $70M in revenue and spent $2M of that in Web hosting. Processing all those donations cost them more than hosting Wikipedia. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY15-16.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/Wikim...

cromulent 9y ago

Sure, that's one point of view. However, the "business" of the Wikimedia Foundation can be determined by its board of directors so long as it falls within the articles of incorporation and the IRS guidelines. It's not for us to decide. So, when the Wikimedia Foundation decides to fund grants to help increase gender diversity in Wikipedia content, that's totally legitimate. It can decide what its business is. From my perspective, Wikipedia is a global treasure and if they want to spend money to make sure it gets better, rather than just on servers and wiki tweaks, that's fine by me. No-one is forced to donate.

gadders 9y ago

Wikipedia has Cancer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...