3 ms·

In 2017 WMF had $120M in assets. It's probably closer to $150M today, since they are making over $20M a year in "profit" (revenues minus expenes). The cost of a

by xyzzyz 8y ago

In 2017 WMF had $120M in assets. It's probably closer to $150M today, since they are making over $20M a year in "profit" (revenues minus expenes). The cost of actually running Wikimedia projects (servers + network + salaries of dev ops and salaries of code maintainers) should easily fit below $10M, because it did in 2012. There has been growth since then in terms of usage, but this is very scalable growth that's cheap to handle: it's not servers and network expenses that's been skyrocketing, these are pretty much constant since 2012. It's the salaries, grants and awards. Look at their financial reports[1], and especially compare the growth in expenses over time. Suffice to say, if WMF struggles in the future, it's only due to mismanagement of its cancerous growth. [1] - https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/

gsnedders 8y ago
> It's the salaries, grants and awards. Salaries for who? Grants to who and for what? Awards to who and for what? Like, can someone provide a summary, for those of us who don't really have the time to dive into the reports?
- pc86 8y ago
  The reports are the summary.
- tibbon 8y ago
  They have around 300 FTEs. It might sound high, but they are the 5th most visited website in the world. Of others in the top 10, I think Reddit is the only other company with under 1,000 employees (at around 250). In comparison, Taobao which is also in the top 10 has over 30,000 employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Final/Staff_and_Contractors https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    It was already top 8 in 2012, and had less than half of the headcount it has today, spending a third of what it spends today in salaries.
    - tibbon 8y ago
      Eh - I find this public over-scrutiny of a company just because it's a nonprofit to be a little offputing. Sure, you want to know your donations aren't being wasted, but I keep in mind that most non-profits where my friends work have people under-staffed and without enough budgets overall compared to their parallels in commercial businesses. Do you know for a fact there that what they were doing in 2012 was sustainable for their employees, and building a solid future path for growth? If everyone's overworked and not efficient, keeping it overly lean isn't good in the long term.
      - xyzzyz 8y ago
        Sure, I was an admin on Wikipedia in 2008-2012, and we were doing completely fine. The Foundation was tenth of its current size at the time, and wasn't doing much except keeping the lights running, which is all the community needed. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is run by community, and if the Foundation has anything to say in Wikipedia's internal affairs, it is through employees who also happen to be community members. If the Foundation is overworked and not efficient, it literally doesn't matter, as they don't actually do much on Wikipedia itself.

by xyzzyz 8y ago

gsnedders 8y ago

> It's the salaries, grants and awards. Salaries for who? Grants to who and for what? Awards to who and for what? Like, can someone provide a summary, for those of us who don't really have the time to dive into the reports?

pc86 8y ago
The reports are the summary.
tibbon 8y ago
They have around 300 FTEs. It might sound high, but they are the 5th most visited website in the world. Of others in the top 10, I think Reddit is the only other company with under 1,000 employees (at around 250). In comparison, Taobao which is also in the top 10 has over 30,000 employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Final/Staff_and_Contractors https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...
- xyzzyz 8y ago
  It was already top 8 in 2012, and had less than half of the headcount it has today, spending a third of what it spends today in salaries.
  - tibbon 8y ago
    Eh - I find this public over-scrutiny of a company just because it's a nonprofit to be a little offputing. Sure, you want to know your donations aren't being wasted, but I keep in mind that most non-profits where my friends work have people under-staffed and without enough budgets overall compared to their parallels in commercial businesses. Do you know for a fact there that what they were doing in 2012 was sustainable for their employees, and building a solid future path for growth? If everyone's overworked and not efficient, keeping it overly lean isn't good in the long term.
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      Sure, I was an admin on Wikipedia in 2008-2012, and we were doing completely fine. The Foundation was tenth of its current size at the time, and wasn't doing much except keeping the lights running, which is all the community needed. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is run by community, and if the Foundation has anything to say in Wikipedia's internal affairs, it is through employees who also happen to be community members. If the Foundation is overworked and not efficient, it literally doesn't matter, as they don't actually do much on Wikipedia itself.