3 ms·

That isn't true, and the Wikimedia Foundation has made it extremely easy to look up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/

That isn't true, and the Wikimedia Foundation has made it extremely easy to look up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Final https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_... . They use all there money and it's well spent. Internet Archive is a great cause, too, and they are also well run https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943... Support them both.

kick 6y ago
They use all [their] money and it's well spent. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Revenue: $ 120,067,266 Expenses: $ 91,414,010
- bostonpete 6y ago
  Is it possible that some of that difference is due to amortization of hardware and other assets? I'm not a finance person, but I thought that those sorts of expenses show up incrementally on the books over the course of the amortization period even though they're typically paid for up front... (?)
Out_of_Characte 6y ago
"They use all the money" Yes, exactly why you should move your money to internet archive. Despite earning more than ever and providing relatively the same service wikipedia still 'use up' your money and ask for more in the form of an obtrusive banner. Therefore you can see that it's probaly not "well spent" see an agregate link below of wikipedia critics explaining and sourcing this. http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html
- kick 6y ago
  I'm not pro-Wikimedia here (see other comment), but you're not being fair exactly; I'd go as far as to say your comment is wrong in everything except that the banner is obtrusive and that your funds would be better directed at the IA. The scale and scope of Wikimedia has been constantly expanding, and outside of a few terrible bets, it's generally been for the better. It hasn't been recklessly overspending and it's definitely not "providing relatively the same service."
  - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
    A year ago I read a very well written article linked trough HN that broke down wikipedia's total est traffic and active data and made several cost analysis that aired on the side of caution. It didn't match wikimedia's allocation at all. However I cannot for the life of me find the article on ddg or google. It comes down to this, Wikipedia being mostly text based means that the size of their library isn't as big as you'd think. Compressed, their english articles amount to 16GB. You can download the entire thing on your laptop and see for yourself, its all there. even adding all history and languages on top, you're not exactly reaching petabytes just yet. most of their costs come from traffic. but the website is still text. I tried finding good bandwidth estimates but dont have time. I want to give wikipedia the benefit of doubt but they are just wastefull. Last point I want to make, Internet Archive has a complete copy of wikipedia. ( though not fully up to date ofc) if wikipedia fails due to incompetence or bad leadership, Internet archive will be first in line to pick up the hot potato of the approximate human knowledge register. https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c... Links to help yo on your way https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
    - kick 6y ago
      None of this is novel information, and "it's literally just a wiki!" isn't in any way actually true and is incredibly reductive. Along with everything else, you're not even including images.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Of course their banners always seem to be about "supporting Wikipedia" that's "surviving on donations" and needs to "protect its independence", not about supporting a "constantly expanding scope" of projects Wikimedia would like to do, and thus asks for more money each year. And for most people, the visible service provided is the same: Wikipedia. Not the grants they give out, not the lobbying they do, ...
SlickyPediasSon 6y ago
Glad you owned up and shit or whatever. I didn't come in here to knock on Wiki, but, they just get too much money, despite times moving forward and all. Throw some money on the Internet Archive; they always need more drives for their servers. They should set up a duplicate rack, of drives, that would be the project I'd donate to. 2x Internet Archive should be the norm. Utah? Midwest? It'd be good to have a 100%, 200% as such, setup of the Internet Archive. All funded of course. Hawaii would be an option, I doubt the humidity and shit would be the best though. Probably power costs too. A doublet of Internet Archive in Utah or whereever would be fun. Or even in Europe. Africa could be a candidate too.
- HowCouldEver 6y ago
  How could they downvote a post like this? Must be someone on the Wikipaedia staff. Blasphemous.
theamk 6y ago
I wish they were more truthful in their fundraising. "We are sustained by donations", "keep wikipedia thriving for years" all evoke the image of needing money to keep lights on and to keep the website functional. In practice, at least 34% goes to things unrelated to website ("communities" in [0]). [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin...

kick 6y ago

They use all [their] money and it's well spent. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Revenue: $ 120,067,266 Expenses: $ 91,414,010

bostonpete 6y ago
Is it possible that some of that difference is due to amortization of hardware and other assets? I'm not a finance person, but I thought that those sorts of expenses show up incrementally on the books over the course of the amortization period even though they're typically paid for up front... (?)

Out_of_Characte 6y ago

"They use all the money" Yes, exactly why you should move your money to internet archive. Despite earning more than ever and providing relatively the same service wikipedia still 'use up' your money and ask for more in the form of an obtrusive banner. Therefore you can see that it's probaly not "well spent" see an agregate link below of wikipedia critics explaining and sourcing this. http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html

kick 6y ago
I'm not pro-Wikimedia here (see other comment), but you're not being fair exactly; I'd go as far as to say your comment is wrong in everything except that the banner is obtrusive and that your funds would be better directed at the IA. The scale and scope of Wikimedia has been constantly expanding, and outside of a few terrible bets, it's generally been for the better. It hasn't been recklessly overspending and it's definitely not "providing relatively the same service."
- Out_of_Characte 6y ago
  A year ago I read a very well written article linked trough HN that broke down wikipedia's total est traffic and active data and made several cost analysis that aired on the side of caution. It didn't match wikimedia's allocation at all. However I cannot for the life of me find the article on ddg or google. It comes down to this, Wikipedia being mostly text based means that the size of their library isn't as big as you'd think. Compressed, their english articles amount to 16GB. You can download the entire thing on your laptop and see for yourself, its all there. even adding all history and languages on top, you're not exactly reaching petabytes just yet. most of their costs come from traffic. but the website is still text. I tried finding good bandwidth estimates but dont have time. I want to give wikipedia the benefit of doubt but they are just wastefull. Last point I want to make, Internet Archive has a complete copy of wikipedia. ( though not fully up to date ofc) if wikipedia fails due to incompetence or bad leadership, Internet archive will be first in line to pick up the hot potato of the approximate human knowledge register. https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c... Links to help yo on your way https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
  - kick 6y ago
    None of this is novel information, and "it's literally just a wiki!" isn't in any way actually true and is incredibly reductive. Along with everything else, you're not even including images.
- detaro 6y ago
  Of course their banners always seem to be about "supporting Wikipedia" that's "surviving on donations" and needs to "protect its independence", not about supporting a "constantly expanding scope" of projects Wikimedia would like to do, and thus asks for more money each year. And for most people, the visible service provided is the same: Wikipedia. Not the grants they give out, not the lobbying they do, ...

SlickyPediasSon 6y ago

Glad you owned up and shit or whatever. I didn't come in here to knock on Wiki, but, they just get too much money, despite times moving forward and all. Throw some money on the Internet Archive; they always need more drives for their servers. They should set up a duplicate rack, of drives, that would be the project I'd donate to. 2x Internet Archive should be the norm. Utah? Midwest? It'd be good to have a 100%, 200% as such, setup of the Internet Archive. All funded of course. Hawaii would be an option, I doubt the humidity and shit would be the best though. Probably power costs too. A doublet of Internet Archive in Utah or whereever would be fun. Or even in Europe. Africa could be a candidate too.

HowCouldEver 6y ago
How could they downvote a post like this? Must be someone on the Wikipaedia staff. Blasphemous.

theamk 6y ago

I wish they were more truthful in their fundraising. "We are sustained by donations", "keep wikipedia thriving for years" all evoke the image of needing money to keep lights on and to keep the website functional. In practice, at least 34% goes to things unrelated to website ("communities" in [0]). [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin...