4 ms·
There's either a misconception in this comment or a misreading of it on this side. Compare the Wikimedia numbers given (nearly $100m per year to keep running)
by pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
There's either a misconception in this comment or a misreading of it on this side.
Compare the Wikimedia numbers given (nearly $100m per year to keep running) to Mozilla's, who last reported spending much more than that (over $173m) just in their non-software development spending.
- corty 6y agoAbsolute numbers are irrelevant here. The relation between expenses and incoming donations is important. Wikipedia raises more than it can spend, resulting in rising assets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statis...
- pwdisswordfish0 6y agoIt looks like the misreading part was the right one, then. The intent of your original comment is clearer now, in light of this response. You're saying that Wikimedia's spending is somewhat rational, whereas Mozilla's revenue might disappear as the result of a single party making a decision to walk away. You're not saying that Mozilla is a ragtag group of browser developers with barely any money. (There was too much focus on "Mozilla obviously doesn't [have the money to waste]" in the earlier reading.)