4 ms·
They show something interesting, that "Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses", something that someone donating might not know. "yea
by h_anna_h 6y ago
They show something interesting, that "Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses", something that someone donating might not know.
"years and years ago", this was in 2019
- dufufudd 6y agoCan confirm, didn't know and glad I do. Won't be donating again in the future.
- f430 6y agoyeah same here, HN can downvote us all they want but they certainly will no longer be getting my money. I will redirect that funds to other non-profits where I know they will be frugal with my money.
- mrzimmerman 6y agoI do think it’s relevant to know how funding is spent, but I’m not sure why hosting being only 2% of expenses would have you advocate AGAINST donating to Wikipedia. The running one of the biggest technical and community concerns on the planet takes a lot more then serving content from a computer somewhere. Salaries, community management, improvements to the wiki software—these things cost money too and are no less important then responding to HTTP requests.
- threatofrain 6y agoCommunity is arguably a bigger part of why Wikipedia works the way it does, vs hosting which is a commoditized concern and only thinks of the bare minimum to keep the lights on. But lighting up an empty building doesn't turn into Wikipedia.
- h_anna_h 6y agoThe community rarely benefits from the actions of the organization. In fact there is kind of a hostile relationship between them. Most people contributing to wikipedia have never been to one of the parties for example.