3 ms·

No, they have a ginormous war chest because their increasingly intrusive advertising campaigns convince people that the operational costs of wikipedia.org are u

• ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  90 million a year is an inflated expenditure for the most productice website to ever exist? Its an absolute pittance, that the turnover of a midsized bakery chain! Would you care to backup this outrageous claim by demonstrating similarly popular website, awash with content, that spends less?
  • Macha 6y ago
    The running costs of the site are 2.5 million/year per their own financial reports: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY18-19.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... Staff expenses are harder to break down, as they don't break out who's working on e.g. wikipedia development and funding and who's working on, e.g. the social movement strategy, which is allocated approximately the same budget as running wikipedia.org: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Frequently_asked_questions#Why_will_it_require_up_to_US$2.5_million_to_develop_a_movement_strategy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/...? But from just the information they provided us, can you give a reason why Wikipedia in 2019 would need 33% more staff expenditure than 2018 for running the site? And similar increases in the years leading up to that?
    • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Any number of reasons, maybe to moderate massively growing number of lanuages and articles, to improve their software or working on new projects, or maybe to give existing staff a raise to match market rates. But thats a moot point. If there is no other organisation, more efficient than wikipedia, then you have no right to call them wastefull. It shows your idea of how efficient wimipedia should be is a fantasy with no grounding in reality and would, in the long term, lead to death of wikipedia.