3 ms·
>The servers don't buy themselves. You could argue that WMF doesn't spend money effectively if you want, servers are a small part of the budget after all and li
by konjin 6y ago
>The servers don't buy themselves. You could argue that WMF doesn't spend money effectively if you want, servers are a small part of the budget after all and like any org there are parts of the budget that are of questionable value, however its a bit much to claim its not going to supporting the wiki.
Purchase of computer equipment: (3,709,426)
At 3% return they need 100 million in the market to cover it, their short term investments are 95 million. Wikimedia does not need to raise money ever again if the only thing they are about are servers: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2019-2020_Audit_Report.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim...
Wikimedia is the perfect example of a bureaucracy expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.
- estaseuropano 6y agoWikimedia/pedia also has constantly new challenges and tasks. Would you want them to not ever change the software, management, ...? WMF has a mission beyond wikipedia, all of them related, in the public interest and transparently done.
- konjin 6y agoWikimedia is welcome to raise money for wikimedia. Their fundraisers on wikipedia are however as much a dark pattern as anything google and facebook do on their privacy.
- pydry 6y agoThe more money it takes the more it will end up relying upon large donors and the more will kowtow to the interests of those donors. So, yes, I'd rather they were extemely conservative about software and management. Running PHP and having a non visual editor is less of a big deal than having to tweak donor Wikipedia pages to remove awkward facts to keep the $$$ flowing and salaries paid.