The comparison to the increase in the Mozilla headcount is quite commonly made. There are now (incl. Fundraising technology, only linked on that page) 50 people

The comparison to the increase in the Mozilla headcount is quite commonly made. There are now (incl. Fundraising technology, only linked on that page) 50 people working in Wikimedia Fundraising alone: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising Some of the staff will now work on the Wikimedia Enterprise for-profit arm, selling API services to Big Tech companies. That's arguably honest work – they're intending to earn money like anyone is. They've hired "Disinformation" staff to look at instances of systematic disinformation on various Wikipedia projects. They're working on Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions, a new project based on Wikidata: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing... This is intended to produce basic Wikipedia articles written in a programming language that are designed for easy translation into many presently underserved languages. And yes, they have lots of programmers, and by and large the community always complains that they don't work on their wishlists but on other stuff they don't want. Compared to the early days, there has also been a huge increase in bureaucracy layers and management-consultant-speak ... some of the output, like the proposed "Universal Code of Conduct", is just hair-raisingly bad. See e.g. this discussion thread https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/AAGTJLSWDFKTQDUG7BHNOQ4ZYMIULYIF/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list... The management culture of the place has always been iffy. People don't tell the truth, or at least not the whole truth.