4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Every year they raise more than

by jstx1 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Every year they raise more than they spend and their total assets are equal to about a year and a half of spending. It doesn't look like they're running out, or like they're overstepping with the fundraising; it all seems quite reasonable.

Dylan16807 5y ago
It makes sense compared to spending. But that only makes it reasonable if the spending is reasonable.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  And it's clearly not. Wikimedia Foundation has consistently grown it's spending with the income, and they've had many badly failed projects that are up years worth of funding, such as their VisualEditor program, which should be taught in software engineering classes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor
  - akolbe 5y ago
    They are also lording it more and more over the volunteers who are writing the actual articles. The huge influx of money over the past decade or so attracts a corporate mindset that has very little to do with the volunteer culture that actually built Wikipedia. People don't realize that Wikipedia actually existed BEFORE the Wikimedia Foundation which does the fundraising and collects the money today.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - GauntletWizard 5y ago
      Yeah, Wikipedia was useful at least a full year before Wikimedia Foundation even existed.
perl4ever 5y ago
It appears according to their 2019-2020 report, that they spend about $2.4 million on "Internet hosting" compared to total revenue of nearly $130 million. That's under 2%. They spend about twice as much on donation processing as they do on Internet hosting. Some non-profits split their activities, so that they can tell donors that their money goes entirely towards grants and such, while administration comes out of a self-sustaining nest egg that was funded by a particular large donor or coalition. This makes it clear that keeping the lights on is separate from the mission, and that there is a cap on overhead.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  To be clear, per the report, after salaries, the biggest chunk of expenses seems to be awards and grants, and they may be doing significant good in the world for all I know. But I don't think the appeals really make it clear that's what they crave money for. I assume it's largely out of expediency, because visitors necessarily understand the value of Wikipedia and likely don't have a clue about the grants that are made.
  - akolbe 5y ago
    That's right. But they end up asking for five or ten times what the Wikipedia platform would actually cost to maintain, and at that point you can ask whether it's crossing the line to dishonesty. People think they are making sure Wikipedia stays online, but are in fact funding something completely different. They should say what they want the money for. Not least so there is scrutiny of these plans for Wikimedia to become "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge".

by jstx1 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

It makes sense compared to spending. But that only makes it reasonable if the spending is reasonable.

GauntletWizard 5y ago
And it's clearly not. Wikimedia Foundation has consistently grown it's spending with the income, and they've had many badly failed projects that are up years worth of funding, such as their VisualEditor program, which should be taught in software engineering classes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor
- akolbe 5y ago
  They are also lording it more and more over the volunteers who are writing the actual articles. The huge influx of money over the past decade or so attracts a corporate mindset that has very little to do with the volunteer culture that actually built Wikipedia. People don't realize that Wikipedia actually existed BEFORE the Wikimedia Foundation which does the fundraising and collects the money today.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    Yeah, Wikipedia was useful at least a full year before Wikimedia Foundation even existed.

perl4ever 5y ago

It appears according to their 2019-2020 report, that they spend about $2.4 million on "Internet hosting" compared to total revenue of nearly $130 million. That's under 2%. They spend about twice as much on donation processing as they do on Internet hosting. Some non-profits split their activities, so that they can tell donors that their money goes entirely towards grants and such, while administration comes out of a self-sustaining nest egg that was funded by a particular large donor or coalition. This makes it clear that keeping the lights on is separate from the mission, and that there is a cap on overhead.

perl4ever 5y ago
To be clear, per the report, after salaries, the biggest chunk of expenses seems to be awards and grants, and they may be doing significant good in the world for all I know. But I don't think the appeals really make it clear that's what they crave money for. I assume it's largely out of expediency, because visitors necessarily understand the value of Wikipedia and likely don't have a clue about the grants that are made.
- akolbe 5y ago
  That's right. But they end up asking for five or ten times what the Wikipedia platform would actually cost to maintain, and at that point you can ask whether it's crossing the line to dishonesty. People think they are making sure Wikipedia stays online, but are in fact funding something completely different. They should say what they want the money for. Not least so there is scrutiny of these plans for Wikimedia to become "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge".