I'm not a huge fan of Wikimedia's fundraising copy, but their budget is well documented, and their spend is relatively good, in comparison to other non-profits

I'm not a huge fan of Wikimedia's fundraising copy, but their budget is well documented, and their spend is relatively good, in comparison to other non-profits (and especially in comparison to for-profits of similarly-sized web properties). You've conveniently left out links to the financial reports [1], which have annual plans, audited financial statements, form 990s, Q&As, etc. It also proves that your claim that keeping the servers running costs around the same as the knowledge equity fund is bullshit, unless you don't count paying engineering staff. Even the cost of the equipment, and the hosting itself is quite a bit more than the cost of this program. As a whole, this program is 2% of their budget for the year. In terms of the engineering, you can't look at a list of growing bug counts to determine project health. A growing list of bugs could simply a byproduct of growth of the overall project. Listing that without any analysis of open vs close ratios is lazy at best, and disingenuous at worst. Also, a number of the projects on that maintainers list are community maintained, or don't have a need for change (I wrote OAuthAuth, for instance, and can tell you it doesn't need active development). [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/