6 ms·

I really don't like this. The foundation already has many multiples more money than it needs to cover its core goal: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-en

I really don't like this. The foundation already has many multiples more money than it needs to cover its core goal: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... This can, at best, be useless, at worst, corrupt its mission to serve corporations. There used to be an expression "don't fix what ain't broke." I feel like this old maxim is now completely ignored.

endisneigh 4y ago
Why would an organization limit the amount of money they have?
- aunty_helen 4y ago
  Because it’s unnecessary and brings outside influences that could corrupt it’s stated goals
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.
    - grapeskin 4y ago
      It’s good in the way that a gym that sells soda and ice cream is running a good business. They’ll definitely see short term profit gains. But they’re losing sight of their original goals and risk losing their long term market.
    - marcinzm 4y ago
      >Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything. But they've done exactly that since day 1 by refusing to show any ads.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Not exactly, because ads would result in people not donating and go against their mission. Forming into Wikimedia Enterprise allows them to get enterprise revenue without compromising the experience of reading the content
    - usrusr 4y ago
      The more money Wikimedia has, the less likely it gets that they keep recurring expenses in a sustainable range. And you can be corrupt without money, true. But corrupt people tend to avoid organisations that don't have a lot of money, they all try to work where the money is. And the do-gooders that are the other group of people likely to push into an org like Wikimedia tend to be particularly defenseless against the first kind.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      > The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. I think the opposite is true. Consider examples like broke lottery winners, the resource curse [1], and the long history of startups getting lots of money and then cratering, from Webvan to WeWork. With Wikipedia in particular, I'm concerned that the more money there is, the more attractive it is to people who want to be near large streams of money for various reasons, including living large and diverting money to their own friends, pet projects, and grand visions. I'm also concerned that even if they are able to avoid those people entirely, large budgets pose other risks, including inflexibility in downturns, which I think increase the odds of a setback turning into a full collapse. Corruption, like cancer, is statistically inevitable for organizations. The only question is whether they have the right mechanisms to detect and exercise the tumors when they're small. But the scrappier Wikipedia stays, the less we have to worry about that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
  - hulitu 4y ago
    Some people just don't have enough. For them it is necessary. The only thing that is sad is that is difficult to explain to a child that wiki{m,p}edia is just another "news" outlet and everything there shall be taken with a grain of salt.
- Nebasuke 4y ago
  I think it's a bit worse than that though. Why does an organisation that has more than enough money to achieve its current and long term goals, appeal to their site visitors that they really need more money? The ads are in my opinion dishonest and emotionally manipulative, and have actively put me off supporting Wikimedia as a foundation.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Goals can be expanded to infinity, uncertainty and inflation is always a thing, thus the need to diversify revenue streams to ensure survival and sustainability.
    - marcinzm 4y ago
      >Goals can be expanded to infinity And thus diluting and losing sight of their original goals. This isn't a corporation driven inherently by eternal desire for more profit.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Sure, but goals change as the world does.
        robonerd 4y ago
        Wikipedia tells me the last time a new Wikimedia project was launched was Wikidata, 10 years ago in 2012.
  - 20after4 4y ago
    What I'd like to see happen (though it's extremely unlikely) would be to rely less on emotionally charged banners thanks to the new revenue provided by the enterprise product. But the current fundraising strategy works extremely well so I really can't see it changing it at all. Full disclosure: Until very recently I was employed by Wikimedia as a Release Engineer. I was there for 7 years, however, I left for a new opportunity in February of this year. I am not a fan of the direction the organization seems to be headed. During the past few years there has been rapid growth and increased corporate culture. Seems to be kind of similar to what happened with the Mozilla foundation and that really hasn't worked out well for them so I am not entirely optimistic about the future of Wikipedia and the free knowledge movement in general.
- greyface- 4y ago
  In this case, it strongly incentivizes them to provide poor service to non-paying, non-enterprise API users. Wikimedia Enterprise apparently generates daily snapshots for paying customers[1]. The general public only gets them twice a month[2]. Wikimedia's goal should be to serve the public. [1]: https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/docs/snapshot/ https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/docs/snapshot/ [2]: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ https://dumps.wikimedia.org/
- markvdb 4y ago
  Been there, done that. It detracts from the scope.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Why would a non-profit organization with like 10x more money than they need to achieve their mission beg me for even more money? With multiple screens worth of banners and paragraphs that actually push the article I'm trying to read out of the way in order to nag me for donations? Even ads aren't this bad.
flipbrad 4y ago
Have a read of this: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/Essay#Why_charge https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/Essay...?
- jerry1979 4y ago
  So summarize, are they more-or-less capping their APIs and charging for content they serve beyond that cap?
  - danuker 4y ago
    Not quite. > access to Wikimedia content by reusers is currently achieved through three broad means: Scraping of web pages; data dumps; and APIs. These services are provided freely to all reusers of Wikimedia content. They are and will remain free, libre and gratis, to everyone. > What many of the largest commercial technology organizations require in order to effectively utilize Wikimedia content goes beyond what we currently provide.
echelon 4y ago
Time to fork it. It's a wiki with open licensed content and a bloated stack that could easily be hosted on pared down infra and staffing. Fork it and remove the largesse.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Mate, if there's one thing Wikipedia isn't is bloated. It serves one of the biggest websites on the internet with a fraction of the infrastructure of similar sites.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Wikimedia is certainly bloated. They're spending upwards of $100 million a year.
    - mhh__ 4y ago
      How much is the correct amount for a site that serves such a huge amount of the internet?
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        Depends on their services? Wikipedia serves static sites. Their hosting costs are 3 million a year according to their accountants. They have no real recommendation engine, or really dynamic content at all. 100% of their content is free for them. They can easily store their entire site in ram on a small cluster. Given that I'd say 10-30 million would be reasonable.
        bawolff 4y ago
        Did you know that wikipedia's tagline is "anyone can edit"? That makes it not static.
        colinmhayes 4y ago
skybrian 4y ago
With alternative sources of revenue, maybe there could be less nagging during the yearly donation drive?
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
If ISOC had shunted its profits into an endowment like it should have, it might not have ended up as a corrupt organization. This should be a legal requirement for non-profits with positive cash flow.

endisneigh 4y ago

Why would an organization limit the amount of money they have?

aunty_helen 4y ago
Because it’s unnecessary and brings outside influences that could corrupt it’s stated goals
- endisneigh 4y ago
  You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    It’s good in the way that a gym that sells soda and ice cream is running a good business. They’ll definitely see short term profit gains. But they’re losing sight of their original goals and risk losing their long term market.
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    >Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything. But they've done exactly that since day 1 by refusing to show any ads.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Not exactly, because ads would result in people not donating and go against their mission. Forming into Wikimedia Enterprise allows them to get enterprise revenue without compromising the experience of reading the content
  - usrusr 4y ago
    The more money Wikimedia has, the less likely it gets that they keep recurring expenses in a sustainable range. And you can be corrupt without money, true. But corrupt people tend to avoid organisations that don't have a lot of money, they all try to work where the money is. And the do-gooders that are the other group of people likely to push into an org like Wikimedia tend to be particularly defenseless against the first kind.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    > The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. I think the opposite is true. Consider examples like broke lottery winners, the resource curse [1], and the long history of startups getting lots of money and then cratering, from Webvan to WeWork. With Wikipedia in particular, I'm concerned that the more money there is, the more attractive it is to people who want to be near large streams of money for various reasons, including living large and diverting money to their own friends, pet projects, and grand visions. I'm also concerned that even if they are able to avoid those people entirely, large budgets pose other risks, including inflexibility in downturns, which I think increase the odds of a setback turning into a full collapse. Corruption, like cancer, is statistically inevitable for organizations. The only question is whether they have the right mechanisms to detect and exercise the tumors when they're small. But the scrappier Wikipedia stays, the less we have to worry about that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
- hulitu 4y ago
  Some people just don't have enough. For them it is necessary. The only thing that is sad is that is difficult to explain to a child that wiki{m,p}edia is just another "news" outlet and everything there shall be taken with a grain of salt.
Nebasuke 4y ago
I think it's a bit worse than that though. Why does an organisation that has more than enough money to achieve its current and long term goals, appeal to their site visitors that they really need more money? The ads are in my opinion dishonest and emotionally manipulative, and have actively put me off supporting Wikimedia as a foundation.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Goals can be expanded to infinity, uncertainty and inflation is always a thing, thus the need to diversify revenue streams to ensure survival and sustainability.
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    >Goals can be expanded to infinity And thus diluting and losing sight of their original goals. This isn't a corporation driven inherently by eternal desire for more profit.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Sure, but goals change as the world does.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        Wikipedia tells me the last time a new Wikimedia project was launched was Wikidata, 10 years ago in 2012.
- 20after4 4y ago
  What I'd like to see happen (though it's extremely unlikely) would be to rely less on emotionally charged banners thanks to the new revenue provided by the enterprise product. But the current fundraising strategy works extremely well so I really can't see it changing it at all. Full disclosure: Until very recently I was employed by Wikimedia as a Release Engineer. I was there for 7 years, however, I left for a new opportunity in February of this year. I am not a fan of the direction the organization seems to be headed. During the past few years there has been rapid growth and increased corporate culture. Seems to be kind of similar to what happened with the Mozilla foundation and that really hasn't worked out well for them so I am not entirely optimistic about the future of Wikipedia and the free knowledge movement in general.
greyface- 4y ago
In this case, it strongly incentivizes them to provide poor service to non-paying, non-enterprise API users. Wikimedia Enterprise apparently generates daily snapshots for paying customers[1]. The general public only gets them twice a month[2]. Wikimedia's goal should be to serve the public. [1]: https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/docs/snapshot/ https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/docs/snapshot/ [2]: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ https://dumps.wikimedia.org/
markvdb 4y ago
Been there, done that. It detracts from the scope.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Why would a non-profit organization with like 10x more money than they need to achieve their mission beg me for even more money? With multiple screens worth of banners and paragraphs that actually push the article I'm trying to read out of the way in order to nag me for donations? Even ads aren't this bad.

flipbrad 4y ago

Have a read of this: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/Essay#Why_charge https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/Essay...?

jerry1979 4y ago
So summarize, are they more-or-less capping their APIs and charging for content they serve beyond that cap?
- danuker 4y ago
  Not quite. > access to Wikimedia content by reusers is currently achieved through three broad means: Scraping of web pages; data dumps; and APIs. These services are provided freely to all reusers of Wikimedia content. They are and will remain free, libre and gratis, to everyone. > What many of the largest commercial technology organizations require in order to effectively utilize Wikimedia content goes beyond what we currently provide.

echelon 4y ago

Time to fork it. It's a wiki with open licensed content and a bloated stack that could easily be hosted on pared down infra and staffing. Fork it and remove the largesse.

andrepd 4y ago
Mate, if there's one thing Wikipedia isn't is bloated. It serves one of the biggest websites on the internet with a fraction of the infrastructure of similar sites.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Wikimedia is certainly bloated. They're spending upwards of $100 million a year.
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    How much is the correct amount for a site that serves such a huge amount of the internet?
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      Depends on their services? Wikipedia serves static sites. Their hosting costs are 3 million a year according to their accountants. They have no real recommendation engine, or really dynamic content at all. 100% of their content is free for them. They can easily store their entire site in ram on a small cluster. Given that I'd say 10-30 million would be reasonable.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        Did you know that wikipedia's tagline is "anyone can edit"? That makes it not static.
        colinmhayes 4y ago

skybrian 4y ago

With alternative sources of revenue, maybe there could be less nagging during the yearly donation drive?

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

If ISOC had shunted its profits into an endowment like it should have, it might not have ended up as a corrupt organization. This should be a legal requirement for non-profits with positive cash flow.